Loading Notifications...

Devolution...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Ciro 16 Nov 2020

... a disaster, and Tony Blair's biggest mistake according to Boris Johnson.

As an SNP supporter I heartily approve, but I do find it baffling that he would shout his distain for Scottish democracy from the rooftops so blatantly.

Is he actively pursuing the breakup of the UK now?

5
 Dr.S at work 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

I guess it depends on your viewpoint - I seem to recall that devolution was supposed to kill off the SNP - clearly in that context it’s been a complete disaster!

I was interested to see GB Brown on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday suggesting further constitutional reform as the U.K. is a bit of a mess. I wonder where we would be if the plans for English regional assemblies had been followed through post ‘97?

1
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Is he actively pursuing the breakup of the UK now?

No, he is aggressively pursuing the rolling back of devolution.

Over time I expect the Scottish Parliament to be castrated in so many different ways that it’ll become not much more than a talking shop with no effective power.

It’s already started. I’ve lost count of his many tiles the Sewel convention has been broken in the past few years.

That is clearly the direction of travel. And I am afraid the Scots have no say on it. And it doesn’t matter how much they vote for the SNP.

Post edited at 00:12
19
 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> No, he is aggressively pursuing the rolling back of devolution.

> Over time I expect the Scottish Parliament to be castrated in so many different ways that it’ll become not much more than a talking shop with no effective power.

> It’s already started. I’ve lost count of his many tiles the Sewel convention has been broken in the past few years.

> That is clearly the direction of travel. And I am afraid the Scots have no say on it. And it doesn’t matter how much they vote for the SNP.

He'll attempt that, and if we stay it will happen, but Scotland can become independent if the people want it. 

3
 ScraggyGoat 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

After a very good start, with much ground-breaking legislation, including the Land Reform Act and widespread optimism, the Scottish Parliament became moribund and castrated by the SNP beholden to its independance wing (almost a mirror image of the Tories being to held to ransom by the ERG right)................if you're looking for the reasons for our current malaise you need to look closer to home. The Tories and the SNP are as bad as each other.

I say this as someone whom has no problems with further transfer of powers to Holyrood (though I wish they would start using the ones they have got, and we currently have a lot of power and potential), I just don't want them all at once, with the strong risk that the resultant in-fight, prevacating, debating and navel gazing while recreating institutions of the state, will push other important stuff a (environment, land-reform, decentralising power to the regional authorities; something the SNP is not keen on), and much more down the road for another 10-20 years.

16
 MargieB 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

2 The Sewel convention

In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—

"(8) But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament."

You make it sound like a dictated action by Westminster and that is not true.

1
In reply to Ciro:

> He'll attempt that, and if we stay it will happen, but Scotland can become independent if the people want it. 

I think the botched-up way England has handled COVID (and the rather better way Scotland has) has made that a certainty.  I'd give the Union 10 years at most.

8
 Oceanrower 17 Nov 2020
In reply to MargieB:

I wouldn't worry to much about any anti-English froth from Alyson30/romthebear/whateverhe'scallinghimselfnext.

He's almost as anti as the other prolific poster here on these type of threads.

7
 dabble 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Johnsons undermining is so transparent I can't believe people are taking it seriously, ignore the tit.  

1
 mondite 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

The thing is, from his perspective, I dont think it is an unreasonable position to take. It has created various tensions and difficulties especially since its an uneven approach for the different nations in the union.

 MargieB 17 Nov 2020
In reply to dabble

agreed. But one exaggerated comment breeds another and as for  basing a whole case on one stupid comment! The mind boggles.

1
 Point of View 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Johnson is absolutely right. The expensive talking shop in Edinburgh has done nothing for Scotland and has simply served as a forum for the Nats to stir up trouble.

30
In reply to Ciro:

It's interesting, and very helpful for the independence cause.

He probably let his guard down, speaking to a friendly audience of UK unionists - from their point of view devolution in Scotland has indeed been a disaster, intended to shut down demand for independence but actually ending up giving Scots a taste for having some control here, with some decisions made locally - and thinking what could be better if it was more like that.

Yes, there's a minority that hate it (mostly ideological UK unionists, I think, and evident on this thread), but there's overwhelming support for devolution in Scotland and probably even now a small minority for independence. Johnson's latest gaffe makes it clear to people that the idea that it's a choice between independence, or the status quo, is a false one - the real choice is between independence, or whatever will be imposed on Scotland after any leverage is gone, when there's no longer any threat of independence.

2
 Graeme G 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Point of View:

> Johnson is absolutely right. The expensive talking shop in Edinburgh has done nothing for Scotland and has simply served as a forum for the Nats to stir up trouble.

Mmm.....I’m trying to work out from your post where you stand on independence.....you’re not making it easy......

 ScraggyGoat 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

I think it would be perfectly possible for Point of View to hold that opinion and also want Independence, equally he could want the union.  Highlighting SNP incompetence & games is in part separable from the independence question.

Supporting independence and the SNP are not a necessarily mutual exclusive.  Just as many whom don't want independence can be left or ant-tory in their outlook.

Equally there were nearly a million Scots votes for Brexit,  who knows if  or how many of those voters will prioritise their potential conflicts of desire should a 2nd Indy come along. Will they vote for Indy knowing they may be sanctioning handing power to Brussels, will they vote for Indy and hope to have a chance of blocking re-joining the EU later, or will they cross their fingers and praying EU division will block re-entry, or will they vote to remain together....uncharted territory. Polls only give so much insight. Thats a big number of voters with a square peg and a round hole to resolve

Equally I'm sure some of them voted for shamelessly Brexit not because they wanted to Leave the EU, in fact the exact opposite, but felt leaving was a lever to get Indy back on the agenda......and have spent the last few years screaming about Scotland being taken out against its will, when in fact they voted for that.

Post edited at 12:00
2
 Graeme G 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Possibly, but there’s a clear message IMO in their use of language.

 ScraggyGoat 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

Yes its a clear message they are depressed and angry with what the SNP has done, they haven't intimated any preference or position on Indy2.

 David Riley 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> ... a disaster, and Tony Blair's biggest mistake according to Boris Johnson.

Labour's worst loss of votes.

 MargieB 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

Just  for the record, I live in Scotland.

 Graeme G 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Err, no. The comment clearly criticises the ‘talking shop’.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> Supporting independence and the SNP are not a necessarily mutual exclusive.  Just as many whom don't want independence can be left or ant-tory in their outlook. <

Not sure I understand that. However if I was Scottish and wanted Independence my best option at present would be to vote SNP in any parliamentary election, whatever my political leanings, even if Westminster rolled back devolution. (Latter probably unlikely as it would reinforce Scottish feelings against Westminster). That way there would be moral necessity for a referendum which would eventually be irresistible (I think Labour have indicated they would definitely support a refendum if there was obvious demand in Scotland).

 ScraggyGoat 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

Yes it has been a talking shop, I know several Independence supporters whom are livid with the fact the SNP has chosen deliberately not to govern effectively and hide behind...the negative 'if only we were Independent mantra' approach, rather than go out and prove the parliament by leading by action and legislation, and then campaign on a positive we are competent and we do could do even more if Independant strategy...

4
 ScraggyGoat 17 Nov 2020
In reply to oldie:

Yes, an Independence supporter may vote SNP on that basis even if they actually have significant reservations about the SNP's actual parliamentary performance. You quite commonly here Indy supporters saying (even hoping) post Independence the SNP will collapse and parliament can go back to a more considered centre left, centre right political arena.

Post edited at 12:11
 MargieB 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Of course you heartily approve. You're a member of the SNP and all roads conspire to that end when you have that position.

But is this not a "slimey" strategy -by seizing on a casual silly comment extrapolating that devolution will be undermined in the future as it now stands -  fear, panic, Dad's Army panic!- in order to enhance the case for independence?Of course It cannot be said devolution is not currently very successful. It is. That cannot be used . And there is no evidence of undoing the law as it stands. But fear can be falsely spread of the dismantling of devolution. 

If this is a strategy, I heartily disapprove of it and such fantasies.

Post edited at 12:20
5
 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> After a very good start, with much ground-breaking legislation, including the Land Reform Act and widespread optimism, the Scottish Parliament became moribund and castrated by the SNP beholden to its independance wing (almost a mirror image of the Tories being to held to ransom by the ERG right)................if you're looking for the reasons for our current malaise you need to look closer to home. The Tories and the SNP are as bad as each other.

> I say this as someone whom has no problems with further transfer of powers to Holyrood (though I wish they would start using the ones they have got, and we currently have a lot of power and potential), I just don't want them all at once, with the strong risk that the resultant in-fight, prevacating, debating and navel gazing while recreating institutions of the state, will push other important stuff a (environment, land-reform, decentralising power to the regional authorities; something the SNP is not keen on), and much more down the road for another 10-20 years.

I'll give you the decentralisation point, but the SNP are pretty keen on exploiting Scotland's renewable potential - which is currently being held back by Westminster policy - so I don't see why you would think the environment would take a back seat under an SNP government?(assuming the people were to vote for them in the first independent elections)

Why do you think giving the Scottish people the power to vote for a government of their choosing would result in too much navel gazing to effectively recreate the institutions of state and get on with running the country? 

The SNPs position as the only party in Scotland will disappear rapidly once independence has been gained, if they don't do a good job of it. 

Scottish labour will become a party in its own right, and move to take a more progressive left wing position suited to Scottish politics, and regain lost voters. The greens will gain as well, as people no longer feel the need to lend their vote where the SNP is the strongest pro-indy candidate. The Scottish conservatives will also be able to distance themselves from Westminster (although I'm sure they'll keep closer ties) and come up with manifestos more suited to wooing Scottish voters outside the hardcore unionists.

The people of Scotland can reform Scottish politics for the better, if we give them a chance.

3
 mattmurphy 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Forgive my ignorance, but what’s stopping the UK government passing a law to abolish the Scottish Parliament?

It seems it would be really easy to do, massive conservative majority, would sail through the commons and probably the lords too.

The current approach seems to be to slowly strip away powers from the devolved administrations by minor pieces of law. Why not just go for the jugular and get it over with?

1
 MargieB 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

That scenario could occur without independence but in a  more federalised union.

I am awaiting the distribution of EU powers.

 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to mondite:

> The thing is, from his perspective, I dont think it is an unreasonable position to take. It has created various tensions and difficulties especially since its an uneven approach for the different nations in the union.

It might be a reasonable position in his head, and for sure it hasn't done what Westminster hoped in terms of killing the independence debate, but telling the Scottish people that he regrets the fact that Westminster gave them the power to make their own decisions still seems crazy to me. Is he that short sighted that he can't see how that's going to come across?

 GrahamD 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I think the botched-up way England has handled COVID (and the rather better way Scotland has) has made that a certainty.  I'd give the Union 10 years at most.

Johnson won't be around in a couple of years and hopefully COVID won't be headline news.

Far more significant is what happens on the down slope of Brexit.

 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to MargieB:

> Of course you heartily approve. You're a member of the SNP and all roads conspire to that end when you have that position.

> But is this not a "slimey" strategy -by seizing on a casual silly comment extrapolating that devolution will be undermined in the future as it now stands -  fear, panic, Dad's Army panic!- in order to enhance the case for independence?Of course It cannot be said devolution is not currently very successful. It is. That cannot be used . And there is no evidence of undoing the law as it stands. But fear can be falsely spread of the dismantling of devolution. 

> If this is a strategy, I heartily disapprove of it and such fantasies.

Do you honestly believe that this comment by Johnson is the only indication that devolution may be under that from the current Westminster government?

Did you miss the bit where that passed laws to ensure they don't have to pass back devolved matters from the EU to Scotland?

Do you really think they're going to pass them back, after legislating to ensure they don't have to?

That they will happily allow Scotland powers that would effectively ensure Scottish consent was required when negotiating a trade deal with the US which could lower animal welfare standards and open up the NHS to American corporate interests?

What have the Tories done to date, that makes you feel devolution is safe in their hands? 

In reply to Ciro:

Another Boris fail. Clearly devolution wasn't Blair's biggest mistake, Iraq was. 

Some politicians are better off not having a microphone, they consistently engage mouth before brain. 

2
 alastairmac1 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Whatever you think about independence this is ultimately about democracy and civil rights. 75% of Scottish voters voted for the devolution settlement in 1997. We like and support devolution ..... and our parliament. The current Westminster government which has no mandate in Scotland is attacking Scottish democracy and trying to dismantle that devolution settlement. Through the Internal Market Bill and by other means.

Put simply, if you value liberal democracy in the UK, you should oppose these attacks on the devolution settlement and support the right of Scottish voters to update their preferences with reference to self government.....much has changed since 2014.

Devolution and Independence are a matter for Scottish voters alone. The fact that Boris Johnson speaks so blithely about devolution demonstrates his contempt for Scotland, the people of Scotland and democracy. 14 successive and contemporary polls showing majority support for independence and counting. 

7
In reply to Ciro:

Can anyone else see a large squirrel...?

 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> He'll attempt that, and if we stay it will happen, but Scotland can become independent if the people want it. 

No, it can’t.
It can become independent only if Westminster gives it permission to do so, which it won’t.

3
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to MargieB:

> 2 The Sewel convention

> In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—

> "(8) But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament."

Yes, I know what the Sewel convention is, thank you.

> You make it sound like a dictated action by Westminster and that is not true.

Not sure what you are on about, I have pointed out that the Sewel convention is being broken routinely, which is a verifiable fact.

Post edited at 13:27
6
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I wouldn't worry to much about any anti-English froth from Alyson30/romthebear/whateverhe'scallinghimselfnext.

Your personal attack serves only to highlight a complete lack of any arguments.

I can’t see for the life of me what is anti-English in what I have said. England is not even mentioned in any of my post.

Coming from someone who has previously described Scottish cities as “drug ridden shitholes”, your accusation is quite laughable.

Post edited at 13:38
10
 mondite 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Is he that short sighted that he can't see how that's going to come across?

To be fair it wasnt like he announced it in a press conference. It was an internal tory MP briefing that, for whatever reason, someone decided to leak.

Given it was to northern English MPs I suspect part of it would have been to try and push back against any devolution ideas in that area.

In reply to David Riley:

> Labour's worst loss of votes.

Exactly. What was once known as the 'feeble fifty' (Labours Scottish representatives) has been reduced to the odd one or 2 in Westminster. A disaster for the Labour Party in every sense as without those 50 seats they stand very little chance of Government in the UK. Blair didn't see that coming.

Post edited at 13:45
 Eric9Points 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> ... a disaster, and Tony Blair's biggest mistake according to Boris Johnson.

> As an SNP supporter I heartily approve, but I do find it baffling that he would shout his distain for Scottish democracy from the rooftops so blatantly.

> Is he actively pursuing the breakup of the UK now?

Johnson is a complete tit, a temporary aberration but doing a better job for the independence movement than Sturgeon at the moment.

Like Major who ignored all calls for devolution he won't countenance another independence referendum and to a degree he is right. Regardless of what the SNP want, a referendum before the outcome of Brexit is settled is inappropriate and with him in charge it is obviously suicidal even though breaking up a three hundred year old union because of one temporary aberration in Downing Street is obviously wrong.

On the other hand if Labour are elected to power in 2024 they won't allow a referendum for some time because they plan to change the UK. Why have a vote about remaining in a country that is changing?

Personally I want to see Labour campaign for root and branch constitutional reform. Something that is being discussed. Proportional representation and a federalisation of the UK with the House of Lords replaced by a Senate of elected representatives from each of a dozen or so regions of the UK. Whether or not they will take the risk of losing a GE because of that is a big question of course. Further if Brexit is the disaster it might be then Labour would by default have a mandate to renegotiate something else, probably moving closer to Europe again. Another reason why a referendum would be inappropriate in 2025. If you have changed your mind since 2014 because of Brexit then surely if the relationship is changing again then you need to see what it becomes before making a decision?

Whatever, I don't see any chance of a second independence referendum before 2027 if ever. No matter how much the press talk it up or the SNP scream and shout about it.

3
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Whatever, I don't see any chance of a second independence referendum before 2027 if ever. No matter how much the press talk it up or the SNP scream and shout about it.

Finally someone gets it.

2
 ogreville 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Just another sign of Johnston’s stubborn unwillingness to collaborate. He doesn’t want to negotiate with the EU on brexit and he doesnt want to collaborate and listen to the wishes and ideas of the elected representatives of Scotland, N Ireland and Wales. 
Collaboration requires someone to have a knowledge of the facts and issues, and have a back and fourth. Johnston, as the poster boy of the bluffocracy society, is not willing to do this, as he risks being found out to be ignorant and out of touch.

Post edited at 13:32
1
 Graeme G 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Finally someone gets it.

You obviously haven’t read many of Eric’s previous posts. He’s been saying that for ages.

 Oceanrower 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I never said you did and my national pride is very much intact.

Alyson/Rom replied to you in a derogatory way (00:05) and I pointed out that Alyson/Rom has form for anti Englishness.

Wouldn't mind an apology ta very muchly... 

 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

> You obviously haven’t read many of Eric’s previous posts. He’s been saying that for ages.

Good to know, must have missed it. So far I always felt quite alone in saying that an Indyref just isn’t going to be granted anytime soon...

1
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Alyson/Rom replied to you in a derogatory way (00:05) and I pointed out that Alyson/Rom has form for anti Englishness.

I can see that you are repeating this nasty accusation, again without any form of evidence.

What about you challenge me on the facts instead of throwing rubbish accusations ?
 

Ho wait that would require an effort...

Post edited at 13:45
4
 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Possibly he might be right if you look at it from Labour's perspective. How many Scottish MP's did Labour have before Devolution and how many now. It was in that respect a disaster for the Labour Party.

I doubt any UK Prime Minister will want the breaking of the UK on their list of achievements .

The whole thing is a right mess.

And the Internal Border will probably start for process for Irish Reunification.

 MargieB 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

which specific cases where it was completely ignored within the definition of the devolution law as it now stands-, as a conscious defiance of the laws of devolution as they now stand, as an example of conscious dictatorship and flouting of the laws on devolution? Otherwise you are overstating the situation.

Post edited at 13:52
 alastairmac1 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

Your opinion really depends upon whether or not you think it's sustainable for Westminster to thwart the explicit and repeated demands of a growing majority of Scottish voters for self determination. If the UK want to continue to be seen and represented internationally as a liberal democracy. The demographic breakdown of all polling shows how irresistible those demands are becoming in those under 60. It also assumes that Scotland needs to obtain Section 30 permission to hold a referendum. That's currently about to be challenged in the courts. But whatever the outcome of that challenge, the majority of Scottish voters now see the current union as unfair, exploitative and unequal. Labour in Scotland are a spent force until they recognise the sovereign right of the Scottish people to chose their own form of government. Anything else is undemocratic and an abuse of civil rights.

 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Possibly he might be right if you look at it from Labour's perspective. How many Scottish MP's did Labour have before Devolution and how many now. It was in that respect a disaster for the Labour Party.

> I doubt any UK Prime Minister will want the breaking of the UK on their list of achievements .

> The whole thing is a right mess.

Devolution will be rolled back or frustrated and that will be it.

As far as I can tell Scottish devolution and/or independence is a lost cause. I now the Nats on here don’t like hearing it but if you base your analysis only on facts, that’s pretty much the conclusion you have to come to.

5
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to MargieB:

> which specific cases where it was completely ignored within the definition of the devolution law as it now stands

Take for example the internal market bill, it  very specifically legislate on devolved areas. Worse, it actually gives ministers the powers to legislate in devolved areas without even going through parliament.

It was the same with the WAB. BTW the fact that it breaches the Sewel convention is even confirmed by the Supreme Court, so I don’t think anyone can argue about this one.

Post edited at 14:02
1
 Naechi 17 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Possibly he might be right if you look at it from Labour's perspective. How many Scottish MP's did Labour have before Devolution and how many now. It was in that respect a disaster for the Labour Party.

Or Labours inability to provide candidate MP's and attractive policies that represent the will and opinion of the people of Scotland has been a disaster? 

Post edited at 13:59
 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Devolution will be rolled back or frustrated and that will be it.

> As far as I can tell Scottish devolution and/or independence is a lost cause. I now the Nats on here don’t like hearing it but if you base your analysis only on facts, that’s pretty much the conclusion you have to come to.

Go on then, give us your fact based analysis...

 MargieB 17 Nov 2020
In reply to alastairmac1:

The internal market bill has not been passed yet. The lowering of standards  of farming has not been  decided upon. Are these are solid situations? They are not.

1
 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

My understanding is exactly the opposite, that Boris recognises that he cannot keep a lid on it if SNP are successful in the next election.There was some item on R4 the other week about this.

He might bemoan the position ( as per his comments) but he cannot hold it back. The position is that there is really no clear strategy and with Covid etc, this is hardly surprising. There is simply  not enough bandwidth to take it on.

He could start with mending bridges with Ruth Davidson.

Post edited at 14:07
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Go on then, give us your fact based analysis...

I’ve already done, I think.

Fact : Scotland cannot get an independence referendum without Westminster permission

Fact: There is no constitutional mechanism for Scotland to block rolling back of devolution. The Sewel convention is just a convention, and already quite irrelevant as it has been broken so many times.

1
 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Naechi:

> Or Labours inability to provide candidate MP's and attractive policies that represent the will and opinion of the people of Scotland has been a disaster? 

Indeed. What a lot of people seem to forget is that devolution was not driven by Westminster, it was driven by the desire of the people of Scotland for greater control over decision making. 

Labour were the government who granted it, and who knows, it might even have worked for them if they had engaged with the Scottish people in good faith. But they failed to take part in that decision making in any meaningful way, by refusing to distance Scottish labour from English labour.

The rise of the desire for self determination was not going to stop if devolution hadn't happened; whilst it might have given the SNP a bump, we were always heading this direction unless and until the two big parties in England started to take Scottish political priorities seriously.

Meanwhile they've done the opposite, by chasing right wing English votes.

Post edited at 14:25
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> My understanding is exactly the opposite, that Boris recognises that he cannot keep a lid on it if SNP are successful in the next election.There was some item on R4 the other week about this.

Well, if you believe that, please tell me by which constitutional mechanism would the victorious SNP would get their independence.

Please prove me wrong, but as far as I can tell, there isn’t any.

Post edited at 14:12
2
 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I’ve already done, I think.

> Fact : Scotland cannot get an independence referendum without Westminster permission

> Fact: There is no constitutional mechanism for Scotland to block rolling back of devolution. The Sewel convention is just a convention, and already quite irrelevant as it has been broken so many times.

Well there we are then. A comprehensive analysis, totally based on the facts and not a shred of opinion to be seen. 

I'm not sure why the Scottish courts are considering the legality of the Scottish government legislating for is own referendum, when there is such a clear, evidence based assessment available to them.

Have you put yourself forward as an expert witness? Could save the courts a lot of time.

 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Well there we are then. A comprehensive analysis, totally based on the facts and not a shred of opinion to be seen. 

 

Well yes, indeed only facts.

> I'm not sure why the Scottish courts are considering the legality of the Scottish government legislating for is own referendum, when there is such a clear, evidence based assessment available to them.

Not the same. The legal challenge is on whether the Scottish government could be stopped from holding a referendum.

But it is very clear cut, constitutionally, that even if it was possible for ScotGov to hold such a referendum, for it to be made binding and have any value at all (other than a symbolic one), this would require the UK parliamentary to pass a bill making it so.

The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is the fundamental basis of the UK constitution, and it has been confirmed time and time again in the courts and in practice. I am surprised that you seem to reject that as a fact.

Post edited at 14:45
3
 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to MargieB:

> The internal market bill has not been passed yet. The lowering of standards  of farming has not been  decided upon. Are these are solid situations? They are not.

The government's intended course is very clear, and they have a massive majority in parliament.

You don't need a crystal ball to see the dangers we're facing....

1
 rogerwebb 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Well, if you believe that, please tell me by which constitutional mechanism would the victorious SNP would get their independence.

> Please prove me wrong, but as far as I can tell, there isn’t any.

You appear to be assuming that the current UK government is there for ever. 

Firstly I doubt that even the current government would be long able to resist a clear mandate for a referendum, secondly I doubt that the current prime minister will last until the next general election, thirdly prime minister Starmer will likely take a different view. 

The current government is the gift that keeps on giving to the SNP but it will not be there forever. They consistently fail to appreciate that being in favour of the union is not synonymous with being in favour of their government and neither is it inconsistent with fully supporting devolution. Equally the SNP, perhaps deliberately, try to equate support for the union with support for the current UK government and antipathy to devolution.

It is unfortunate for the union that one of the least effective prime ministers is dealing with a nationalist first minister who is one of the most competent politicians within the UK. However the First Minister may also not last long in office as the Salmond enquiry is looking increasingly dangerous to her.

Despite supporting the union I would regret her departure as I am not confident that any replacement would have quite her grip on covid. 

Post edited at 14:50
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> You appear to be assuming that the current UK government is there for ever. 

 

No.

> Firstly I doubt that even the current government would be long able to resist a clear mandate for a referendum

Why exactly ? Please tell me by which mechanism the current government would  be pressured to accept.

As far as I can tell there is none, but by all means, I wish to be proven wrong here, tell me what I am missing.
 

> secondly I doubt that the current prime minister will last until the next general election, thirdly prime minister Starmer will likely take a different view. 

Ok, let’s assume Starmer win. Why on earth would he shoot himself in the foot by granting  a referendum ?

Post edited at 15:15
2
In reply to Ciro:

> Well there we are then. A comprehensive analysis, totally based on the facts and not a shred of opinion to be seen. 

> I'm not sure why the Scottish courts are considering the legality of the Scottish government legislating for is own referendum, when there is such a clear, evidence based assessment available to them.

> Have you put yourself forward as an expert witness? Could save the courts a lot of time.

Wishful thinking. You only need to look back a couple of years at what happened in Catalonia to see how unsuccessful that potential attempt may be. Neither Scottish judges or the SNP have supremacy over the UK government. 

1
 Eric9Points 17 Nov 2020
In reply to alastairmac1:

Yes, the SNP is churning out poll after poll now that Johnson has pissed off so many Scots they're sick and tired of him. Johnson will be replaced one way or the other and Covid will pass, we have seen a high tide and even now there are signs of it receding. There is no settled will in favour of independence in fact despite the never ending coverage, it's not even an issue for most Scots so I see no particular issue outside of the bubbles of the committed.

Regarding being a regarded as a democracy. Well we had a referendum six years ago which was agreed to be the only one for a generation. For the reasons I have outlined there are reasonable grounds for refusing a second referendum for some time to come.

It is a pity that Scottish government has been paralysed for years because of this one divisive issue. We should put it aside for a decade and work to make Scotland the place it should be.

Post edited at 15:23
8
 Graeme G 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> There is no settled will in favour of independence in fact despite the never ending coverage, it's not even an issue for most Scots

Eh?

1
 fred99 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> ... Boris Johnson.

> Is he actively pursuing the breakup of the UK now?

You have to remember that, over many elections, it has been the existence of an overwhelming majority of Labour MP's relative to Conservative from Scottish constituencies that has enabled Labour governments to be in power.

If he can eliminate such MP's - by enabling independence - then Conservative majorities in the remainder of the UK become far more likely.

Whilst the Tories are officially the "Conservative and Unionist Party", I'm sure there are those within it who would rather ditch the "unionism" just to retain power. Being complete b*st*rds towards Scotland helps that end.

Personally I would much rather we united to get rid of this current administration, rather than be divided, as this is probably the intention of these scumbags from minute one.

 Dr.S at work 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I’m sure you are correct that there is no clear legal way to force a Westminster govt to grant a referendum - but I think you underestimate the degree to which moral pressure would build on a govt resisting such a move IF there was strong public support.

but this is an old discussion and we won’t agree!

In reply to Ciro:

> ... a disaster, and Tony Blair's biggest mistake according to Boris Johnson.

Well if you are a unionist and you see devolution looking like it's leading to independence, of course you would see it as a disaster. 

 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I said my understanding. What I believe is another view.

 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Well yes, indeed only facts.

> Not the same. The legal challenge is on whether the Scottish government could be stopped from holding a referendum.

> But it is very clear cut, constitutionally, that even if it was possible for ScotGov to hold such a referendum, for it to be made binding and have any value at all (other than a symbolic one), this would require the UK parliamentary to pass a bill making it so.

> The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is the fundamental basis of the UK constitution, and it has been confirmed time and time again in the courts and in practice. I am surprised that you seem to reject that as a fact.

I guess the US never successfully gained independence without the consent of Westminster then, since the facts are it's impossible?

1
 Doug 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> .. Well we had a referendum six years ago which was agreed to be the only one for a generation.

Having been away from Scotland for many years I didn't have a vote in the referendum but did follow it fairly closely & I don't remember anyone saying this, let alone it being agreed (by whom?), before the vote.

 rogerwebb 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> No.

> Why exactly ? Please tell me by which mechanism the current government would  be pressured to accept.

> As far as I can tell there is none, but by all means, I wish to be proven wrong here, tell me what I am missing.

A democratic mandate is hard to resist in a democracy. I think you are overly cynical. 

> Ok, let’s assume Starmer win. Why on earth would he shoot himself in the foot by granting  a referendum ?

Because he might well win it. 

 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> There is no settled will in favour of independence in fact despite the never ending coverage, it's not even an issue for most Scots so I see no particular issue outside of the bubbles of the committed.

🤣🤣🤣

> Regarding being a regarded as a democracy. Well we had a referendum six years ago which was agreed to be the only one for a generation. 

I don't remember agreeing to that... Was it written on the ballot paper?

> It is a pity that Scottish government has been paralysed for years because of this one divisive issue. We should put it aside for a decade and work to make Scotland the place it should be.

Once we're independent it can be put aside forever and we'll have all the levers of an independent parliament to go about making Scotland the place it should be.

It's not going to go away while Scotland and England are pulling in different directions in a union, no matter how hard you wish.

1
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> A democratic mandate is hard to resist in a democracy. I think you are overly cynical. 

Are you really saying  what I think you are saying, you believe that the UK government would give a referendum to the SNP out of respect for the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland ?

Come on, nobody is that naive. 

> Because he might well win it. 

What is the point of trying to win it when can just not have one ? Cameron gave the SNP a referendum because he was arrogant and thought he woudl wipe out the SNP. I don't think anybody will make that mistake twice.

Post edited at 16:40
3
 Harry Jarvis 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> 🤣🤣🤣

> I don't remember agreeing to that... Was it written on the ballot paper?

It was written in the Scottish Government's White Paper, and was stated by Salmond and Sturgeon:

“It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

> It's not going to go away while Scotland and England are pulling in different directions in a union, no matter how hard you wish.

This is important. The legalities and niceties of constitutions can be batted back and forth, but England and Scotland are on different paths. The English voting public have shown what they want in the last elections, and the Scottish voting public want something else. Quite how these different trajectories can be reconciled under the current arrangements is not clear, and it is not likely to be clarified any time soon with either administration. 

 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> I guess the US never successfully gained independence without the consent of Westminster then, since the facts are it's impossible?

The US did get the consent of Westminster for its independence. That's the result of the treaty of Paris, which was ratified by Westminster.
And in this case, this was obtained only after a long and bloody revolutionary war.

I don't think anyone considers a similar path was worth even considering for Scotland, so it's largely irrelevant.

Post edited at 16:52
1
 ScraggyGoat 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Once we're independent it can be put aside forever and we'll have all the levers of an independent parliament to go about making Scotland the place it should be.

Thats your hope, the more likely outcome is a big a divorce head-ache as brexit. A cludge trying to disentangle the various apparatus of the state, and endless politicking over payments, debts, agreements, locations of previous joint assets (most obvious being military), the border and currency to name but a few. While we scrabble to negotiate on the world stage, having lost collective bargaining power for things like NHS pharmaceuticals from USA big Pharma.  If we agree the SNP would potentially evaporate once this was resolved, and we would go back to less ideologically entrenched politics, SNP's would drag out the process and continue its grievance strategy for as long as possible to ensure its electoral survival...................after all its hard to teach an old dog new tricks!

Note I'm not saying Scotland can't do it, I'm saying its going to be painful and protracted, and many good things that could have been done with the parliamentary time for the people of Scotland and the environment may have to wait.  The only way to clear the air to speed it up, would be the electorate to throw the SNP out en-mass immediately afterwards, and I don't think the voters are that inclined.

Personally I see a generation of turmoil, on top of that already fostered on us by Brexit.

This is not a project fear propaganda, I just feel we have to be honest with ourselves what happens from the morning after..............if people want to take that road its for them to vote accordingly, but it is disingenuous to portray the aftermath as suddenly being utopian 'sunny uplands'.  Just as with Brexit, iy comes with huge uncertainty.

Post edited at 16:57
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> This is important. The legalities and niceties of constitutions can be batted back and forth, but England and Scotland are on different paths. The English voting public have shown what they want in the last elections, and the Scottish voting public want something else. Quite how these different trajectories can be reconciled under the current arrangements is not clear, and it is not likely to be clarified any time soon with either administration. 

That's the thing - they aren't reconciled and don't need to be. The Scottish public just has to go along with what the UK parliament decides, it is in fact very clear.

Brexit should have made that rather obvious !

Post edited at 16:51
3
 Ciro 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> It was written in the Scottish Government's White Paper, and was stated by Salmond and Sturgeon:

> “It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

There's a huge difference between stating "we think this is a one in a generation opportunity" (i.e. we might not get another chance for another generation, best grab this one), and agreeing not to have another referendum for a generation.

If there was an agreement at the time to not hold another referendum for a generation, it would have been written into the Edinburgh Agreement. Which it wasn't.

"A generation" would have been defined as a specific number of years. Which it wasn't.

The idea that an agreement was reached over how long we would wait before another referendum is pure fantasy.

There was an agreement over how long they will wait in Northern Ireland in the event of an unsuccessful (7 years) - so they did write that into the Belfast agreement. 

> This is important. The legalities and niceties of constitutions can be batted back and forth, but England and Scotland are on different paths. The English voting public have shown what they want in the last elections, and the Scottish voting public want something else. Quite how these different trajectories can be reconciled under the current arrangements is not clear, and it is not likely to be clarified any time soon with either administration. 

I see no path to reconciliation other than a fully federal union or independence. And I can't see anyone in Westminster allowing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an equal say on matters with England.

1
 rogerwebb 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Are you really saying  what I think you are saying, you believe that the UK government would give a referendum to the SNP out of respect for the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland ?

> Come on, nobody is that naive. 

If naive is your word of choice then yes they can be. 

> What is the point of trying to win it when can just not have one ? Cameron gave the SNP a referendum because he was arrogant and thought he woudl wipe out the SNP. I don't think anybody will make that mistake twice.

As above. 

 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> If naive is your word of choice then yes they can be. 

So basically the only argument you have left is that the UK government would give a referendum to the SNP just because suddenly the UK government would decide to respect the democratic wishes of the Scottish people out the kindness of their heart.

Do your realise how laughable that sounds ? 

I can only conclude that's you haven't been able to find a convincing counter argument so now you are resorting to magical thinking.

Post edited at 18:02
3
 rogerwebb 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

You are entitled to your conclusions, perhaps you are right. Perhaps every politician has no respect for democracy. Perhaps public opinion counts for nothing. Perhaps the devolution referendum wasn't a result of public pressure, perhaps the independence referendum was nothing to do with the manifesto commitment and subsequent mandate of the SNP, perhaps the EU referendum had nothing to do with the manifesto commitment of the Conservative party and its subsequent election victory. Or perhaps not. 

1
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> You are entitled to your conclusions, perhaps you are right. Perhaps every politician has no respect for democracy.

You don't get it. It's not that they don't respect democracy, it's simply that they think that democracy lies with the British parliament and the British people exclusively. They don't really consider Scotland as a separate "demos." or barely even a separate nation. 

I don't understand how that is not obvious to you when the democratic wishes of Scotland have been systematically and very visibly ignored for the last 4 years. The Scottish parliament refused consent of several pieces of legislation that touch on devolved areas. All ignored. The Scottish people voted massively against Brexit. Ignored. They wanted a softer Brexit. Completely ignored. The list goes on.
 

> Perhaps public opinion counts for nothing.

No, it is Scottish public opinion that counts for not much. What matters (somewhat) to the Westminster system is the British public opinion, which is primarily English public opinion.

Therefore the only way you'll get a second indyref is when the English public opinion will want one, or isn't bothered by one, and I can't think any circumstances in which it that will be the case anytime soon.
You just have to read these forums to realise that there is little appetite for it amongst most of them.

> Perhaps the devolution referendum wasn't a result of public pressure

It was the result of Tony Blair needing Scottish votes in the GE.
This clearly doesn't work for indyref2, as it seems unthinkable that either the Tories or labour would commit to an indyref in a manifesto. They would have everything to lose and nothign to gain from it.

> perhaps the independence referendum was nothing to do with the manifesto commitment and subsequent mandate of the SNP

The first indyref was the result of David Cameron being arrogant enough to think he could use it as a way to crush the SNP forever. Nobody will make that mistake again.

Post edited at 19:06
3
 Eric9Points 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Doug:

It was agreed between Cameron and the SNP when they agreed terms. It was repeated countless times during the campaign. I even had to complain to my boss to get a "once in a lifetime" poster taken down at work.

> Having been away from Scotland for many years I didn't have a vote in the referendum but did follow it fairly closely & I don't remember anyone saying this, let alone it being agreed (by whom?), before the vote.

4
 Eric9Points 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

> Eh?

Look at the opinion polls.

Ask Scots to rate what's important this shite comes in around #7.

4
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54827100
 

It’s no for a generation. Here you have it from the UK government itself.

What else do you need to be convinced they won’t grant a referendum ?

2
 Graeme G 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Look at the opinion polls

You're right, I should.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-scotland-idUKKBN26Z1KP

> Ask Scots to rate what's important this shite comes in around #7.

Link please?

 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Regarding being a regarded as a democracy. Well we had a referendum six years ago which was agreed to be the only one for a generation.

It was also agreed that staying in the UK meant staying in the EU. -> we left the EU
It was also agreed that the Scottish parliament would be made permanent. -> it hasn’t.
It was also agreed that the Sewel convention would be put on statutory footing. -> it hasn’t 

The list goes on.

In any case, it should should be up to the Scottish people to decide, through their own democratic institutions, whether or when to have a referendum and on what terms. It doesn’t matter what was said 6 years ago. If the Scottish people have changed their mind and want another referendum, I don’t see why Westminster should meddle with that.

Post edited at 20:13
3
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> It was agreed between Cameron and the SNP when they agreed terms. 

 

So that is your idea of democracy? Stuff that was informally said 6 years ago is binding for ever (only when it is convenient to the UK government, but never when it is inconvenient). And if the Scottish people have changed their mind, in the meantime, well f*ck them.

This line of argumentation is rather shaky.

Post edited at 20:19
 Eric9Points 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

Here's a link to a "once in a generation" claim.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

4
 Eric9Points 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

> Link please?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-majority-scots-say-independence-distraction-key-issues-2947721

"The latest research commissioned by the Scottish Fabians shows only 36 per cent of those surveyed said they consider independence ‘one of the most important issues facing the country’, and 52 per cent said it ‘distracts’ from other issues."

1
 Eric9Points 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> So that is your idea of democracy? Stuff that was informally said 6 years ago is binding for ever (only when it is convenient to the UK government, but never when it is inconvenient). And if the Scottish people have changed their mind, in the meantime, well f*ck them.

Yeah, just a throw away comment.

I made my points in my first post...which you replied to.

 Graeme G 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

Thanks. Not the original survey though so unclear where you got 7th place from?

In reply to Eric9Points:

> Here's a link to a "once in a generation" claim.

There was a legal document agreed by the two governments for the first independence referendum.  That sets out the deal that was made and it says f*ck all about once in a generation. 

Salmond's comment was basically telling people they better vote because they might not get another chance for a generation.   That is a warning, not a statement of SNP policy or a promise not to try again for a generation.

Salmond is not the leader of the SNP and hasn't been for 6 years.  Informal comments by Salmond do not bind the party today.  It's ridiculous to think they would - or do you think Labour and the Tories consider themselves bound by comments their ex-leader made 6 years ago.

Even if you assume the 'once in a generation' is binding the phrase is actually defined in the Northern Ireland agreements in the context of potential referendums on Irish reunification as meaning 7 years.  In 2021 it will be 7 years.  So the whole point is moot.

3
 mondite 17 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's ridiculous to think they would - or do you think Labour and the Tories consider themselves bound by comments their ex-leader made 6 years ago.

ermm yeah actually. That claim has been deployed rather a lot over the last few years.

> Even if you assume the 'once in a generation' is binding the phrase is actually defined in the Northern Ireland agreements in the context of potential referendums on Irish reunification as meaning 7 years.  In 2021 it will be 7 years.  So the whole point is moot.

Can you provide the exact phrase used there please. Since given the standard definition is 20-30 years it seems odd for the NI agreements to use a different version unless it was written by someone from Chelmsford.

1
 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Can you provide the exact phrase used there please. Since given the standard definition is 20-30 years it seems odd for the NI agreements to use a different version unless it was written by someone from Chelmsford.

It doesn’t really matter what a generation means. Regardless of what it means, I don’t see on what grounds the Scottish people should be prevented from changing their minds.

Whether there is a new Indyref should be a matter for the Scottish people to decide. As simple as that.

The qualifications of the vote as « once in a generation » was more of a way to say that the vote was likely to be a once in a generation opportunity, rather than a commitment or promise that this would be the only one the SNP would seek. 

As it turns out they were right, it’s probably going to be a once in a generation vote, as, as I have made the point before, I don’t see any UK government giving permission to hold another referendum for the foreseeable future.

Post edited at 22:30
1
 mondite 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> It doesn’t really matter what a generation means. Regardless of what it means, I don’t see on what grounds the Scottish people should be prevented from changing their minds.

It does since our favourite Scottish nationalist (or possible undercover unionist. I will admit I am erring towards the latter) has declared it has been documented in the NI agreements. Although I would agree that just because it has been declared to be such in one document doesnt mean it applies elsewhere.

> Whether there is a new Indyref should be a matter for the Scottish people to decide. As simple as that.

hmm so how is that decided? Do we hold a referendum on a referendum? Bearing in mind voting for a specific party doesnt actually mean agreeing to specific policies?

In reply to Ciro:

If what he meant is that the rise of the SNP with its primary (by definition) aim of independence has been a disaster then I think he does have a point. We effectively have a one party state with the SNP not effectively accountable for any shortcomings in government; the Scottish proportional parliamentary system is, in a sense, failing. The problem for Johnson is that the only clear way out of this situation is independence - on Scotland becoming independent the SNP would lose its raison d'etre and we would return to a multi party proportional system producing accountable governments representing the broadly social democratic consensus in Scotland.

2
 elsewhere 17 Nov 2020
In reply to mondite:

> It does since our favourite Scottish nationalist (or possible undercover unionist. I will admit I am erring towards the latter) has declared it has been documented in the NI agreements. Although I would agree that just because it has been declared to be such in one document doesnt mean it applies elsewhere.

> hmm so how is that decided? Do we hold a referendum on a referendum? Bearing in mind voting for a specific party doesnt actually mean agreeing to specific policies?

We elect representatives to decide that and every other specific policy. 

 Alyson30 17 Nov 2020
In reply to mondite:

> It does since our favourite Scottish nationalist (or possible undercover unionist. I will admit I am erring towards the latter) has declared it has been documented in the NI agreements. Although I would agree that just because it has been declared to be such in one document doesnt mean it applies elsewhere.

This is really nonsense.
So it’s not OK for the government  to change their mind on a non-binding vague campaign trope made 6 years ago, but the UK government breaking its word at every turn and breaking convention of constitutional significance is completely OK.

That seems very unbalanced.

In any case this is quite irrelevant. If the Scottish people want another referendum, why should they not be allowed to hold one just because of what the SNP said 6 years ago ? 

> hmm so how is that decided? Do we hold a referendum on a referendum? Bearing in mind voting for a specific party doesnt actually mean agreeing to specific policies?

We have a Scottish parliament with elected representatives. 
That is a perfectly legitimate body to decide whether, when and how an indyref should be held. 
Certainly far more legitimate in the matter than Westminster is.
 

Post edited at 00:05
2
 mondite 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> This is really nonsense.

Perhaps but since you arent actually dealing with what i said I am not sure of the relevance. If you look up half a page or so you will see I am just asking for them to provide some evidence  to support their claims that the NI agreement states that a generation is 7 years. I am making no statement about whether it should be considered binding or not.

As it happens my personal position is undecided and willing to be convinced either way. On the one hand I am in favour of the right to choose but on the other I think there has to be some time delay between them otherwise you end up spending a shed ton of money and just wearing people out (plus there is the problem of the hold ten votes in a row and as soon as one goes your way declaring victory seems a bit one sided). What that delay should be I am not sure especially given brexit resulting in a different situation from the one people voted on last time round.

> So it’s not OK for the government  to change their mind on a non-binding vague campaign trope made 6 years ago, but the UK government breaking its word at every turn and breaking convention of constitutional significance is completely OK.

Maybe although I will note that the UK government has been equally firm with regards to a non-binding campaign trope deployed in the EU referendum with regards to how it got turned into a binding decision so I guess it could be argued they are actually being consistent for once.

 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to mondite:

> As it happens my personal position is undecided and willing to be convinced either way. On the one hand I am in favour of the right to choose but on the other I think there has to be some time delay between them otherwise you end up spending a shed ton of money and just wearing people out (plus there is the problem of the hold ten votes in a row and as soon as one goes your way declaring victory seems a bit one sided).

That is a fair comment, but if Scottish people don’t want repeat referendums don’t you think they are perfectly capable to vote out the SNP ?

What we don’t need is for Westminster to tell us what to do and what not to do.


 

Post edited at 01:11
 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Maybe although I will note that the UK government has been equally firm with regards to a non-binding campaign trope deployed in the EU referendum with regards to how it got turned into a binding decision so I guess it could be argued they are actually being consistent for once.

A truly nonsensical comparison given that in the case of the Euref this was on the ballot paper. Also a whataboutery.

3
In reply to mondite:

This is what it says in the Good Friday Agreement about referendums on Northern Ireland leaving the UK. 

“1         The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.

 2         Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

 3         The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule.”

– Northern Ireland Act 1998, Schedule 1

There have been 14 polls running showing a majority for Scottish Independence.  Condition 2 is clearly met and in 2021 it will be 7 years since the last one.

Even if you think the English Tories in London should have any influence at all on when the Scottish Parliament decides to hold a referendum - which they shouldn't - if Scotland gets the same deal as Northern Ireland the conditions are met.

4
 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> I see no path to reconciliation other than a fully federal union or independence. And I can't see anyone in Westminster allowing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an equal say on matters with England.

In reality, even the path to reconciliation via fully federal union is probably lost now, due to Brexit. The European Union is simply a better fit for Scotland than the UK union, however it were to be restructured. 

1
 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

You keep banging on about "once in a generation" being agreed, here's the text of the Edinburgh Agreement in full. It includes no mention of timescales for another referendum:

AGREEMENT 
between the United Kingdom Government and the 
Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland 
The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work 
together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place. 
The governments are agreed that the referendum should: 
• have a clear legal base; 
• be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament; 
• be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments 
and people; and 
• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland 
and a result that everyone will respect. 
The governments have agreed to promote an Order in Council under Section 30 of 
the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments to allow a 
single-question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 
2014. The Order will put it beyond doubt that the Scottish Parliament can legislate 
for that referendum. 
It will then be for the Scottish Government to promote legislation in the Scottish 
Parliament for a referendum on independence. The governments are agreed that 
the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and 
propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice. The referendum 
legislation will set out: 
• the date of the referendum; 
• the franchise; 
• the wording of the question; 
• rules on campaign financing; and 
• other rules for the conduct of the referendum. 
The details of the agreement between the governments are set out in the following 
memorandum and draft Order, which form part of this agreement. 
_____________________________ _____________________________ 
The Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP The Rt. Hon. Alex Salmond MSP
Prime Minister First Minister of Scotland 
_____________________________ _____________________________ 
The Rt. Hon. Michael Moore MP Nicola Sturgeon MSP
Secretary of State for Scotland Deputy First Minister of Scotland

 Point of View 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Whether it's in the formal agreement or not, "once in a generation" was agreed to by all parties at the time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

5
 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Point of View:

> Whether it's in the formal agreement or not, "once in a generation" was agreed to by all parties at the time.

Did you even watch the video before linking it?

To quote Salmond directly from the video:

"In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, then this is a once in a generation opportunity"

Salmond's opinion cannot in any way be considered a legally or morally binding agreement on behalf of the Scottish people.

It was simply an expression of the importance of getting out and voting. He very clearly and deliberately answered the question in such a manner as to make no statement that could be in any way interpreted as an agreement.

 graeme jackson 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland 
and a result that everyone will respect. 

Seems the SNP don't respect the will of the people of Scotland then as they certainly don't respect the result.

7
 Point of View 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Are you suggesting that the opinion of the leader of the SNP carries no weight?

 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to graeme jackson:

> • deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland 

> and a result that everyone will respect. 

> Seems the SNP don't respect the will of the people of Scotland then as they certainly don't respect the result.

The result has been respected by the Scottish government. Whilst not everyone in the independence movement agreed, the SNP made it clear that they accepted the decision and would not be looking for a re-run. 

They also made it clear that any material change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will, would be grounds for another referendum.

The UK had the option of heading off that problem by legislating for the brexit referendum in such a way that the nations of the UK would have to agree on leaving the EU but they chose not to.

The UK government based the No campaign on the argument that staying in the UK was the only way to guarantee that Scotland would remain in the EU. If anyone disrespected the result it was them, by failing to ensure that promise was kept, and creating the platform for Scotland to be taken out of the EU against its will.

Holding a new vote now that circumstances have changed is not disrespecting the result of the previous referendum, it's respecting the right to self-determination of the Scottish people.

 mondite 18 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> This is what it says in the Good Friday Agreement about referendums on Northern Ireland leaving the UK. 

Which doesnt support your claim about a generation being seven years. So why should that particular rule apply in the Scottish case?

 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Point of View:

> Are you suggesting that the opinion of the leader of the SNP carries no weight?

No, I said his opinion "cannot in any way be considered a legally or morally binding agreement on behalf of the Scottish people." 

This is a fairly simple statement of fact.

Boris Johnson's opinion carries weight, due to his position, whether you agree with him or not. Would you like his opinion to bind the decisions of future governments? I'd rather hope he doesn't set a precedence for our government's respect for international law...

 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Point of View:

> Whether it's in the formal agreement or not, "once in a generation" was agreed to by all parties at the time.

You just posted a link that disproves your claim. Alex Salmond clearly says that it is his "opinion" that it will be a once a generation referendum.

It's really absurd to suggest that Westminster should block the Scottish people from holding another indyref just because some people at the time made a prediction that it would probably be a once in generation referendum. That's really clutching at straws.

If we go down that way, it was also said at the time that if Scotland voted to stay in the UK, it would stay in the EU. 

It is very simple, really, if the Scottish people want to organise another referendum, or another 20 referendums,  that's really a matter for them to decide. They are grown ups, if the SNP was to abuse referendums I am sure they are perfectly able to vote them out.

The logical contortions you are having to go to to find some justification as to why this basic right of self determination should be denied are getting increasingly absurd.

Post edited at 13:02
 graeme jackson 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> If we go down that way, it was also said at the time that if Scotland voted to stay in the UK, it would stay in the EU. 

And we did stay in the EU.  A referendum was held later and the UK population (including a huge number of Scots) voted to leave.  And let's not forget, we knew all about the EU referendum and the possibility that we'd end up voting to leave well before we voted in the indy ref and STILL, the majority of Scots voted to stay in the union. 

9
 neilh 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

It is  a   Russian strategy to remove submarines from Faslane and weaken the Greenland/Iceland/UK chain which protects UK, Western Europe and the USA from Russian ( and soon Chinese) submarines having unfettered and undetected access to the Atlantic ( through the use of Posedions and other means).The removal of Typhoon jets from Lossiemouth will allow Russian Bear aircraft to be over the mainland before we can stop them.They cannot be scrambled in enough time from an English Air Base to stop them.

I admire the KGB for playing a brilliant strategic long game on this.10/10.We have all fallen for it hook line and sinker .

Post edited at 13:30
 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to graeme jackson:

> And we did stay in the EU. 

No, we clearly did not.

> A referendum was held later and the UK population (including a huge number of Scots) voted to leave. 

So, we did not stay in the EU.

> And let's not forget, we knew all about the EU referendum and the possibility that we'd end up voting to leave well before we voted in the indy ref and STILL, the majority of Scots voted to stay in the union. 

This is correct, and similarly we all knew that another indyref was a possibility.  

The simple fact is that at the time of the indyref, people made predictions.

They predicted that if Scotland stayed in the UK, it would stay in the EU, they predicted that the referendum was likely to be once in generation.
These were all assumptions and opinions.

What is disingenuous is to hold people hostage on assumptions made 6 years ago, especially given the huge double standards applied to them. 

This whole "once a generation" BS doesn't stand the most basic test of logic, it is just a trope repeated over and over by Labour and the Tories, just because they don't really have any democratic basis as to why Westminster should be able to block another indyref.

Post edited at 13:59
 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> It is  a   Russian strategy to remove submarines from Faslane and weaken the Greenland/Iceland/UK chain which protects UK, Western Europe and the USA from Russian ( and soon Chinese) submarines having unfettered and undetected access to the Atlantic ( through the use of Posedions and other means).The removal of Typhoon jets from Lossiemouth will allow Russian Bear aircraft to be over the mainland before we can stop them.They cannot be scrambled in enough time from an English Air Base to stop them.

You have this habit of replying with something completely off topic without addressing any of the points made.

Post edited at 13:58
 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

The sooner weapons of mass destruction are removed from Scottish lochs the better IMO.

If England wants to host weapons of mass destruction that will be their right (as things stand), post-independence however I would urge them to disarm before there is a serious incident with consequences up to and including wiping out humanity.

In reply to Point of View:

> Are you suggesting that the opinion of the leader of the SNP carries no weight?

Are you saying that there haven't been material changes since 2014 and that the Westminster government actually kept the promises which were made to secure the YES vote?  Including the bullsh*t last minute 'vow' (which should never have been allowed).

In reply to neilh:

> It is  a   Russian strategy to remove submarines from Faslane

The Russian strategy is to control the Tory Brexiteers and Trumpian Republicans with money and to help them with disinformation on social media and hacking of political opponents.   

They want to weaken the EU because the EU scares the sh*t out of them - understandably perhaps when they have been invaded by both France and Germany in the past. 

Russia's GDP is smaller than many EU states and they have lost most of their satellite states in eastern Europe to EU expansion.  When it got to Ukraine they decided it was time to take action and that's when all this bullsh*t like Trump and Brexit took off.  Backed by Russia.

 neilh 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

Fascinating article in the Economist on this very subject and devolution.

Its very much a real issue for NATO.Well worth inderstanding in a wider context.

Post edited at 15:00
 neilh 18 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And Salmond being a very well paid presenter for Russia Today?

As I said its brilliant.

1
 neilh 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

It is just as much to do with deep water access and submarines chasing other submarines.

1
 S Ramsay 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Whatever the rights and wrongs of nuclear weapons, if Scotland were to leave the UK I would have thought that as part of the break up agreement a 100 year lease on Faslane with unfettered access would be arranged although once the Scots have seen the chaos at the NI border I can't imagine many of them wanting to replicate that sop its a bit of a moot point

Post edited at 15:17
 mondite 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> If England wants to host weapons of mass destruction that will be their right (as things stand)

England already does close to London.

 fred99 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

.... I can't see anyone in Westminster allowing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an equal say on matters with England.

Equating all four "nations" as equal will never get anywhere, at least not for those living in England.

The reason for this is not racism, it's simple numbers. There are more people living in the Midlands (of England) than Scotland and Wales (and Northern Ireland ??) combined, and nearly twice as many live in the North of England, with three times as many in the South.

In respect of population, if the South of England had 3 votes, the North 2, the Midlands 1, and the combined "celtic" nations 1 between them, then parity would exist. Unlikely to satisfy the SNP, Welsh Nationalists, and who knows what in NI.

England is not one homologous unit, and believing that London is England somewhat upsets most people from Cornwall to Cumbria.

1
 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to S Ramsay:

> Whatever the rights and wrongs of nuclear weapons, if Scotland were to leave the UK I would have thought that as part of the break up agreement a 100 year lease on Faslane with unfettered access would be arranged although once the Scots have seen the chaos at the NI border I can't imagine many of them wanting to replicate that sop its a bit of a moot point

https://www.snp.org/trident-what-you-need-to-know/

Trident – what you need to know

 by the SNP

 Posted on 10 April, 2019

As a weapons system designed for the Cold War, the case for Trident is non-existent in 2019.

Nuclear weapons are wrong – strategically, morally and financially. Yet, despite long-standing SNP opposition, Westminster has written a blank cheque to base another generation of nuclear weapons in Scotland’s waters.

Here’s what you need to know about Trident renewal.

1) Scotland opposes Trident renewal.

Nuclear weapons have been based in the Clyde for half a century. This is despite the opposition of the people of Scotland, civil society, the STUC, Scotland’s churches, the Scottish Parliament and most of Scotland’s MPs. On 19 July 2016, 58 of Scotland’s 59 MPs voted against the decision to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system.

The latest Survation poll found that, excluding people who don’t know, 56% of people in Scotland oppose the renewal of Trident.

What’s more, a 2018 YouGov survey has shown that 47% of Scots support the Scottish Government having the final say over Trident, as opposed to the 33% who support the matter remaining in the hands of the UK Government.

In November 2017, Nicola Sturgeon signed a parliamentary pledge supporting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively rid the world of nuclear arms, which was adopted by the United Nations last year.

2) Trident is financially unjustifiable.

The Tory Chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Crispin Blunt, has calculated the total cost of the next generation of Trident at £179 billion over its lifetime. CND have estimated that the cost may even be as high as £205 billion.

In times of imposed austerity, this money could be far more effectively used on improving healthcare, education and building a better future for our children, as well as investing in conventional armed forces.

3) At the same time, the UK Government has cut defence jobs in Scotland – year after year.

The Ministry of Defence’s own jobs figures show that between 2010 and 2015, under the previous Tory-led coalition government, defence personnel in Scotland were cut by 3,300 – that’s an 18.7% reduction.

And, if we go back further to 2000, 10,170 jobs have been cut in Scotland, with an overall reduction of 41% – compared to 28% across the UK.

4) Trident doesn’t address modern threats.

The biggest threats we face won’t be deterred by new nuclear weapons. Security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks and climate change are not addressed by Trident.

The gaps that need to be addressed are in areas such as maritime patrol, in ships and aircraft to patrol our waters, as well as conventional defence personnel and equipment. These gaps have emerged as a result of under-investment and cuts by successive UK governments.

5) Possession of nuclear weapons is the exception, not the rule.

It is the norm in today’s world to be nuclear-free. Of all the countries in the world, just nine possessed nuclear weapons at the start of 2019.

UN member states have voted overwhelmingly to begin negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. In a vote in the UN Disarmament and International Security Committee on Thursday 27 October, 123 nations voted in favour, with 38 opposing and 16 abstaining.

6) With independence, we can get rid of Trident in Scotland

Independence will give us the power to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland, and being free to make different decisions than Westminster can save hundreds of millions of pounds – money that can deliver direct benefits for the people of Scotland.

We want to see a world free from nuclear weapons, and an independent Scotland will be a principled advocate on the global stage.

 neilh 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

You completley miss the point. Do you know what the Greenland Iceland Uk gap protects? That is the critical issue, not nuclear war heads.

If you leased Faslane Lane and Lossiemouth you would be a star with NATO . Your European mates would be best buddies with you.

Closing them down is a real strategic defence issue.Its a no go for Western Europe.

If you get that right..devolution is not an issue.

1
 graeme jackson 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> No, we clearly did not.

Well clearly we've remained in the EU for the past 6 years since Indyref. 

2
 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to graeme jackson:

> Well clearly we've remained in the EU for the past 6 years since Indyref. 

So we indeed have left...
Do you have any real argument, or is it just all sophistries of this type ?

Post edited at 15:58
4
 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> You completley miss the point. Do you know what the Greenland Iceland Uk gap protects? That is the critical issue, not nuclear war heads.

> If you leased Faslane Lane and Lossiemouth you would be a star with NATO . Your European mates would be best buddies with you.

> Closing them down is a real strategic defence issue.Its a no go for Western Europe.

> If you get that right..devolution is not an issue.

I'm not sure what would lead the Russians to believe that Scottish independence would affect anything other than the presence of nuclear weapons in Scotland?

 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> You completley miss the point. Do you know what the Greenland Iceland Uk gap protects? That is the critical issue, not nuclear war heads.

> If you leased Faslane Lane and Lossiemouth you would be a star with NATO .

Just to bring you up to speed : the NATO alliance is completely brain dead.
Quite odd to list Scottish independence as a threat to NATO when it has already been killed by Johnson, Trump and Erdogan.
 

1
In reply to Ciro:

> I'm not sure what would lead the Russians to believe that Scottish independence would affect anything other than the presence of nuclear weapons in Scotland?

Nothing would change. The submarines, their staff, shore support etc would all move to England. The UK would still have a nuclear defence, as would NATO as part of the wider treaty. The only change is Scotland would lose the employment and tax revenue it brings. There is no win in this policy for Scotland other than point scoring banging the anti English drum. 

2
 Graeme G 18 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> There is no win in this policy for Scotland

Not paying the exorbitant costs?

In reply to Graeme G:

> Not paying the exorbitant costs?

That's Scotland's choice. It either builds it's own forces from scratch, or pays a set amount annually, like the isle of man does.  As it stands everyone in the UK pays for it, but Scotland benefits from the employment and revenue in those communities, this position can only worsen if Scotland becomes anti nuclear. 

3
 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> Nothing would change. The submarines, their staff, shore support etc would all move to England. The UK would still have a nuclear defence, as would NATO as part of the wider treaty. The only change is Scotland would lose the employment and tax revenue it brings. There is no win in this policy for Scotland other than point scoring banging the anti English drum. 

Removal of weapons of mass destruction from our country is a win in my book - it helps build the case for removal from everyone else's territory too. The fewer places in the world where these weapons are permitted to reside the better.

In reply to neilh:

> And Salmond being a very well paid presenter for Russia Today?

He ended up in Russia Today because they were interested in his proposal, the UK broadcasters refused it.  Let's face it Alex Salmond has no chance of getting a show from the Tory controlled BBC and the commercial broadcasters are almost as bad.

I think going with RT was a mistake: he should have gone on YouTube but I don't see why pro-Indy voices should be blocked from broadcast TV just because all the UK channels are controlled by England.

4
In reply to summo:

> Nothing would change. The submarines, their staff, shore support etc would all move to England. The UK would still have a nuclear defence, as would NATO as part of the wider treaty. The only change is Scotland would lose the employment and tax revenue it brings. There is no win in this policy for Scotland other than point scoring banging the anti English drum. 

Bollocks.  We wouldn't have a first strike target close to Glasgow and we wouldn't have the risk of a nuclear accident or nuclear pollution.    Other aspects of the economy are being damaged because people do not want to live near a nuclear base and it damages tourism because it is ugly as f*ck.  Then there is the money.  It isn't exactly cheap.

 S Ramsay 18 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Salmond was on RT because they were interested in his product Hahahhahaha! Along with the anti-frackers and George Galloway, a varied set of interests they have at RT including cathedral steeples

Salmond is a Russian stooge (and I believe, although he wasn't found guilty, a sex offender to boot) who was on RT because Russia believes that hE would damage the interests of the UK. No one who has ever appeared on RT should ever feel comfortable showing their face in public again (apart from in St Petersburg obviously)

2
 fred99 18 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Bollocks.  We wouldn't have a first strike target close to Glasgow and we wouldn't have the risk of a nuclear accident or nuclear pollution. 

When Chernobyl happened sheep in Wales were affected. Just how far from the UK (and Europe) would Scotland have to be towed to be safe ? - Australia ??

4
In reply to Ciro:

> Removal of weapons of mass destruction from our country is a win in my book - it helps build the case for removal from everyone else's territory too. The fewer places in the world where these weapons are permitted to reside the better.

I'm sure Scotland going nuclear free is precisely what the leaders of Iran, north Korea, Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan are waiting for, it would completely change their perspective of the world.  

2
 neilh 18 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

I am surprised that you do not understand the strategic importance of the Greenland - Iceland - U.K. gap. 
 

basically it’s used as a throttle point to monitor and control Russian submarines from entering the Atlantic. The same will apply to Chinese submarines. 
 

it’s of critical importance to Every country in NATO and France. 

 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> I am surprised that you do not understand the strategic importance of the Greenland - Iceland - U.K. gap. 

> basically it’s used as a throttle point to monitor and control Russian submarines from entering the Atlantic. The same will apply to Chinese submarines. 

> it’s of critical importance to Every country in NATO and France. 

This is all besides the point though. Whether Scotland holds another indyref is a matter for the Scottish people - Faslane is very much a different matter.

 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> I'm sure Scotland going nuclear free is precisely what the leaders of Iran, north Korea, Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan are waiting for, it would completely change their perspective of the world.  

These countries want nuclear weapons, because without them, they wouldn’t be safe.

And the tragedy is, they are right. 

2
 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> I'm sure Scotland going nuclear free is precisely what the leaders of Iran, north Korea, Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan are waiting for, it would completely change their perspective of the world.  

A nuclear weapon free world will not come about by continuing to point the gun at Iran and North Korea's heads, and scratching our own heads wondering why on earth they might be desperate to have their own.

"MAD is us and Russia's game to play, not yours" is a nuts position to expect others to play along with nicely. 

In reply to Alyson30:

> These countries want nuclear weapons, because without them, they wouldn’t be safe.

> And the tragedy is, they are right. 

And if the west had never developed nuclear weapons but Russia, germany, Japan etc did? Sometimes it pays to have them even if you don't intend to invade anyone else. 

Post edited at 19:21
2
In reply to Ciro:

> A nuclear weapon free world will not come about by continuing to point the gun at Iran and North Korea's heads, and scratching our own heads wondering why on earth they might be desperate to have their own.

That argument ceased to be valid in the 1940s, you can't uninvent something. I'd be more concerned about nuclear weapons in space and other angles of the current subtle arms race that exists, only it's slowly becoming many sided rather than the classic cold war two sides. 

Israel won't ever ever disarm, so Iran and others will always try to arm. There is no escaping from it. 

1
 Ciro 18 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> That argument ceased to be valid in the 1940s, you can't uninvent something. I'd be more concerned about nuclear weapons in space and other angles of the current subtle arms race that exists, only it's slowly becoming many sided rather than the classic cold war two sides. 

> Israel won't ever ever disarm, so Iran and others will always try to arm. There is no escaping from it. 

A fatalistic position, that if we follow it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Call me a dreamer, but I still believe humanity can grow beyond it's current state of petty national factionalism. Ending the nuclear arms race and the absurd game of MAD will be an important step towards a more co-operative world.

 GrahamD 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Call me a dreamer, but I still believe humanity can grow beyond it's current state of petty national factionalism. 

I had you down as a Scottish nationalist.

1
 Dr.S at work 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

And where does the Scottish National Party stand on petty national factionalism?

Going back to the original question, I'm struck by French Eric's thread from earlier in the year in which French contributors were baffled at the concept of parts of France splitting off, despite the history of national amalgamation being not so different to the UK's.

France seems to have hammered the pieces of multiple states into a whole, the UK has not achieved this to the same extent. Is that because, at least in the case of the Union between England and Scotland, some degree of devolution was always maintained? That 'hammering' happened to a greater extent with the Welsh and there has generally been far less desire for splitting from the UK in Wales than in Scotland.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Going back to the original question, I'm struck by French Eric's thread from earlier in the year in which French contributors were baffled at the concept of parts of France splitting off, despite the history of national amalgamation being not so different to the UK's.

> France seems to have hammered the pieces of multiple states into a whole, the UK has not achieved this to the same extent. Is that because, at least in the case of the Union between England and Scotland, some degree of devolution was always maintained? That 'hammering' happened to a greater extent with the Welsh and there has generally been far less desire for splitting from the UK in Wales than in Scotland.

Corsica? Basque Country?

I think it's probably a lot more complicated than you suggest there.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

> And where does the Scottish National Party stand on petty national factionalism?

Escaping the petty nationalism of Brexit Britain and rejoining the EU in a spirit of internationalism?

3
 Dr.S at work 18 Nov 2020
In reply to skog:

God yes, Its all complex!

Fair points on the Corsicans/Basque - but even for the Basque it seems to me that the demand for devolution/independance was/is stronger in the Spanish part of Basque territory than the French.

Perhaps Rom/French Erick/Doug or other francophones could comment

 Dr.S at work 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

Is the EU international, or merely a grand form of petty nationalism? I though Brexit Britain was embracing globalism and we would all be citizens of Erewhon?

;-)

2
 Alyson30 18 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> And if the west had never developed nuclear weapons but Russia, germany, Japan etc did? Sometimes it pays to have them even if you don't intend to invade anyone else. 

That is exactly the argument that North Korea makes.

1
 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> That's Scotland's choice. It either builds it's own forces from scratch, or pays a set amount annually, like the isle of man does.  As it stands everyone in the UK pays for it, but Scotland benefits from the employment and revenue in those communities, this position can only worsen if Scotland becomes anti nuclear. 

If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that even if Scotland abandoned Trident it would still have to pay a ‘dividend’, to whoever hosted it, for Scotland’s protection? Therefore the money gets spent on defence anyway, and can’t be used for other purposes?

I like to think I have a good understanding of all the arguments for independence, but I have yet to hear anyone utter a single convincing argument for the union. Other than those who argue defence. Which unfortunately never seems to be politicians!

Post edited at 08:24
In reply to Graeme G:

> If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that even if Scotland abandoned Trident it would still have to pay a ‘dividend’, to whoever hosted it, for Scotland’s protection? Therefore the money gets spent on defence anyway, and can’t be used for other purposes?

Whilst dodging the currency question, the snp also dodge the defence question. 

If Scotland doesn't form it's own defence force and pays the UK, then it will be paying for trident anyway, only it won't be based in Scotland anymore. 

2
In reply to Graeme G:

> I like to think I have a good understanding of all the arguments for independence, but I have yet to hear anyone utter a single convincing argument for the union. Other than those who argue defence. Which unfortunately never seems to be politicians!

The best argument currently would be that despite just about everything already being devolved to Scotland for several years, without the Barnet formula Scotland would be running an annual deficit. It's reliant on money from English taxpayers to top up it's funds, so it can afford to give away things for free to Scottish residents. If anyone is calling for Scotland to be cut loose it should be England. 

6
 drunken monkey 19 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

And who has done the invading of late? The countries that have them.

 drunken monkey 19 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

An independent Scotland would be entitled to a percentage share of what its paid for within the MOD including all assets.

I'd probably suggest that an independent Scotland's armed forces would also reflect its foreign policy which probably wouldn't stretch as far as invading other countries to give them some "freedom"

 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> The best argument currently would be that despite just about everything already being devolved to Scotland for several years, without the Barnet formula Scotland would be running an annual deficit. It's reliant on money from English taxpayers to top up it's funds, so it can afford to give away things for free to Scottish residents. If anyone is calling for Scotland to be cut loose it should be England. 

You were doing well with your last post. That however is just nonsense. You do realise that whilst not an official independence tactic, it is an argument deployed by activists. The more they convince the ‘English’ Scotland is a financial burden, the more likelihood they will win. Your post merely confirms they’re succeeding.

As I said, I’m keen to hear both sides of the debate. Unfortunately most unionists deploy the doom and gloom economic argument and that just doesn’t capture traction. John Major is the only politician I have heard recognise that if the UK splits not only will Scotland be worse off, in his opinion, but so would England. 

 drunken monkey 19 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

Just about everything being devolved to Scotland......

Except about 60% of control its finances.

 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> Whilst dodging the currency question, the snp also dodge the defence question. 

> If Scotland doesn't form it's own defence force and pays the UK, then it will be paying for trident anyway, only it won't be based in Scotland anymore. 

That seems a fair enough argument.

1
In reply to drunken monkey:

> An independent Scotland would be entitled to a percentage share of what its paid for within the MOD including all assets.

I'd agree. Some kind of per capita or GDP based asset split. 

> I'd probably suggest that an independent Scotland's armed forces would also reflect its foreign policy which probably wouldn't stretch as far as invading other countries to give them some "freedom"

Yeah. No requirement to free (invade) Iraq, Libya, Syria... the challenge would be the seas. Probably a proportionally much bigger navy than land forces. 

The unknown is cost and hence why it's rarely discussed. 

1
In reply to Graeme G:

There is no escape from the fact that the Barnet formala gives more money to Scottish regions than the rest of the UK. 

4
 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> There is no escape from the fact that the Barnet formala gives more money to Scottish regions than the rest of the UK. 

Nor that Scotland pays more in therefore should get more back. Let’s not go there. Independence debates always reduce themselves to the same tired old arguments. I’m interested in hearing something I maybe haven’t heard before.

In reply to Graeme G:

> Nor that Scotland pays more in therefore should get more back. Let’s not go there. Independence debates always reduce themselves to the same tired old arguments. I’m interested in hearing something I maybe haven’t heard before.

I think it did pay more but not now. For the oil boom years yes arguably so. But that's a 20 -30 year window. You could say the same for Cornish tin mines, clay pits, woollen mills, ship yards, copper and lead mines, slate, coal, weaving ..  through history differing regions according to industrial processes changing enjoy peaks and troughs. You can't base the whole argument of long term finances on a peak that's now gone. 

Curiously Cornwall is seeing interest in rare earth metal mining. Perhaps they'll renew their independence efforts. 

1
 drunken monkey 19 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

Good point. Its all whataboutery for now but you'd think that if it came to it there would be a reasonable commitment & focus to maritime patrol and security given the absolutely massive area to cover under the chicago convention for example.

 neilh 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

As I keep saying nuclear weapons on Trident is not the issue it is about this throttle point to the Atlantic and how Faslane and Lossiemouth are part of the proven integrated network that defends /controls .monitors access to the Atlantic for USA, UK and Western Europe.

Think big geopolitical stuff, not nuclear weapons.

In reply to Graeme G:

> As I said, I’m keen to hear both sides of the debate. Unfortunately most unionists deploy the doom and gloom economic argument and that just doesn’t capture traction. 

As someone who is now convinced of the political argument for independence, I would love to be convinced of the economic argument, but I am not yet. In fact I'm not even sure I've seen one apart from the vague "we could be like Denmark" thing.

1
 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> As someone who is now convinced of the political argument for independence, I would love to be convinced of the economic argument, but I am not yet. In fact I'm not even sure I've seen one apart from the vague "we could be like Denmark" thing.

I’m with you there. It’s hard to believe either side of the debate as they’re always framed within the side which the person wants you to follow.

One thing about all of the debate that I do love is that growing up 50 years ago Scotland didn’t feature in the national UK psyche. You never heard an accent in TV, no mention in the national news etc. Now it’s mentioned everyday and it matters.

 Doug 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

> One thing about all of the debate that I do love is that growing up 50 years ago Scotland didn’t feature in the national UK psyche. You never heard an accent in TV, no mention in the national news etc. Now it’s mentioned everyday and it matters.

Not checked dates but around 50 years ago Scotland did feature on British TV with such 'classics' as Dr. Finlay's Casebook & the White Heather club, plus something every New Year's Eve.

2
In reply to drunken monkey:

> Good point. Its all whataboutery for now but you'd think that if it came to it there would be a reasonable commitment & focus to maritime patrol and security given the absolutely massive area to cover under the chicago convention for example.

I think much depends on Biden and his view on NATO, if he's pro NATO then things will return to the old normal. But if NATO weakened then countries might have to go it more alone, perhaps with mini alliances with the UK (plus or minus Scotland), Norway and Iceland for example coming to some shared patrolling agreement. There needs to be something to cover patrols for say foreign super trawler excursions, or Russian ships or aircraft. 

Post edited at 09:40
1
 ScraggyGoat 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

I would be convinced of the political argument if the performance of Holyrood and in particular the most likely Party leading post-independence was of higher quality. The Parliament started well and has seriously struggled under the SNP one party governance, ideology and the 'low road' strategy, to independance they have taken...see my post earlier about the deliberate negative campaign rather than positive lead by example approach.

Agree on the economic argument I remain to be convinced, the risk-reward calculations appears heavily skewed towards risk (or at least a complete leap into the unknown at the moment) as the currency is uncertain, as is how Brexit will pan-out, rejoining the EU is not a given, we don't know how the world will reshape post covid, add to that globally the environmental imperative will result in a shift(s), and in a world economy being a smaller entity has disadvantages (and advantages...........).

The third consideration is pragmatic can it be achieved without being a complete period of turmoil and a cluster f*ck, how long a period of dysfunction and lost time is worth it.  I don't think on past behaviour the SNP have the maturity or ability to lead us through the process, yet by default they will be the ones in charge..... its one thing to keep banging the drum saying westminster bad, westminster cheat, westminster scam us, to actually sitting down and being able to negotiate, quickly efficiently and with expediency, which will include the need for comprise .  Even without such a petulant party at the reigns, its a huge challenge given how closely so much is intertwined.

Post edited at 09:55
5
 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Doug:

> Not checked dates but around 50 years ago Scotland did feature on British TV with such 'classics' as Dr. Finlay's Casebook & the White Heather club, plus something every New Year's Eve.

Ah yes. The ‘classics’. The Bravehearts and Monarchs of the Glen in the B&W age.

 Ciro 19 Nov 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

I'm an independence supporter, not a nationalist. I see independence as a route to a more progressive, outwards looking Scotland that can take its place in the international community. I see Scotland rejoining the EU, and playing a full part in the project, unencumbered by the British (i.e. english) exceptionalism that has held the UK back on the fringes - always looking for opt-outs and special deals.

I'd like to see the European Union continue to expand, and form more collaborative and less exploitative ties with other parts of the world.

I believe that an independent Scotland will be better placed to influence world affairs for the better, than a Scotland that remains part of a union based on a failed former empire.

 Point of View 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

The Scottish people expressed their opinion on this matter in 2014. You should respect that decision. I find it quite beyond contempt the way you Nats are trying to force another referendum upon us so soon.

9
 elsewhere 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Point of View:

> The Scottish people expressed their opinion on this matter in 2014. You should respect that decision. I find it quite beyond contempt the way you Nats are trying to force another referendum upon us so soon.

You find campaigning on a manifesto beyond contempt?

Post edited at 10:18
 Alyson30 19 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> I would be convinced of the political argument if the performance of Holyrood and in particular the most likely Party leading post-independence was of higher quality. The Parliament started well and has seriously struggled under the SNP one party governance, ideology and the 'low road' strategy, to independance they have taken...see my post earlier about the deliberate negative campaign rather than positive lead by example approach.

I observe exactly the opposite - imperfect but pragmatic leadership in Scotland has been in stark contrast to the chaotic, authoritarian, and Brexit - fanatical  leadership at Westminster.
No surprise more and more people are turning to independence - even if they don't fundamentally want it.

But at the end of the day this is about identity more than quality of governance. Britishness has become Brexitness and that is primarily an English phenomenon. That doesn't leave the Scots much place.

1
 Ciro 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> And where does the Scottish National Party stand on petty national factionalism?

What Robert said.

> Going back to the original question, I'm struck by French Eric's thread from earlier in the year in which French contributors were baffled at the concept of parts of France splitting off, despite the history of national amalgamation being not so different to the UK's.

> France seems to have hammered the pieces of multiple states into a whole, the UK has not achieved this to the same extent. Is that because, at least in the case of the Union between England and Scotland, some degree of devolution was always maintained? That 'hammering' happened to a greater extent with the Welsh and there has generally been far less desire for splitting from the UK in Wales than in Scotland.

I can't profess a great knowledge of French history, but is it not likely to be simply a matter of the length of time France has existed as a country?

I'd have thought France was more similar to England with regards to timescales of formation as a homogeneous entity than it was with the UK, so regional desire for independence would be more similar to Cornwall than Scotland and NI. 

France has had a single legal system for a long time, whereas Scotland and England still have separate legal systems, which I'm sure helps maintain a feeling of separate nationhood.

For sure Wales has seen less desire for autonomy (although it's clearly growing). I imagine a significant part of that is the fact that both countries have operated under one legal system for a long time.

 ScraggyGoat 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

You are conveniently forgetting that nearly a million Scots voted for Brexit and that a great many people south of the border voted against Brexit...............you are framing it as a Scots versus English debate; and that is contemptible. 

6
 Ciro 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Point of View:

> The Scottish people expressed their opinion on this matter in 2014. You should respect that decision. I find it quite beyond contempt the way you Nats are trying to force another referendum upon us so soon.

What is it about the democratic process that you find contemptuous?

If I offered you a cup of tea, and you said no, would you find it contemptuous of me to offer again after some time has passed?

People can change their minds. The position of the UK in the world has changed dramatically since the last vote. Is one trip to the polling station (or one ballot paper in the post) really an onerous think to ask, in order to determine whether the people of Scotland wish to be part of the Brexit experiment?

 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> nearly a million Scots voted for Brexit

I wonder how many were Scots though? I live in the most unionist and Brexity part of Scotland. A significant portion of the local population are English military personnel.

Not that there aren’t significant English independence supporters in other parts of Scotland. But I do think it would be an interesting analysis. Was there not a survey that showed it was English voters who took Wales into Brexit territory?

1
 drunken monkey 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Point of View:

Democracy didn't end in 2014

 ScraggyGoat 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

Are you suggesting that we should deny Scottish residents their democratic right to vote depending on their ethnicity? Or somehow those votes were tainted and shouldn't be considered, or because they were cast by 'another' group disregarded? You are scratching at the very worst of nationalism and identity politics..........one I'd hope most people, including yourself, would rise above.

Stay or leave the Union we have to all live together, and as Point of View, makes clear there will be a lot of Scots residents feeling very disenfranchised  as a result of Indy2, compounding that by questioning the legitimacy of some groups democratic participation in Scotland is not a particular road I for one want to travel down.

5
 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> Are you suggesting that we should deny Scottish residents their democratic right to vote depending on their ethnicity? Or somehow those votes were tainted and shouldn't be considered, or because they were cast by 'another' group disregarded? You are scratching at the very worst of nationalism and identity politics..........one I'd hope most people, including yourself, would rise above.

Er, no? I asked a question. Would you not think that statisticians would be interested in knowing who voted for what? Do you object when analysis shows preference by gender, or age? I think not. 
No analysis has ever been undertaken on what English voters think of the health of the union, would that not be an interesting analysis? Particularly given how many Scots, and countless other ethnicities and nationalities live there.

 ScraggyGoat 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

..and to what purpose, what would you hope to be achieved by this analysis, why do you think it would be significant? 

Note I wouldn't have responded so robustly if you hadn't started your response with 'I wonder how many of them were Scots....' and finished it with 'English voters who took Wales into Brexit territory'................

Post edited at 11:35
3
 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> ..and to what purpose, what would you hope to be achieved by this analysis, why do you think it would be significant? 

As a politician? Target voters.

As The Minister for the Union? Measure the health of the union and then target voters.

Post edited at 11:33
 wercat 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

> One thing about all of the debate that I do love is that growing up 50 years ago Scotland didn’t feature in the national UK psyche. You never heard an accent in TV, no mention in the national news etc

That really isn't true (I'm being gentle) - Fyfe Robertson was a household name.  Plus, growing up in the NE of England of course Scotland was in the national psyche.  Don't be negligently associating the London/SE psyche with that of Britain.

 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> and finished it with 'English voters who took Wales into Brexit territory'................

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit-research

Hope this helps. Not my opinion, but that of research done in Wales.

Post edited at 11:40
 Doug 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> I'd have thought France was more similar to England with regards to timescales of formation as a homogeneous entity than it was with the UK, so regional desire for independence would be more similar to Cornwall than Scotland and NI. 

Its often forgotten, at least in the UK, that some parts of France have only become part of France relatively recently, eg Savoie in 1860 while Alsace has been German at times in the not so distant past. Corsica, which seems to have the most active independence movement became French in the 1760s. There is a movement for Basque independence but to me that seems much stronger on the Spanish side of the border, I imagine as a result of many years of harsh repression under Franco.

 Ciro 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

> Hope this helps. Not my opinion, but that of research done in Wales.

I'm with ScraggyGoat here - I think it's dangerous territory to go into and not helpful to the debate.

To quote from the article:

“Wales was made to look like a Brexit-supporting nation by its English settlers.”

is an uneccessarilly divisive statement to make.

The people who have settled in Wales are now wish residents, where they come from is immaterial.

The article goes on to finish with:

“The real support for Brexit, in terms of numbers of votes, was in places like Cornwall, which was 57% for leave, Hampshire with 54%, Essex with 62% and Norfolk with 57%. It is those southern English voters that are dragging Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland unwillingly out of Europe.

“Everyone blames Wigan and Stoke for Brexit but we should really be blaming Cornwall and Devon.”

Devon and Cornwall also have a high number of "settlers" from the south east of England - why should we blame Devon and Cornwall, and not Wales? The only answer I can think of would be othering because of birth nationality - which is descriminatory and unhelpful.

Those who have settled are part of the community, and all residents should be treated as equal members of the demos.

1
 ScraggyGoat 19 Nov 2020
In reply to wercat:

I don't even think it was absent from the national Phsyche....I remember being taught History, and it wasn't just English history, the curriculum covered all the regions, the nations developing, cultural as well as ruling landscapes, religious differences, upheaval and persecution around the nations at different times . Moving on to the Empire, the respective parts the differing nations played, our guilt by modern standards for slavery, the trade wealth that alongside pillaging overseas resources brought to many UK cities Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Liverpool. Newcastle, Bristol, Bath, Cardiff, Londonderry to name a few.....the disrespect of overseas culture leading up to the Indian mutinies for example.  The strive for democracy from feudalism to the vote for the common man, and then gender equality. Scientific developments along the way.  Then on to the Clearances and how they are commonly subject to revisionist interpretation to political ends, to the world wars, the sacrifice of the Highland Division at Dunkirk ect. Before wrapping up with socio-economic inequalities around the UK as a combined Histo-geographic analysis. Scotland featured in it throughout, except when we did the Irish Troubles warts and all, Glasgow sectarianism wasn't mentioned. Note this was all in a bog-standard Comp'.

All long being taught critical analysis, weighing evidence, source evaluation, bias, to spot deliberate oversights, to consider context and be wary for political revisionism............which brings us neatly where we are today. 

Post edited at 12:01
 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> I'm with ScraggyGoat here - I think it's dangerous territory to go into and not helpful to the debate.

Possibly, but if you’re trying to get an understanding of why the commonality you talk about doesn’t exist I think it’s helpful to understand why people think the way they do. And if that’s informed by a divisive form of nationalism then you need to be able to tackle that. Alternatively you could just stick your head in the sand, as certain current politicians appear to want to do, and offer only bluster.  I’m particularly impressed with Douglas Ross just now. His ability to challenge Westminster indifference and thinking is encouraging.

 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> I don't even think it was absent from the national Phsyche....I remember being taught History, and it wasn't just English history,

I don’t. I’m guessing we went to different schools.

 ScraggyGoat 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

Ah well...looks like we are on opposite sides of the same coin..........'observational bias'!

 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> Ah well...looks like we are on opposite sides of the same coin..........'observational bias'!

Absolutely. We can only speak from our own experience. 

 Point of View 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

What I find contemptuous is your refusal to accept the democratic will of the people of Scotland. You can change your mind if you want. I expect you will eventually have another opportunity at some time in the future. The 2014 referendum settled this matter for a generation. You should respect that.

6
 Harry Jarvis 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Point of View:

> What I find contemptuous is your refusal to accept the democratic will of the people of Scotland. You can change your mind if you want. I expect you will eventually have another opportunity at some time in the future. The 2014 referendum settled this matter for a generation. You should respect that.

We allow for changes in the democratic will of the people every five years at general elections. Why should that not also be allowed for other democratic decisions? 

 Ian W 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> We allow for changes in the democratic will of the people every five years at general elections. Why should that not also be allowed for other democratic decisions? 

Because that requirement is written into law, the independence referendum is not.

Also a GE merely chooses the party of government and our representatives in parliament. Independence is a bigger deal. And if there was a referendum in 2022 that voted for independence, should that not therefore be followed by one in (say) 2032, and that if the 2032 vote was to rejoin the UK, would you be ok with that. (I've chosen 10 years as 5 years is a bit ridiculous for reversing decisions as fundamental as independence.

 Ciro 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Point of View:

> What I find contemptuous is your refusal to accept the democratic will of the people of Scotland. You can change your mind if you want. I expect you will eventually have another opportunity at some time in the future. The 2014 referendum settled this matter for a generation. You should respect that.

The Belfast agreement guarantees the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on Irish unification any time the opinion polls show the people are likely to vote for it. It also guarantees that if they vote to stay with the UK, after 7 years they will have another vote should the polls suggest they are likely to vote for it.

Was it contemptuous to include those guarantees in the Belfast agreement?

To my mind, it is the UK government who are being contemptuous towards the Scottish people by refusing to offer the same level of democratic decision making that is afforded to the people of Northern Ireland.

Whether you desire independence or not, it boggles my mind that anyone would consider being allowed to make a decision undesirable.

We heard what Scotland had to say in 2014 - why are you trying to deny a voice to the democratic will of the people of Scotland in 2021?

 Harry Jarvis 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> Because that requirement is written into law, the independence referendum is not.

That's hardly a compelling argument. If a party has a manifesto pledge to campaign for an independence referendum, and that party wins an election, surely the democratic will should carry some weight? 

> Also a GE merely chooses the party of government and our representatives in parliament. Independence is a bigger deal. And if there was a referendum in 2022 that voted for independence, should that not therefore be followed by one in (say) 2032, and that if the 2032 vote was to rejoin the UK, would you be ok with that. (I've chosen 10 years as 5 years is a bit ridiculous for reversing decisions as fundamental as independence.

If there was a campaign in favour of such a repeat referendum which had significant public support, I would be fine with that. 

There seems to be a notion that democracy should only deliver favourable outcomes. It doesn't. Sometimes, the results are dreadful, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored or cast aside as being inconvenient. If a belief in democracy means anything, it is that you don't always get what you want. 

 graeme jackson 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> We heard what Scotland had to say in 2014 - why are you trying to deny a voice to the democratic will of the people of Scotland in 2021?

What do you say to Ian W's comment..

"if there was a referendum in 2022 that voted for independence, should that not therefore be followed by one in (say) 2032, and that if the 2032 vote was to rejoin the UK, would you be ok with that".

If Scotland became an independent country in 2021 would you be in favour of another referendum 10 years later?

 Ian W 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> That's hardly a compelling argument. If a party has a manifesto pledge to campaign for an independence referendum, and that party wins an election, surely the democratic will should carry some weight? 

> If there was a campaign in favour of such a repeat referendum which had significant public support, I would be fine with that. 

> There seems to be a notion that democracy should only deliver favourable outcomes. It doesn't. Sometimes, the results are dreadful, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored or cast aside as being inconvenient. If a belief in democracy means anything, it is that you don't always get what you want. 

I would tend to agree, but i can just imagine all the independence supporters reaction at the idea of a second referendum on rejoining the union. Tom would have to go for a lengthy lie down. For me, such a fundamental matter as independence, which is clearly impractical to (potentially) reverse every however many years needs at least 2 referendums to judge the general mood, which changes over time. Similar to how brexit should have been decided, the first vote would give an indication of desire, then the second, when the various inevitable issues have been ironed out and a clearer picture of how life is likely to be emerges would decide finally.v I'm pretty ambivalent about Scottish independence; it wouldnt make much difference to me, although it must be said that potentially regaining member ship of the EU would persuade me to consider moving the 80 or so miles north to gain residency.......

 Harry Jarvis 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> I would tend to agree, but i can just imagine all the independence supporters reaction at the idea of a second referendum on rejoining the union. Tom would have to go for a lengthy lie down.

Independence supporters might be unhappy, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have to accept it. After all, if they're campaigning now for a referendum to leave the UK, they can hardly complain if there is an equally vigorous and persuasive campaign to rejoin. As it happens, I cannot see the unionists having half the energy as the nationalists. Tom lying down in a darkened room without an internet connection would be a boon to us all. 

> For me, such a fundamental matter as independence, which is clearly impractical to (potentially) reverse every however many years needs at least 2 referendums to judge the general mood, which changes over time. Similar to how brexit should have been decided, the first vote would give an indication of desire, then the second, when the various inevitable issues have been ironed out and a clearer picture of how life is likely to be emerges would decide finally.

Which is not dissimilar to John Major's recent suggestion. No doubt Tom and his like would reject that, on the grounds that he's an English Tory, but if Brexit has told us anything it is that decoupling long-standing relationships is hideously complicated, and while independence could be done, it might not necessarily be a good thing to do when the results of the decoupling are known.  

> I'm pretty ambivalent about Scottish independence; it wouldnt make much difference to me, although it must be said that potentially regaining member ship of the EU would persuade me to consider moving the 80 or so miles north to gain residency.......

I think the EU issue would be a long way down the tracks. At the moment, Scotland's finances are such that we would not be looked on favourably. There is a long way to go yet before we might enjoy the benefits of EU membership. 

 Ciro 19 Nov 2020
In reply to graeme jackson:

> What do you say to Ian W's comment..

> "if there was a referendum in 2022 that voted for independence, should that not therefore be followed by one in (say) 2032, and that if the 2032 vote was to rejoin the UK, would you be ok with that".

> If Scotland became an independent country in 2021 would you be in favour of another referendum 10 years later?

In the event of an independence vote i'd have no problem with people continuing to campaign for UK membership and I'd be happy for another vote to be held once independence had been enacted, and if the people voted to return to the UK, whilst it would likely be against my wishes I'd be happy for it to be done. 

I support Scottish self determination. It's up to those of us who favour independence to advocate for it, but the democratic process doesn't end the minute we are successful.

Who knows, maybe the brexiteers are right, the EU is crumbling, and the UK will be a land of milk and honey. I might even find myself convinced by the unionists and voting to return to the UK one day. 

I hope to live long enough to see substantial change in the world. Who knows what that world will bring. It would be crazy to attempt to stop democracy at a given point.

 Alyson30 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> Because that requirement is written into law, the independence referendum is not.

> Also a GE merely chooses the party of government and our representatives in parliament. Independence is a bigger deal.

 

Good points, but don’t you think the Scottish people are perfectly able to take these points into accounts themselves ?
 

We don’t need Westminster to tell us what frequency is reasonable for indyrefs, the Scottish people and their democratic institutions are perfectly able to work out what the correct balance is.

1
 Graeme G 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Which is not dissimilar to John Major's recent suggestion.

I think it would seen as a trap and a con - “strange that the English Tories get their ‘dishonestly’ won Brexit but we have fight doubly hard to get ours. Lessons learned? Nah, they’re setting us up to fail.”

Post edited at 15:42
 Ian W 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Good points, but don’t you think the Scottish people are perfectly able to take these points into accounts themselves ?

Yes I do, where did i say i didnt think they were?

> We don’t need Westminster to tell us what frequency is reasonable for indyrefs, the Scottish people and their democratic institutions are perfectly able to work out what the correct balance is.

You are Tom in Edinburgh and i claim my £5. (Scottish notes accepted........)

1
 mondite 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> I'd have thought France was more similar to England with regards to timescales of formation as a homogeneous entity than it was with the UK, so regional desire for independence would be more similar to Cornwall than Scotland and NI. 

France is younger than England.  It was from 1400 onwards that it really turned into the country we know it as today. Prior to that there were multiple competing factions including the Normans (under the pretence of the English) and the Languedoc (handily wiped out under the guise of a crusade).

Most of the regions retained at least some regional identity until the French revolution when a serious effort was put into suppressing them.

 Alyson30 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> Yes I do, where did i say i didnt think they were?

So then you should agree with me that the organisation and timing of a Scottish independence referendum should be a matter for the Scottish parliament.

Post edited at 18:12
1
 Ian W 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> So then you should agree with me that the organisation and timing of a Scottish independence referendum should be a matter for the Scottish parliament.

I possibly should, but i dont......(nice try at twisting words, btw Tom ).

Not on its own, no. The largest party in the scottish parliament are too invested in the idea of independence at all costs to take a sensible decision on timing and organisation. It needs to be in conjunction with the UK parliament , as depending on the result, both will have to invest significant time in preparing for the new relationship between the countries. In 2021 (and probably beyond) for eg, we will be mired in trying to make the best of the brexit sh*tshow.

The scottish people are obviously the ones whose vote should decide the outcome.

1
 Alyson30 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> I possibly should, but i dont.....

Then you are being either inconsistent or dishonest.

> Not on its own, no. The largest party in the scottish parliament are too invested in the idea of independence at all costs to take a sensible decision on timing and organisation.

The largest party in the Scottish parliament is the largest party precisely because the Scottish people voted for them.

The Scottish people are perfectly able to vote them out if they deem that they can’t take sensible decision.
 

> It needs to be in conjunction with the UK parliament

Why ? Please give me a good reason as to why anybody else but the Scottish people, through their own democratic institutions, should decide on when or whether to hold a referendum?

Can you imagine the outrage if, for example, the UK had to ask permission from the EU to ask its population if it wanted to stay a member of it ?

> The scottish people are obviously the ones whose vote should decide the outcome.

Empty words if you block them from holding a vote in the first place.

Post edited at 20:12
1
 Ian W 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Then you are being either inconsistent or dishonest.

No inconsistency oe dishonesty at all. I agreed the scottish people can / should decide the outcome, you extrapolated that into insisting I should agree the scottish parliament alone should decide when and how the ref takes place. You misunderstood / ignored my distiction between the scottish people and scottish parliament.

> The largest party in the Scottish parliament is the largest party precisely because the Scottish people voted for them.

Yup, well spotted.

> The Scottish people are perfectly able to vote them out if they deem that they can’t take sensible decision.

Yup, well spotted.

> Why ? Please give me a good reason as to why anybody else but the Scottish people, through their own democratic institutions, should decide on when or whether to hold a referendum?

Because scotland is part of the united kingdom and currently governed by a different parliament to its own on many matters (whether good or bad is irrelevant for this point, but its a fact), and therefore there is more than one parliament that will be directly affected. It could indeed be done unilaterally, but the outcome is likely to be much more confrontational, with in my opinion, worse outcomes (assuming independence is the path chosen) than if it is a "joint enterprise".

> Can you imagine the outrage if, for example, the UK had to ask permission from the EU to ask its population if it wanted to stay a member of it ?

as there was no transfer of sovereignty or rule of law in the brexit vote, the situation is completely different. Yes there almost certainly would be outrage, but as it was never an issue on the table, its an irrelevant point.

> Empty words if you block them from holding a vote in the first place.

Yes, but who's blocking the vote? I'm suggesting that a vote should be at an agreed time / date, not just at the whim of one party.

You still owe me the clydesdale bank fiver.......

4
 Alyson30 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> No inconsistency oe dishonesty at all. I agreed the scottish people can / should decide the outcome,

That isn’t what you had agreed. You had agreed that the the timing of a referendum was up to the Scottish people. The democratic body of the Scottish nation being holyrood, that makes Holyrood the forum where such a decision should be taken.

> Yup, well spotted.

> Yup, well spotted.

> Because scotland is part of the united kingdom and currently governed by a different parliament to its own on many matters (whether good or bad is irrelevant for this point, but its a fact), and therefore there is more than one parliament that will be directly affected.

The EU and it’s parliament was also impacted by the decision of the UK to leave the EU. Yet the EU did not seek to block the UK from holding a referendum on membership.

> as there was no transfer of sovereignty or rule of law in the brexit vote, the situation is completely different.

You are right, the situation is different, the main difference is that the European Union, unlike the United Kingdom, is an union based on consent rather than coercion.

> Yes, but who's blocking the vote?

The British government is blocking the vote.

> I'm suggesting that a vote should be at an agreed time / date, not just at the whim of one party.

No, you are suggesting that it is ok for Westminster to block the Scottish people from making a decision about their own future in the Uk.

But yes, a date and time should be agreed, and the body that is democratically legitimate to agree a time and date is the Scottish parliament.

The simple truth if the matter is that for Westminster to block this flies in the face of the most basic democratic principles.

Instead of trying to find increasingly convoluted logical fallacies to try to give the impression that it isn’t the case, why not simply say you don’t want another indyref and you are happy with an  authoritarian approach being used to block one ? This would have the merit of honesty.

Post edited at 23:19
 Ian W 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> That isn’t what you had agreed. You had agreed that the the timing of a referendum was up to the Scottish people. The democratic body of the Scottish nation being holyrood, that makes Holyrood the forum where such a decision should be taken.

No I absolutely did not. I said the scottish people should decide the result of the referendum. You suggested that i should therefore agree that the scottish parliament should organise and set the date of the referendum. I saidno, it should be a joint decision between the scottish and uk parliaments. Its all upthread.

> The EU and it’s parliament was also impacted by the decision of the UK to leave the EU. Yet the EU did not seek to block the UK from holding a referendum on membership.

Because the EU is an agreement between participating nations, each with its own sovereign parliament, and the rules regarding leaving were clearly set out in official EU documentation, visible to and understood by all. Unlike in the UK.

> You are right, the situation is different, the main difference is that the European Union, unlike the United Kingdom, is an union based on consent rather than coercion.

> The British government is blocking the vote.

No vote has been formally asked for. We hear wee nippy (I cant think of her without referenct to clicky pens and Jane Godleys voice) going on about it, but until she says something like "we want one on Aug 5th 2021", no vote is being blocked.

> Absolutely, and the body that is democratically legitimate to decide a time and date is the Scottish parliament.

Disagree. If you want to have a much more "agreeable" split, you need agreement as to date and process with the UK parliament. If you want help and support in setting up all the institutions you need and dont currently have, you need help, or at least support. See Slovakia and the Czech republic for an example. go all braveheart, and you will lose a lot of goodwill, and will be unnecessarily worse off as a result.

Where's me fiver!!

2
 Alyson30 19 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> No I absolutely did not. I said the scottish people should decide the result of the referendum.


You most definitely did, but you may simply have not read what I said before replying to it. So I’ll put it on carelessness rather than dishonesty.

> Because the EU is an agreement between participating nations, each with its own sovereign parliament, and the rules regarding leaving were clearly set out in official EU documentation, visible to and understood by all. Unlike in the UK.

Indeed, hence my comment that the UK, unlike the EU, is based on coercion, not on democratic consent.
That’s exactly why I am arguing that blocking Scotland from choosing whether it wants to stay or leave the union is not democratic.

> No vote has been formally asked for.


This is simply wrong. There is a formal request for a section 30 order sitting on the PM’s desk, sent with the blessing of the Scottish parliament.

> Disagree. If you want to have a much more "agreeable" split, you need agreement as to date and process with the UK parliament.

I don’t see any democratic justification  as to why the Scottish people should need permission from the UK parliament to simply ask whether they want to leave the UK or not.

If the decision is to leave the UK, then you need of course to negotiate with the UK government and its parliament to establish terms of departure, but this isn’t what we are talking about.

> If you want help and support in setting up all the institutions you need and dont currently have, you need help, or at least support.

Blatant strawman. Nobody says that in the event of indyref succeeding, the divorce could be done unilaterally.

I am only saying that it is up to the Scottish people to decide whether they initiate the divorce or not, and it is up to them, through their own democratic process, to decide how to make that decision.

If you were to take the analogy of a married couple, it would be like you saying that the wife needs permission from the husband before requesting a divorce. It’s not very convincing, and in fact, abusive.

Post edited at 00:02
5
 drunken monkey 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

Exactly why should it be dictated by WM when in a parliamentary system set up to prevent majority government, the SNP are on course to take 74 seats at Holyrood and support for independence is now consistently above 50% in the polls and in some instances above 55%.

Post edited at 08:20
1
 Ian W 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> You most definitely did, but you may simply have not read what I said before replying to it. So I’ll put it on carelessness rather than dishonesty.

Just read through again. Copy / paste if you need to. Its not difficult. Unless you are dishonest. I would also refer you to any number of threads where you have slung ad-hom accusations around; you have significant past form for this.

> Indeed, hence my comment that the UK, unlike the EU, is based on coercion, not on democratic consent.

Even though at the last count, only 6 years ago, a clear majority of your fellow countrymen consented democratically to the status quo. In a once in a lifetime vote.

> That’s exactly why I am arguing that blocking Scotland from choosing whether it wants to stay or leave the union is not democratic.

> This is simply wrong. There is a formal request for a section 30 order sitting on the PM’s desk, sent with the blessing of the Scottish parliament.

There is indeed.

> I don’t see any democratic justification  as to why the Scottish people should need permission from the UK parliament to simply ask whether they want to leave the UK or not.

> If the decision is to leave the UK, then you need of course to negotiate with the UK government and its parliament to establish terms of departure, but this isn’t what we are talking about.

Good luck with that with the current incumbents.

> Blatant strawman. Nobody says that in the event of indyref succeeding, the divorce could be done unilaterally.

> I am only saying that it is up to the Scottish people to decide whether they initiate the divorce or not, and it is up to them, through their own democratic process, to decide how to make that decision.

> If you were to take the analogy of a married couple, it would be like you saying that the wife needs permission from the husband before requesting a divorce. It’s not very convincing, and in fact, abusive.

Nope, if you want a divorce analogy, its two people accepting the marriage is over and splitting amicably.

Look, I've got no problem with Scottish independence; it wont make a whole load of difference to me, but then again it isn't me you need to convince. If the vote is for independence, you have a lot of your fellow countrymen to convince it is the way to go. It might be harder to convince them if the westminster government says they will not cooperate in negotiations, which is entirely possible given the current lot in power, and the fact they have rather a lot on their plate at the moment. 

If you do get an independence vote in the next couple of years, and the result is again to remain part of the UK, does that settle the matter once and for all? Two "once in a lifetime" votes within 10 years would surely spell the end of the independence movement.

4
 Ian W 20 Nov 2020
In reply to drunken monkey:

> Exactly why should it be dictated by WM when in a parliamentary system set up to prevent majority government, the SNP are on course to take 74 seats at Holyrood and support for independence is now consistently above 50% in the polls and in some instances above 55%.

If it is set up to prevent a majority government, its not doing very well if the SNP get 74 seats, is it? It was also set up that way to be an improvement on the fptp system and thus give a more representative spread of members, being a mix of FPTP and PR. 

And careful about the polls; the yes lead is a very recent phenomenon, linked to the (understandable) loathing of Boris Johnson in psrticular and Tories in general since the UK general election. And careful of small leads, as most of the undecideds before the last referendum eventually voted to stay.

And careful with the hyperbolic language - you've had one poll above 55% that i can find and that came with a health warning as it was conducted by a very pro independence website; the majority of 2020 polls have shown 50 - 53% in favou; described as "within the bounds of a dead heat".

Post edited at 09:25
1
 drunken monkey 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

Since January 2020 - "NO" has only been in the lead in the polls twice and it was in the region of 1%. (46/45, 47/46) every single other poll has YES ahead. That's my point.

74% of the vote and its still a better system than the FPTP WM model where we (Scotland) get a government of a party that circa 13% of people in Scotland vote for.

The problem in Scotland isn't the SNP, its just the opposition parties are absolutely terrible and some of them will never be forgiven for ditching their founding principles to side with the Tories in 2014.

 Ciro 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> No vote has been formally asked for. We hear wee nippy (I cant think of her without referenct to clicky pens and Jane Godleys voice) going on about it, but until she says something like "we want one on Aug 5th 2021", no vote is being blocked.

Nicola Sturgeon wrote to the prime minister in December 2019 to formally request a section 30 order to hold a referendum in 2020 - before we were taken out of the EU. That request was denied.

Angus MacNeil MP wrote to Boris Johnson four days ago to request an answer as to whether he was prepared to grant a section 30 order request - two years to the day since he made the same request to May.

The vote is being blocked. To suggest otherwise it's simply laughable.

 GrahamD 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> The vote is being blocked. To suggest otherwise it's simply laughable.

Sounds like you have a bit more time available to sort out some practicalities like what currency to use and how to manage your border if you aspire to EU membership.

Then maybe you can have a less half arsed and better prepared ballot paper than we had for Brexit.

Every cloud, eh ?

2
 Alyson30 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> Just read through again. Copy / paste if you need to. Its not difficult. Unless you are dishonest. I would also refer you to any number of threads where you have slung ad-hom accusations around; you have significant past form for this.

I didn't want to copy the entire thread, but if you insist on lying, here it is for you:

Harry: "We allow for changes in the democratic will of the people every five years at general elections. Why should that not also be allowed for other democratic decisions? "

You : "Because that requirement is written into law, the independence referendum is not.

Also a GE merely chooses the party of government and our representatives in parliament. Independence is a bigger deal. And if there was a referendum in 2022 that voted for independence, should that not therefore be followed by one in (say) 2032, and that if the 2032 vote was to rejoin the UK, would you be ok with that. (I've chosen 10 years as 5 years is a bit ridiculous for reversing decisions as fundamental as independence."

Me: Good points, but don’t you think the Scottish people are perfectly able to take these points into accounts themselves ?

You :Yes I do, where did i say i didnt think they were?

So you had pretended to accept the idea that the decision on whether too hold an indyref should be up to the Scots.

However when I said that, in practice, this means letting the Scottish parliament decide on whether and when a new indyref would take place, you rejected the idea.
Hence why I pointed out that you were either dishonest in your initial reply, or inconsistent with it.

> Even though at the last count, only 6 years ago, a clear majority of your fellow countrymen consented democratically to the status quo. In a once in a lifetime vote.

A once in a lifetime vote, in your opinion. The Scots clearly may have a different opinion an may well want a rerun. What you are saying is that the Scottish people made their decision once, and aren't allowed to change their mind. That is compeltely undemocratic.

> There is indeed.

> Nope, if you want a divorce analogy, its two people accepting the marriage is over and splitting amicably.

No, that is not the case. Discussion on an amicable divorce would happen once one of the party has requested a divorce.
In this case, one of the party is banned by the other from requesting the divorce in the first place.
That is coercive.

> Look, I've got no problem with Scottish independence; it wont make a whole load of difference to me, but then again it isn't me you need to convince.

I am not trying to convince you that indepdence is a good thing. I am not even in favour myself.

I am trying to convince you that WM blocking the Scottish people from holding a referendum on independence to force them to stay in the UK against their will by suppressing their voice is utterly undemocratic. It's pretty simple.

It is, in fact, very obviously undemocratic, and you haven't been able to address that. Instead engaging in whatabouteries, red-herrings, and strawmen.

> If you do get an independence vote in the next couple of years, and the result is again to remain part of the UK, does that settle the matter once and for all? 

Not necessarily. If the Scottish people wanted to rejoin they can vote for a party that would seek to re-join the UK. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Post edited at 14:15
1
 Ian W 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I didn't want to copy the entire thread, but if you insist on lying, here it is for you:

> Harry: "We allow for changes in the democratic will of the people every five years at general elections. Why should that not also be allowed for other democratic decisions? "

> You : "Because that requirement is written into law, the independence referendum is not.

> Also a GE merely chooses the party of government and our representatives in parliament. Independence is a bigger deal. And if there was a referendum in 2022 that voted for independence, should that not therefore be followed by one in (say) 2032, and that if the 2032 vote was to rejoin the UK, would you be ok with that. (I've chosen 10 years as 5 years is a bit ridiculous for reversing decisions as fundamental as independence."

> Me: Good points, but don’t you think the Scottish people are perfectly able to take these points into accounts themselves ?

> You :Yes I do, where did i say i didnt think they were?

> So you had pretended to accept the idea that the decision on whether too hold an indyref should be up to the Scots.

No pretence. An indyref should be vote on by the Scottish electorate / population. As in 2014. 

> However when I said that, in practice, this means letting the Scottish parliament decide on whether and when a new indyref would take place, you rejected the idea.

There's the difference. Parliament, not direct population. And the scots (for good or ill, as upthread) are governed by more than one parliament.

> Hence why I pointed out that you were either dishonest in your initial reply, or inconsistent with it.

No inconsistency or lying from me, just i distinguish between the Scottish people and Scottish parliament, you appear not to.

1
 Alyson30 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> If it is set up to prevent a majority government, its not doing very well if the SNP get 74 seats, is it?

Maybe having a whopping ~20 points leads on the runner ups explain the high number of seats. And BTW they don't have a majority government. They still need the greens.

> And careful with the hyperbolic language - you've had one poll above 55% that i can find and that came with a health warning as it was conducted by a very pro independence website; the majority of 2020 polls have shown 50 - 53% in favou; described as "within the bounds of a dead heat".

Indeed, we don't know whether Scottish people really still want to be part of the UK or not, despite indication that they don't want to anymore.
What is the democratic to do from here, do you think ?

1) Let them ask that question in a referendum at a time of their choosing, agreed through their own democratic institution.
2) Block them from finding out and force them to stay in the UK, whether they like it or not.

Post edited at 14:27
 Alyson30 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> No pretence. An indyref should be vote on by the Scottish electorate / population. As in 2014. 

> There's the difference. Parliament, not direct population. And the scots (for good or ill, as upthread) are governed by more than one parliament.

And my argument is that it is undemocratic for a parliament that represents at 90% English voters to block Scotland from asking its people whether they still want to stay part of the UK.

> No inconsistency or lying from me, just i distinguish between the Scottish people and Scottish parliament, you appear not to.

Wrong. Obviously they are different things, but the Scottish parliament is the parliament of the Scottish people (clue I is in the name), and therefore the right forum to decide on question of membership of the UK.

Post edited at 14:45
2
 Ian W 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Maybe having a whopping ~20 points leads on the runner ups explain the high number of seats. And BTW they don't have a majority government. They still need the greens.

That might be now; someone upthread (drunken monkey?) said the expectation/ forecast for the next election was for 74 seats.......

> Indeed, we don't know whether Scottish people really still want to be part of the UK or not, despite indication that they don't want to anymore.

> What is the democratic to do from here, do you think ?

Wait until the current volatile situation calms down - there is understandable animosity towards westminster at the moment / brexit / covid corruption etc etc - but in 2014, most of those who had declared "dont know" in the polls leading up to the referendum went for stay when it came down to putting the "X" in a meaningful box. 

I think having indyref 2 now is too soon; a second yes vote would / should bury the issue for generations, and i think its too important to risk that in such a volatile environment and the shite emerging from westminster. If labour win the next election, the atmosphere would change significantly, and even if the tories remain in power, at least it wont be Johnson in charge (bloody hope not anyway - and as long as its not Patel). Give it a few years, and get soe serious planning done as to how the country would operate independently, and the whole project becomes much more viable.

NB - easy to say, i have no skin in this game.

> 1) Let them ask that question in a referendum at a time of their choosing, agreed through their own democratic institution.

> 2) Block them from finding out and force them to stay in the UK, whether they like it or not.

1
 Alyson30 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> That might be now; someone upthread (drunken monkey?) said the expectation/ forecast for the next election was for 74 seats.......

In a FPTP system they would get almost all the seats with the % of SNP votes that are projected. In the current system they get a bit more than half.

> I think having indyref 2 now is too soon;

That is fine, I also agree it is far too soon, that isn’t the point.
My point is that the Scottish people should be able to decide for themselves, through their own democratic institutions, when the time is right to ask the question.

For Westminster to block it when it isn’t convenient for them is simply undemocratic. 
 

It is also completely the wrong strategy, the more the UK government tries to keep Scotland in the UK through coercion rather than consent, the more people will be against it.

Post edited at 14:54
 GrahamD 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> 1) Let them ask that question in a referendum at a time of their choosing, agreed through their own democratic institution.

What is the question and the proposed alternative, exactly ? I mean away from the flannel and aspirational stuff: what exactly are you wanting people to vote for ?  As we've seen with Brexit, its very easy to make pie in the sky promises without any clear view of what happens next.

 Ian W 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> In a FPTP system they would get almost all the seats with the % of SNP votes that are projected. In the current system they get a bit more than half.

I must admit, in a bit of a diversion, i think the Holyrood system is much better than either FPTP or full PR. 

> That is fine, I also agree it is far too soon, that isn’t the point.

> My point is that the Scottish people should be able to decide for themselves, through their own democratic institutions, when the time is right to ask the question.

> For Westminster to block it when it isn’t convenient for them is simply undemocratic.

It needs to be convenient for both. maybe it looks like blocking, but a bad referendum might be worse than no referendum........ 

> It is also completely the wrong strategy, the more the UK government tries to keep Scotland in the UK through coercion rather than consent, the more people will be against it.

Yup. whilst the genie is out of the bottle, and there is significant support for independence in Scotland, if not majority support (as per last referendum), then there should be talking done. It should not be "ha, you lost, get over it" when 45% of the electorate (and a massive turnout (84%?)), wanted a change.

 jimtitt 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> You are right, the situation is different, the main difference is that the European Union, unlike the United Kingdom, is an union based on consent rather than coercion.

Scotland voted for the Union because the country was bankrupt and the grass was greener on the other side.

2
 Ciro 20 Nov 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> Sounds like you have a bit more time available to sort out some practicalities like what currency to use and how to manage your border if you aspire to EU membership.

> Then maybe you can have a less half arsed and better prepared ballot paper than we had for Brexit.

You seem to be confused between the half arsed preparations of the Westminster government and the well laid plans of the Scottish parliament. Maybe you missed the 670 page whitepaper on Scotland's future at the last referendum, that set out what decisions would need to be made after a vote for independence and how they would be taken?

Full read here of you want to see how the people should be informed prior to voting for such change:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/

I'd recommend downloading the pdf rather than reading through the web form.

Here's what it said about currency:

Currency

The pound is Scotland’s currency just as much as it is the rest

of the UK’s.

The expert Fiscal Commission Working Group concluded that

retaining Sterling as part of a formal Sterling Area with the UK

would be the best option for an independent Scotland and the

rest of the UK.

The Scottish Government agrees with that view. Using

Sterling will provide continuity and certainty for business

and individuals, and an independent Scotland will make a

substantial contribution to a Sterling Area. We will therefore

retain the pound in an independent Scotland.

(And before you tell me rUK would say no, they can't say no, anyone can use the pound as their currency, it's traded openly on the markets. A new currency would only be required if the economic conditions between Scotland and rUK diverged sufficiently to make it necessary)

> Every cloud, eh ?

Not really, no. I'd like the change to vote again thanks. 

In reply to Ciro:

But if we were to retain Sterling, would we then have to switch to the Euro on rejoining the EU? What are the implications of this?

 Ian W 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But if we were to retain Sterling, would we then have to switch to the Euro on rejoining the EU? What are the implications of this?


Yup, but I would suggest that is not insurmountable; there is the experience of several other similar nations to learn from.

 Ciro 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But if we were to retain Sterling, would we then have to switch to the Euro on rejoining the EU? What are the implications of this?

We would have to commit to switching to the Euro in theory - in practice that wouldn't have to mean actually switching any time soon, it just means you have to work towards the economic conditions that would allow it to happen. Some countries have been committed to switching for many years.

In reply to Ciro:

> We would have to commit to switching to the Euro in theory - in practice that wouldn't have to mean actually switching any time soon, it just means you have to work towards the economic conditions that would allow it to happen. Some countries have been committed to switching for many years.

But does that apply to new members?

 Ian W 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

it does - all new members must work towards using the Euro.

In reply to Ciro:

Yes scotland could use the pound but it couldn't borrow against it or set interest rates etc, without Westministers permission. You'd be as tied to the whims of the Bank of England as you are now. 

 Ciro 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But does that apply to new members?

Yep, you commit to joining the euro at some point in the future, there's no timetable. Ideally, the EU wants everybody in. In practice, they know that's not always possible and a political acceptance will do

 Ciro 20 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> Yes scotland could use the pound but it couldn't borrow against it or set interest rates etc, without Westministers permission. You'd be as tied to the whims of the Bank of England as you are now. 

Absolutely. It would be "as you were" until such time as the Scottish government decided it was better to take another path. 

I don't imagine that will take too long, as in the long run there will be better options, but in the short to medium term it's no barrier to independence.

In reply to Ciro:

> Absolutely. It would be "as you were" until such time as the Scottish government decided it was better to take another path. 

> I don't imagine that will take too long, as in the long run there will be better options, but in the short to medium term it's no barrier to independence.

Estonia which was or is financially solvent etc took 9 years to join the eu. There is no short term, everything is medium and beyond. 

 Alyson30 20 Nov 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

> Scotland voted for the Union because the country was bankrupt and the grass was greener on the other side.

What you mean is, a few aristocrats did so, against massive popular opposition, to save their finances.

In any case whatever happened in 1707 isn’t relevant today. What’s relevant is that for any union to be democratic, or in fact any form of government to be democratic, it has to have the consent of the people.

 Alyson30 20 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> Yes scotland could use the pound but it couldn't borrow against it or set interest rates etc, without Westministers permission. You'd be as tied to the whims of the Bank of England as you are now. 

No change, then.

 Alyson30 20 Nov 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> I must admit, in a bit of a diversion, i think the Holyrood system is much better than either FPTP or full PR. 

> It needs to be convenient for both. maybe it looks like blocking, but a bad referendum might be worse than no referendum........ 

True, but if the Scottish government organised a bad referendum I am sure that the Scottish people are capable of punish them in the polls. We don’t need Westminster to tell us when or whether to organise a poll.

 Ciro 20 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> Estonia which was or is financially solvent etc took 9 years to join the eu. There is no short term, everything is medium and beyond. 

Of course there is a short term. Unless you've invented time travel so you can skip it?

9 years is pretty short term - Scotland is over 1000 years old.

1
 Doug 20 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

I visited Estonia several times during the accession negociations as part of various EU teams. They needed to make major changes to many state functions & their legal system which took time, unless there are major changes in the UK/Scotland in the near future, Scotland already applies all of the 'acquis communautaire' so would likely go through the accession process much more rapidly (assumming the other 27 countries are OK with Scotland joining).

In reply to Doug:

> I visited Estonia several times during the accession negociations as part of various EU teams. They needed to make major changes to many state functions & their legal system which took time, unless there are major changes in the UK/Scotland in the near future, Scotland already applies all of the 'acquis communautaire' so would likely go through the accession process much more rapidly (assumming the other 27 countries are OK with Scotland joining).

Which set of annual figures will Scotland use to show the eu it's annual GDP, debt and annual deficit/surplus?

Times have changed, the eu is having enough problems with some of its recent new members, it's financial stretched. I don't think they'll be so keen unless Scotland was clearly going to be a major net contributor long term  

 Ciro 21 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> Which set of annual figures will Scotland use to show the eu it's annual GDP, debt and annual deficit/surplus?

> Times have changed, the eu is having enough problems with some of its recent new members, it's financial stretched. I don't think they'll be so keen unless Scotland was clearly going to be a major net contributor long term  

Of course Scotland is going to be a net contributor in the long term.

Scotland's position on the north western fringe of the continental shelf, combined with the deep and narrow waterways that make it so attractive to nuclear subs, provide some of the strongest tidal currents in the world. 

We have a unique potential to provide power to Europe as we switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy. 

We are also an English speaking nation on the edge of Europe, which positions us (along with the Irish) strongly to take over the role that the UK had in bridging between the US and the EU.

Don't worry yourself about our ability to contribute to the European project. The future for Scotland will be bright.

1
In reply to Ciro:

> We are also an English speaking nation on the edge of Europe, which positions us (along with the Irish) strongly to take over the role that the UK had in bridging between the US and the EU.

You do know they teach English as a second language from age 9 or 10 on the continent. 

An American will have more chance understanding the French or a German speaking English, than a Glaswegian. 

7
In reply to summo:

> An American will have more chance understanding the French or a German speaking English, than a Glaswegian. 

Don't they teach standard English in Glasgow schools? When I did my teacher training in Aberdeen I couldn't understand the doric spoken by the children in the playgroud (or indeed the teachers in the staffroom), but everyone spoke standard English in the classroom.

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Don't they teach standard English in Glasgow schools? When I did my teacher training in Aberdeen I couldn't understand the doric spoken by the children in the playgroud (or indeed the teachers in the staffroom), but everyone spoke standard English in the classroom.

Oh dear. Sense of humour?

The idea that mainland Europeans need a native English speaker to mediate with the USA is just deluded. 

1
In reply to summo:

> The idea that mainland Europeans need a native English speaker to mediate with the USA is just deluded. 

Of course. My point was that, while agreeing with you that a Glaswegian speaking Glaswegian or an Aberdonian speaking Doric probably would probably not be intelligible to a north American, all educated Scottish people would be capable of speaking English in a way perfectly intelligible.

 GrahamD 21 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Of course Scotland is going to be a net contributor in the long term.

That's ok, then.  In the long term you may get EU membership.   In the meantime,  what are you going to do ? What currency are you using ?

3
 GrahamD 21 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> The idea that mainland Europeans need a native English speaker to mediate with the USA is just deluded. 

Especially as the UK as a whole are pretty incapable of speaking any, let alone any, European languages.  Being able to speak English isn't the problem,  being unable to speak German or French is.

In reply to GrahamD:

> That's ok, then.  In the long term you may get EU membership.   In the meantime,  what are you going to do ? What currency are you using ?

Very good questions. I am by no means a convinced nationalist. I am interested in the argumemts both ways.

In reply to GrahamD:

> Especially as the UK as a whole are pretty incapable of speaking any, let alone any, European languages.  Being able to speak English isn't the problem,  being unable to speak German or French is.

Exactly. If you speak English and french/Spanish as a 2nd and 3rd language, that opens up goodwill in a great many countries, even if the language of business might default to English. 

 Alyson30 21 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> Oh dear. Sense of humour?

> The idea that mainland Europeans need a native English speaker to mediate with the USA is just deluded. 

They don’t need to indeed, but it’s much easier for Americans business to set up in the UK/Ireland than say France. Language is one thing but also business culture and ease of doing business.

The UK in the EU was perfect for American businesses wishing to establish their European hub. Not only it’s easy with no language barrier and a friendly business environment, but with freedom of movement they got access to the entire European talent pool, with all the languages they need to operate in Europe.

This has all changed since brexit, and I am already seeing a huge impact. That could become a lot worse if the UK refuses to accept EU data regulation and US companies can’t process EU customers data easily in the UK.

Post edited at 15:02
In reply to Alyson30:

> They don’t need to indeed, but it’s much easier for Americans business to set up in the UK/Ireland than say France. Language is one thing but also business culture and ease of doing business.

> The UK in the EU was perfect for American businesses wishing to establish their European hub. Not only it’s easy with no language barrier and a friendly business environment, but with freedom of movement they got access to the entire European talent pool, with all the languages they need to operate in Europe.

Language barrier! Didn't seem a problem for businesses HQing themselves in the Netherlands and Luxembourg for tax purposes. 

 Ciro 21 Nov 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> That's ok, then.  In the long term you may get EU membership.   In the meantime,  what are you going to do ? What currency are you using ?

Which part of "we'll use the pound" is it you're finding hard to grasp?

If rUK doesn't want a currency union, Scotland walks away debt free, and uses the pound to trade without a currency union.

If rUK wants a currency union we split the debt and the currency, and carry on as you were except Scotland had its own tax raising powers, etc. 

 Alyson30 21 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> Language barrier! Didn't seem a problem for businesses HQing themselves in the Netherlands and Luxembourg for tax purposes. 

There is a difference between a brass plate and setting up actual operations - sales, customer service and support, professional services, engineering etc etc... that require a job market of a certain size, being an attractive destination for talents, and a business environment they understand. 

I’m just telling you what I have seen working for big American tech companies. For them the UK was a very convenient place to set up their EMEA hub. 

Brexit has changed that for sure, and to be honest if there isn’t a good deal - particularly on data - that will leave many of them without any easy option.

Post edited at 15:47
 Ciro 21 Nov 2020
In reply to summo:

> You do know they teach English as a second language from age 9 or 10 on the continent. 

> An American will have more chance understanding the French or a German speaking English, than a Glaswegian. 

Yet the UK has remained an important bridge to Europe for the US. 

In reply to Ciro:

> Yet the UK has remained an important bridge to Europe for the US. 

Likely as much to do with an alignment of foreign policy post ww2, fellow nuclear power, NATO member, so called special relationship between UK PM and USA President. 

1
 HansStuttgart 21 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Which part of "we'll use the pound" is it you're finding hard to grasp?

> If rUK doesn't want a currency union, Scotland walks away debt free, and uses the pound to trade without a currency union.

> If rUK wants a currency union we split the debt and the currency, and carry on as you were except Scotland had its own tax raising powers, etc. 

strong "The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history." feelings here...

 jimtitt 21 Nov 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Which part of "we'll use the pound" is it you're finding hard to grasp?

> If rUK doesn't want a currency union, Scotland walks away debt free, no way to raise credit, no credit guarantees and uses the pound to trade without a currency union and no money.

Corrected that for you.

3
 Naechi 21 Nov 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> That's ok, then.  In the long term you may get EU membership.   In the meantime,  what are you going to do ? What currency are you using ?


I'm don't know what currency we would use - I guess go with the SNP suggestion until another option/vision is offered up for debate.  I've no idea what currency labour/tory parties think we should use - I don't think it will be the unmitigated disaster they claim nor the land of sunshine that they claim the SNP is offering.

What currency do you think we should use?  Does it have to be "vote for independence = leave asap" brexit style?  Can we/parliment not talk about the best way do it?  Its a bigger question than the SNP can handle entirely by themselves...

In reply to jimtitt:

> Scotland voted for the Union because the country was bankrupt and the grass was greener on the other side.

On the first occasion Scotland did not vote for the union at all.  It was achieved by coercion and bribery of a small number of nobles who were nearly lynched by the Edinburgh locals for doing it.  Bribery of the Scottish negotiators should actually be enough on its own to invalidate the treaty.

On the first devolution referendum the UK government lied about how much oil was in the North Sea and Scotland's economic potential as an independent country.  They classified their own report so they could get away with deceiving the electorate.   They also gerrymandered the vote by requiring a majority of all potential voters rather than a majority of votes cast and basing the calculation on grossly inaccurate electoral rolls.

In the 2014 independence referendum they lied through their teeth about the chances of joining the EU, lied by claiming the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in the UK and then in the last day when they thought they might well lose came up with a completely new 'vow' promising new powers for the Scottish Parliament which was already being repudiated and backtracked on the morning after the vote was counted.   They handed out knighthoods and seats in the lords to businesspeople who made 'helpful' statements about how f*cked Scotland would be without England. 

The UK - more specifically the entitled English public school and Oxbridge governing class that run it - is one of the most duplicitous countries on the planet. 

6
 Ciro 21 Nov 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> strong "The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history." feelings here...

Well, you're certainly right that it's not going to be a simple process to agree the terms.

However it wouldn't be in rUK's interests to let Scotland walk away debt free so they'd be crazy not to arrive at a deal to officially share the currency.

And if they didn't, using the pound unofficially whilst getting ready to set up our own currency is perfectly feasible. It creates risk, as the only way to respond to global crises is raising taxes, but as a stop gap measure it would be fine. 

 GrahamD 21 Nov 2020
In reply to Naechi:

> What currency do you think we should use?  Does it have to be "vote for independence = leave asap" brexit style?  Can we/parliment not talk about the best way do it?  Its a bigger question than the SNP can handle entirely by themselves...

This, in a nutshell, encapsulates why independence cannot just be in the hands of the Scottish voters.  Scotland needs to do this in conjunction with the rUK.

Personally I'm ambivalent now about Scottish independence (pre Brexit I was definitely pro union) - but I'd hate for a Scottish independence to be conducted in the same half thought through and deceitful way Brexit was.

In reply to Ciro:

> However it wouldn't be in rUK's interests to let Scotland walk away debt free so they'd be crazy not to arrive at a deal to officially share the currency.

> And if they didn't, using the pound unofficially whilst getting ready to set up our own currency is perfectly feasible. It creates risk, as the only way to respond to global crises is raising taxes, but as a stop gap measure it would be fine. 

My guess is the pound is going to be so f*cked up after Brexit that we won't want to keep it and it will be easy to sell a path which ends up in Euro membership as the less risky option.

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Don't they teach standard English in Glasgow schools? When I did my teacher training in Aberdeen I couldn't understand the doric spoken by the children in the playgroud (or indeed the teachers in the staffroom), but everyone spoke standard English in the classroom.

When I was at school -  a very long time ago - we had 'elocution' lessons in primary school to teach us Received Pronunciation i,e, to talk like poncy middle class southern english people that say 'ahhh' instead of 'r'.

I don't think they do that any more.

 Naechi 21 Nov 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> This, in a nutshell, encapsulates why independence cannot just be in the hands of the Scottish voters.  Scotland needs to do this in conjunction with the rUK.

Of course - once the Scottish people decide that scotland should be an independent country, both states would need to decide what they wanted the future relationship to be, whats important, red lines () etc.  Debate/negotiation/democracy etc...

Post edited at 18:40
 Ian W 21 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> My guess is the pound is going to be so f*cked up after Brexit that we won't want to keep it and it will be easy to sell a path which ends up in Euro membership as the less risky option.

There could be a case for using the euro pretty well straight away in that scenario. Brexit wont help the £ for sure, but most of any potential fall is already baked into the exchange rate. Assuming a vote for independence, there will inevitably be a transition period, in which preparations could be made for adopting the euro asap.

 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> This, in a nutshell, encapsulates why independence cannot just be in the hands of the Scottish voters.  Scotland needs to do this in conjunction with the rUK.

For Scotland to extricate itself from the UK would have to involve rUK

However the decision on whether to trigger this process or not belongs to those who live in Scotland.

> Personally I'm ambivalent now about Scottish independence (pre Brexit I was definitely pro union) - but I'd hate for a Scottish independence to be conducted in the same half thought through and deceitful way Brexit was.

Another reason to not involve Westminster in a Scottish independence referendum.

2
 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> My guess is the pound is going to be so f*cked up after Brexit that we won't want to keep it and it will be easy to sell a path which ends up in Euro membership as the less risky option.

Witt the only caveat being that Scottish independence will just not happen.

3
In reply to Alyson30:

> For Scotland to extricate itself from the UK would have to involve rUK

I'm starting to think the best way to do it would be to declare independence almost immediately after the vote.  No f*cking about and most importantly not negotiating with England while our team are  UK citizens and subject to the laws of and surveillance by the UK state.

Start with the default position of not accepting any debt, not expecting any assets located in England and not accepting the way the maritime border between Scotland and England was redrawn a few years ago by Westminster.   Then negotiate in good faith for a transitional period and a settlement which is better for both sides than the default position. 

The great benefit of being independent from day 1 is we can start negotiating an accession agreement with the EU on day 1.   Negotiations with England could take a few years and we could have the backing of the EU if we play our cards in the right order.

Post edited at 04:34
1
 jimtitt 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Start with the default position of not accepting any debt, not expecting any assets located in England and not accepting the way the maritime border between Scotland and England was redrawn a few years ago by Westminster. 

That isn't the default position if Scotland went for UDI, we did all that in 1965.

 Dr.S at work 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Do you think that would play well in the manifesto?

 neilh 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So how does that work with state pension payments etc from U.K. Treasury and all those sort of issues. 

Not really a very bright thing to do in the cold light of reality. 

1
 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> So how does that work with state pension payments etc from U.K. Treasury and all those sort of issues. 

 

Not sure why this would be an issue, presumably the Scottish government creates a Scottish DWP and they take over the payments.

The “cold reality” is that most countries that left the UK in the past managed quite  well.


Anyway, all moot because Scotland won’t get independence even if 80% want it.

Post edited at 09:44
 Dr.S at work 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

Of course Scotland could set up those institutions - but Tom appears to be suggesting a complete split with no transition straight after a vote - that seems a little foolish!

 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Of course Scotland could set up those institutions - but Tom appears to be suggesting a complete split with no transition straight after a vote - that seems a little foolish!

I can see why he is saying that, if Scotland was doing UDI, you would probably want to move hyper-fast to avoid having the UK government taking over the structures or power.

But not very realistic indeed, mostly because Sturgeon and the rest of the Scottish government would be thrown in jail and the Scottish parliament shut down if they tried to do a UDI following a referendum not sanctioned by Westminster.

Post edited at 09:56
 jimtitt 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> The “cold reality” is that most countries that left the UK in the past managed quite  well.

Get real, of the two countries which declared UDI from the UK one fought a war for 8 years at a cost of ca 50,000 lives and the other ruined their country and after 14 years admitted total defeat and reverted to British rule.

 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

> Get real, of the two countries which declared UDI from the UK one fought a war for 8 years at a cost of ca 50,000 lives and the other ruined their country and after 14 years admitted total defeat and reverted to British rule.

I don’t dispute that and have made similar points above. Maybe just read what I have said.

Post edited at 10:57
1
In reply to jimtitt:

> That isn't the default position if Scotland went for UDI, we did all that in 1965.

Tony Blair did it in 1999 with the collusion of the Tories at the time of setting up Scottish Parliament in order to steal some of the oil for England if Scotland ever became independent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Adjacent_Waters_Boundaries_Order_1999

'The European Journal of International Law published a detailed article in 2001[8] entitled "Prospective Anglo-Scottish maritime boundary revisited". This concludes that, in the event of Scottish independence, the maritime border between Scotland and England as set out in the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 would not comply with international law.'

 elsewhere 22 Nov 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

> Get real, of the two countries which declared UDI from the UK one fought a war for 8 years at a cost of ca 50,000 lives and the other ruined their country and after 14 years admitted total defeat and reverted to British rule.

Which one is the USA?

 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Do you think the UK government would bother with things like “international law” ?

1
 alan moore 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Tony Blair did it in 1999 with the collusion of the Tories at the time of setting up Scottish Parliament in order to steal some of the oil for England if Scotland ever became independent.

You're funny.

Did you write the wiki as well?

In reply to neilh:

> So how does that work with state pension payments etc from U.K. Treasury and all those sort of issues. 

The UK pays pensions out of ongoing taxation and borrowing.  They don't come out of a massive fund collected from people's contributions.

Since they are paid from ongoing taxation and borrowing they just transfer to Scotland and instead of us sending our tax money to England first we cut out the middleman.

> Not really a very bright thing to do in the cold light of reality. 

Unionists seem to think that the English have some kind of magical power.  Every other country in the world manages these things without the English, Scotland can too.

1
 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to alan moore:

> You're funny.

> Did you write the wiki as well?

What he says is true as far as I know. Irrelevant, but true.

Post edited at 11:16
In reply to alan moore:

Why do you think they redrew a long established maritime border in a way which moved some oil fields to the English side at the same time as establishing the Scottish Parliament?

It is pretty f*cking obvious Westminster was trying to weaken the economic argument for independence and make sure some of the oil went to England if it happened.  

In reply to Alyson30:

> Do you think the UK government would bother with things like “international law” ?

I think the post Brexit and post Scottish Independence  rUK will be faced with new realities about its position in the world.   The map is going to look different when Scotland rejoins the EU. 

In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Do you think that would play well in the manifesto?

Thankfully, I don't write manifestos, I write sh*te on the internet.

Whether it played well would depend on how badly f*cked the UK was at the time of the Holyrood election and how angry people were.

If Boris goes ahead with the stuff he is talking about like removing powers from Holyrood and giving them to local councils and Westminster - blatantly messing with the devolution settlement because the Tories never get elected and if Brexit goes as badly as it is likely to go I thing the 'get it over with' approach could play well.

If the Tories pass laws in Westminster to unwind devolution my guess is it will move another 10% into the pro-Indy camp and Sturgeon will feel she has the support to get a lot more confrontational.  

 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If the Tories pass laws in Westminster to unwind devolution my guess is it will move another 10% into the pro-Indy camp and Sturgeon will feel she has the support to get a lot more confrontational.  

Exactly, but the more confrontational it gets, and the more Scottish people want independence, the more the British state will tighten its grip on power in Scotland.

And that is your problem, the more independence is popular in Scotland the more devolution will be rolled back.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Thankfully, I don't write manifestos, I write sh*te on the internet.

At last. Something I agree with

 neilh 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I thought  your plan was to immediately declared UDI and spilt with no agreement.In which case I assume you would not want us to carry on paying benefits etc.

These are the type of things that are negotiated and sorted out without declaring folloeing a proper referendum etc. 

In reply to neilh:

> I thought  your plan was to immediately declared UDI and spilt with no agreement.In which case I assume you would not want us to carry on paying benefits etc.

What I'm saying is that there is an argument that the way to go is to declare independence immediately the day after a referendum.  Ideally that would be a referendum with an s30 order and it would not be UDI but the Tories seem determined to block that.  If we give the Tories a veto or control of the timing and arrangements we will never get independence.   

I think the default outcome of a hard split is not that bad for Scotland and a good opening negotiating position.   I also think we will get a far better deal and make faster progress if we negotiate as an independent country starting out from a hard split as the default outcome.  We'd do far better with a negotiating team and civil service which are already citizens of Scotland rather than citizens of the country we are negotiating with.

> These are the type of things that are negotiated and sorted out without declaring folloeing a proper referendum etc. 

Usually they aren't.  Most of the time independence is resisted until it is clear it can't be stopped and then it happens fast and is patched up after the fact.   Look at Eastern European countries and the way they broke free of the Warsaw pact and relatively quickly managed to join the EU and greatly improve their economy.

 mondite 22 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> These are the type of things that are negotiated and sorted out without declaring folloeing a proper referendum etc. 

I do find the overlap between the more nutty brexiteers and more nutty Scottish nationalist fascinating. Everything from the it will be easy to sort out to the "the other party are weaker and we will just make them do what we want".

1
 Jim Fraser 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> ... ...  Most of the time independence is resisted until it is clear it can't be stopped and then it happens fast and is patched up after the fact.   Look at Eastern European countries and the way they broke free of the Warsaw pact and relatively quickly managed to join the EU and greatly improve their economy.

Yes. 

All this stuff is part of best practice in international law. Conventions on the succession of states cover all the basics and are sitting there on the website of the UN Treaty Collection for any of the world's 7 billion to look up if they need to.

Some do love to point out that hardly anyone has ratified those conventions. Well surprise surprise: UN nation states have not ratified conventions for the dissolution of nations states. The turkeys have not voted for Christmas. That does not prevent them from being best practice and the most effective way for all parties to conduct themselves. 

Essentially there are 3 ways that these matters can be conducted.

1. Accept the Conventions as best practice and quickly move to a Convention solution allowing everyone to get on with there lives and build their economies in the new reality. Very much the cheapest option.

2. Do not accept the Conventions and bitch about everything during 30 years of talks, shouting matches and infantile posturing. (Sound familiar?) After the destruction of a generations worth of GDP growth and several hundred hours of anger management, agreement close to Convention conditions is agreed but nobody is ever forgiven. A very expensive option.

3. War. Definitely nobody is ever forgiven. 100 year minimum recovery time. The ridiculously expensive option.

1
 neilh 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well it took a few years for Czech and Slovakia to sort out which is a better comparison. 
 

 Dr.S at work 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Jim Fraser:

So, option 2 then? Sounds attractive!

 Jim Fraser 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> So, option 2 then? Sounds attractive!

It does have a sort of familiar ring to it. 

1
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> So, option 2 then? Sounds attractive!

The status quo isn't attractive either.   It is a gradual and inexorable centralisation of economic power in London and continual loss of the best and brightest people and the headquarters elements of businesses from Scotland because it is hard to make a career in Scotland when all the money is in London.   

It is also an acceptance that despite the fact that we never vote Tory we are going to get Tory governments most of the time because the English want them, that our economy is going to be f*cked up by English dreams of a return to empire, that we are going to be used as a nuclear dumping ground, that we will never get fair market value for our energy, that we will not be EU citizens with freedom of movement across Europe, and that our political system will be prevented from modernisation by England clinging to royals, lords, first past the post and similar bullsh*t.

1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The UK pays pensions out of ongoing taxation and borrowing.  They don't come out of a massive fund collected from people's contributions.

You think on day one Scotland can raise money from government borrowing without being a recognised country, without its own currency, without a central bank, with no record of borrowing etc. etc.

 Blunderbuss 22 Nov 2020
In reply to mondite:

> I do find the overlap between the more nutty brexiteers and more nutty Scottish nationalist fascinating. Everything from the it will be easy to sort out to the "the other party are weaker and we will just make them do what we want".

I always thought the economic argument for Scottish independence was even weaker than Brexit for the UK....I.e. Non existant and probably more damaging to Scotland than Brexit. 

2
 Jim Fraser 22 Nov 2020
In reply to MG:

There will be a Scottish Reserve Bank and a new currency will be issued at the earliest practical opportunity. Issuing a new currency in exchange for the existing substantial quantity of Sterling in the Scottish economy produces foreign reserves at high level for a country of this size. Monetary sovereignty ensures the ability to translate the true value of the economy into widespread prosperity without artificial constraints born of anachronistic failed economic fantasies based on corner shop accounting.

Asking the advice or permission of a failed state for any of these actions would be foolish in the extreme. 

Based on this thread so far, I am intrigued by the inability of UKCers to type 'economics' or 'scotland' into a search engine. 

3
 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to MG:

> You think on day one Scotland can raise money from government borrowing without being a recognised country, without its own currency, without a central bank, with no record of borrowing etc. etc.

One wonders how the numerous countries that broke away from the UK ever managed....

Post edited at 19:45
 Blunderbuss 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

Such as? 

 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
 mondite 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

Excellent. Now try the list which had Pound Sterling as their currency.

 Dr.S at work 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tom - even if that was a fair summary of the current position, it could change in either direction - it’s only in the last 20 odd years that we have had the current settlement - which is clearly a much greater degree of devolution than the previous 300 odd! 
 

 Blunderbuss 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

None of them exported 60% of their goods and services to the (rest of) UK and used pound sterling as their currency... 

 Alyson30 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> None of them exported 60% of their goods and services to the (rest of) UK and used pound sterling as their currency... 

Have you heard of a country called Ireland?

Post edited at 20:11
2
 Andy Hardy 22 Nov 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> I always thought the economic argument for Scottish independence was even weaker than Brexit for the UK....I.e. Non existant and probably more damaging to Scotland than Brexit. 

The arguments for independence, like brexit are not economic. Also like brexit, the thorny issue of borders and customs checks won't be wished away.

 elsewhere 22 Nov 2020
In reply to mondite:

Look up the British Empire currency union.

"This sterling part of the British Empire mainly consisted of Australia, New Zealand, the British Islands in the Pacific, British Southern Africa, British West Africa, the British West Indies, Gibraltar, Malta, and the South Atlantic territories."

Obviously West Africa and Southern Africa both more than one country.

So large populations but major exceptions Canada, Hong Kong and India.

Post edited at 21:23
 mondite 22 Nov 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Look up the British Empire currency union.

Yes I know about it including the fact it didnt actually require countries to use Pound Sterling. Just that they were linked to it.

Which is a rather significant difference.

In reply

> One wonders how the numerous countries that broke away from the UK ever managed....

Badly in many cases for a long time. 

 JohnBson 22 Nov 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I'm starting to think the best way to do it would be to declare independence almost immediately after the vote.  No f*cking about and most importantly not negotiating with England while our team are  UK citizens and subject to the laws of and surveillance by the UK state.

> Start with the default position of not accepting any debt, not expecting any assets located in England and not accepting the way the maritime border between Scotland and England was redrawn a few years ago by Westminster.   Then negotiate in good faith for a transitional period and a settlement which is better for both sides than the default position. 

> The great benefit of being independent from day 1 is we can start negotiating an accession agreement with the EU on day 1.   Negotiations with England could take a few years and we could have the backing of the EU if we play our cards in the right order.

I'm guessing you would have considered this a valid starting point for the government in the Brexit tasks then? After all it gets the job done. Our are you only support playing hardball and riding roughshod over your international responsibilities when it's your team playing. If you think one is acceptable and not the other you're a hypocrite. 

In reply to Jim Fraser:

> There will be a Scottish Reserve Bank

Created in a day!?

Post edited at 22:28

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.