/ Scottish vote obligates Boris & Eu in tradetalk?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
MargieB 01 Feb 2020

The overwhelming two Scottish votes  {2016 and GE 2019} must be a 3rd powerful incentive  for the EU as well as Boris to get a close relationship in the Brexit deal.  Eu must see that vote and be responsible {do they want to be so intransigent as to create the circumstances for a country's division} and isn't the European Research group { WTO rule supporters} now powerless, with Boris facing Scottish secession.

{In last Parliament ERG held great sway and got their way.}

Post edited at 07:37
19
Ciro 01 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB:

Boris Johnson will pay no regard whatsoever to Scotland's interest in the upcoming trade talks. We don't vote for him, or his party, and they have no realistic chance of turning that around in the short to middle term (I'd like to think long term too, but politics is a funny game).

That said, he will not want to go down in history as the PM who lost the United Kingdom, and the biggest problem for the independence campaign is now the prospect of a customs border between Scotland and rUK (imagine the project fear campaign for indyref2, when most of our trade is with rUK, and most of the rest crosses that border and passes through Dover) - so if anything, the Scottish votes would encourage looking for a less close relationship.

The ERG have sensibly gone quiet while the party won the election and "got brexit done", but they are still a powerful group and will start to flex their muscles again now that we are "out"... Brexit has finally begun, so now their real work begins, shaping post brexit Britain into the low tax, low wage, unregulated, privatised economy they are looking for.

As far as the EU is concerned, the break up of the UK is now a good thing - Scotland gaining independence and rejoining the EU will strengthen the EU and weaken the UK, at a time when the UK is setting itself up to compete against the EU. 

Although Northern Ireland is still suffering the economic hangover from the troubles, in the long run, Irish reunification will do the same.

But saying that, I don't expect the constitutional position of the UK to be uppermost in EU minds either - the relationship between rUK and the EU is going to be the overbearing economic interest; due to the size of England, that's where the majority of the trade is going to be. 

It should simply mean that the EU will be freer to talk with the Scottish government now, and it will be interesting to see how they play that. Choosing to sing goodbye in Scots language in the parliament seems highly symbolic so I have hopes they will now start to grease the path for Scotland to re-enter.

8
MargieB 01 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB:

I read in a newspaper that language is being modified to describe a deal based on World Trade Organisation rules as An Australian style deal to confound us all. Slimy

Also , it is a very nostalgical 1950s inappropriate  term to be applied to  us in UK where we are adjacent to Europe whilst Australia has shifted its economic forum to the Pacific rim as it becomes more comfortable with its geographical location. { eg foreign languages offered  at Australian schools  are Asian languages to suit the economic outlook}. The Cons are out of date!

6
Rog Wilko 01 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB:

What's wrong with obliges?

Dr.S at work 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Ciro:

When you say “we did not vote for him...” are you suggesting that no Scottish folk voted Tory?

what an enlightened kingdom if so!

MargieB 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Nothing wrong with obliges , It is a  direct question about whether the Scottish vote compels a response from EU and Boris in some form or will have any effect.My feeling is that it has to figure in the political decisions- but another thought Scotland would not be of any consideration in the political decisions ahead.

 The Scottish vote suggests a deal with close ties to EU.  In the last Parliament,  ERG were quick to justify a divergent from EU /WTO rules deal. I'm not so sure the latter view can hold as much sway in this new Parliament as in the last because of the hefty vote in  Scotland in the 2019 GE. Also Boris needed the ERG in the last hung Parliament to do anything but, with a hefty majority, he can now be more freestyle . I mean it is still the issue between a very hard and a softer Brexit, all over again!!!

Post edited at 22:23
Timmd 01 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB: If he has any conscience and takes notice of the UK us as a whole, one would like to think he'd factor how Scotland voted into any trade talks.

Spot the note of optimism in my post...

Post edited at 23:24
Ciro 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> When you say “we did not vote for him...” are you suggesting that no Scottish folk voted Tory?

> what an enlightened kingdom if so!

I did not mean to suggest that not a single person in Scotland voted conservative. 

That would be a rather absurd suggestion,  I'm rather confused as to why you might think I was trying to suggest it?

For clarity, the body politic did not vote conservative, and has not for a very long time. 

Dr.S at work 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Indeed - but there is a tendency to overstate degree of consensus among any given grouping, the English do this, the Scottish do that, the Welsh think thus - which your phraseology echoed. 

I think this tends to further entrench the increasingly balkanised body politic - I’m sure that’s often unintentional, but even then I find it unwelcome.

4
Timmd 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

I do see what you mean, but with the SNP having 48 seats voted for, and the Conservatives 6, the Lib Dems 4, and Labour 1, it's not 'too' inaccurate to say Scotland didn't vote for Boris Johnson, at least not on the whole. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results/scotland

Post edited at 00:07
2
jimtitt 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Timmd:

It's also accurate to say Scotland didn't vote SNP,  the majority didn't.

Dr.S at work 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Timmd:

I think FPTP further screws the situation.

2
summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Ciro:

A = How many votes did the snp secure?

B = What is the total number of people eligible to vote in Scotland? 

A/B * 100 = your answer.

Note. This does make the wild assumption that every snp voter is in favour of Scottish independence and those that aren't aren't. 

Post edited at 07:00
1
Ciro 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> A = How many votes did the snp secure?

> B = What is the total number of people eligible to vote in Scotland? 

> A/B * 100 = your answer.

> Note. This does make the wild assumption that every snp voter is in favour of Scottish independence and those that aren't aren't. 

What has any of that to do with whether Boris Johnson will think about Scottish votes during trade talks?

Ciro 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Indeed - but there is a tendency to overstate degree of consensus among any given grouping, the English do this, the Scottish do that, the Welsh think thus - which your phraseology echoed. 

> I think this tends to further entrench the increasingly balkanised body politic - I’m sure that’s often unintentional, but even then I find it unwelcome.

It's not my intention to offend, just pointing out the reality of the situation - Johnson has no hope of winning many seats in a FPTP election in Scotland - therefore he is not going to take our wanted and needs into consideration.

Not sure how to phrase it better, but do you disagree with that point?

jimtitt 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> What has any of that to do with whether Boris Johnson will think about Scottish votes during trade talks?


The premise in the original post was that there was an overwhelming vote for something and this would somehow influence Boris/EU thinking. Without any evidence there was an overwhelming anything the discussion is meaningless.

MargieB 02 Feb 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

There certainly wasn't an overwhelming Scottish vote for the conservative world view. And that conservative world view has a significant core within it of support for a  World Trade Organisation rules based Deal. You can't get round the evidence of the last parliament that the European Research Group are a significant hard Brexit core in the conservative so called" broad church of conservative thought." They booted out pretty much everyone who disagreed with them and those counterpoises have not returned. There is a projected outlook that a WTO rules based deal may even be the preferred choice of this government. Hard to say or judge but I would not put that idea out there,if  there were not evidence from last Parliament's actions.

Hence my idea that the Scottish voice in the 2019 GE is now the only counterpoise to that "WTO rules based deal " Conservative faction .

And the way this is kicking off, it seems ominous -

could it  be a tactic  to get a good reciprocation with EU 

or an end game of  distancing  EU with WTO rules only option left. I can't read it.

Post edited at 12:02
Dr.S at work 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Ciro:

I think you are correct on the seats, but not that this means the impact of policy on the scottish electorate will be ignored.

I think its clear that at the moment brexit is driving support for Scottish independence, and I think that this is not something the Tories want.

edited to add - not offended - you are generally quite considered on the topic - just irritated by politics in general and online discourse in particular.

Post edited at 12:04
Dr.S at work 02 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB:

surely the almighty clusterf*ck of a WTO based system on NI will be of greater import?

summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> What has any of that to do with whether Boris Johnson will think about Scottish votes during trade talks?

You and others claim a mandate etc..  just answer how many percent of the entire Scottish voting population did the snp accrue in December's GE? 

2
summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Ciro:

>  Johnson has no hope of winning many seats in a FPTP election in Scotland - therefore he is not going to take our wanted and needs into consideration.

Many would have said the same about Labour strongholds in north east england ten years ago... until December's GE. 

MargieB 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Can't disagree with you on that one. I focused on Scotland because I live there but NI people must also be looking at this closely, and that situation should also be an influence.

Post edited at 12:35
wbo2 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo: if you're going to use that logic then none has any mandate for anything bar Brexit in 2016

summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to wbo2:

> if you're going to use that logic then none has any mandate for anything bar Brexit in 2016

I just think you can't take a result from one specific question ie. Who do your want your mp in Westminster to be and imply that a person wants an independent Scotland. 

Results that are acted on need to be from specific questions. 

Post edited at 12:41
1
Timmd 02 Feb 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

> It's also accurate to say Scotland didn't vote SNP,  the majority didn't.

That's a very fair point. 

alastairmac 02 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB:

The most recent polling now shows a majority in favour of independence.....just. With the figure rising to almost 70% among those under 50. Unison have just confirmed their support for any decisions on referendums or plebiscites to be made at Holyrood. And Donald Tusk is making very positive noises about Scotland's route back into the EU. But there is a long way to go. Westminster under this Tory administration won't respect democracy and there's no chance they'll sanction a referendum that they know they'll lose. So any decision about the future of Scotland will have to be made by a clear majority of democratically elected Scottish politicians, supported by Scottish voters. The Scottish people are sovereign. Not Westminster. So the challenge now is to keep building that majority and the accompanying  international recognition of Scotland as a sovereign nation.

4
elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> I just think you can't take a result from one specific question ie. Who do your want your mp in Westminster to be and imply that a person wants an independent Scotland. 

Nor does it mean you do or don't want Brexit. 

> Results that are acted on need to be from specific questions. 

No. Specific questions without specific policies or negotiated deal is voting blind.

MargieB 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Timmd:

So, to move a bit on, why am I suspicious of the UK not wanting tto align with environmental, labour standards? Raab said today on Andrew Marr show,, to paraphrase he said ,well we are in advance of those standards in plastics and a few other things." A suggestion the UK is aiming for advance in some ways  without signing up to maintaining at least  EU standards.

So OK we can have advanced standards - he suggests-  but no British government in the past would have given us the environmental standards we have today- we relied totally on EU for that trajectory in our politics.

and given a lot of EU trade is agricultural  goods it seems so suspicious  that he does not want to write certain standards into a deal? He's suggesting advancement in standards over and above EU but it  also allows decline in those standards at a later date under different governments. 

Post edited at 18:14
2
Timmd 02 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB: 

> So, to move a bit on, why am I suspicious of the UK not wanting tto align with environmental, labour standards? Raab said today on Andrew Marr show,, "well we are in advance of those standards in plastics and a few other things." A suggestion this will be the general trajectory of a UK governement anyway without signing up to EU standards.  So OK we can have advanced standards - he suggests-  but no British government in the past would have given us the environmental standards we have today- we relied totally on EU for that trajectory in our politics, and given a lot of EU trade is agricultural  goods it seems so suspicious  that he does not want to write this into a deal? He's suggesting advancement in standards over and above EU but it  also allows decline in those standards at a later date under different governments. 

I'm of a similar mind, and thinking it's time to look into how one might engage in pressing for us to maintain current standards. 

MargieB 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Timmd:

The current UK stance suggests they retain the option of  lowering standards for future deals with other countries that are not so discerning eg America and China and Russia even. This initial position suggests a hard Brexit. But I'll keep listening as demands will be made- just we can't make them!!!Only the EU,   at least for Scotland. NI have more leverage unless our bloc 2019 GE vote is taken into account.

I was going to add that the desire for standards probably would also be desirable in England.

Post edited at 19:05
wbo2 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Timmd: if you really want to influence these decisions you need to win general elections.  

Scotland has a bit more bite but given that a referendum on independence is difficult, not much.  Westminster isn't obliged to do anything, esp with such a large majority. 

There is a model for the uk called Singapore on Thames.

summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Nor does it mean you do or don't want Brexit. 

Indeed. What you should have is a referendum with a clear in/out question. 

> No. Specific questions without specific policies or negotiated deal is voting blind.

It becomes chicken and egg. You can't have policy until after this years negotiations, you can't negotiate until you leave. Just the way eu likes it, make it near impossible to leave practically. 

1
elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Indeed. What you should have is a referendum with a clear in/out question. 

> It becomes chicken and egg. You can't have policy until after this years negotiations, you can't negotiate until you leave. Just the way eu likes it, make it near impossible to leave practically. 

Funny, the Scottish government managed to have a 600 page policy before the indy vote. 

Good to know the EU is still there to blame for the lack of a Brexit policy.

Post edited at 19:42
summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Funny, the Scottish government managed to have a 600 page policy before the indy vote. 

600 pages and they still couldn't answer the simple question of what currency they'd use, which kind of makes all their other speculation worthless. 

3
elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

600 pages more concrete than the Brexit "plan" of 2016.

And at least weaknesses in a plan that exists can be debated in a serious manner.

Post edited at 19:56
summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> 600 pages more concrete than the Brexit "plan" of 2016.

Hardly at least the UK could promise it would use the UK pound still... what will an independent Scotland use? Your currency dictates so much, your borrowing, your interest rates, ability to trade and so on. 

4
elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

I expect it would be like most countries, continuity followed by transition. 

The nearest example for me might be Ireland, for you it might be Norway.

Mr Lopez 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Talking of simple questions

Now that you have achieved your wishes for the UK to leave the EU, will you have the integrity of living by what you created and depart Sweden, as the right of living in Europe is one of the rights you have voted and fought to be removed from millions of people, and come back to live to this new independent United Kingdom you have created and have a slice of the shitcake? Or are you just another one of those who voted for the negative consequences of your decisions to only affect 'others' while presumably being sheltered of them yourself?

Asking for a friend

Post edited at 20:11
1
tom_in_edinburgh 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Hardly at least the UK could promise it would use the UK pound still... what will an independent Scotland use? Your currency dictates so much, your borrowing, your interest rates, ability to trade and so on. 

Current SNP policy is to start out by using the pound.  It is an internationally traded currency we can use it if we want, we have near zero influence on monetary policy anyway.  That gives us stability in a transition period while we negotiate with the EU and rUK and move to a long term solution.  The long term solution is either a Scottish currency or the Euro.

Blunderbuss 02 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Current SNP policy is to start out by using the pound.  It is an internationally traded currency we can use it if we want, we have near zero influence on monetary policy anyway.  That gives us stability in a transition period while we negotiate with the EU and rUK and move to a long term solution.  The long term solution is either a Scottish currency or the Euro.

And if England refuses to allow you to use sterling, what happens then? 

2
Ian W 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Hardly at least the UK could promise it would use the UK pound still... what will an independent Scotland use? Your currency dictates so much, your borrowing, your interest rates, ability to trade and so on. 


To start with Scotland would continue with sterling, until it could get its own central bank in place and get enough fiscal and monetary stability to convince the international banking community they are able to run things themselves; they can then fully set tax rates / budgets etc and then chose their own currency. Could be Euro, could be Sterling, could be ScotPound, could be US Dollar. Really not sure what they would choose in practice; if they keep to Sterling then they would remain too tied to westminster for comfort (given the main driver for independence appears to be separation from westminster), and the only currency that would allow much freedom in matters monetary would be the dollar. Emotionally, i wouldnt bet against using the Euro, or their own currency tied to the Euro.

With a nod to Tom in Edinburgh, who clearly wrote his post simultaneously with me!!

Post edited at 20:21
Ian W 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> And if England refuses to allow you to use sterling, what happens then? 


England can't refuse. They could make unpleasant noises, but if any other nation wishes to use an existing currency, the "host" nation cant do much about it. Check all the nations using the dollar, and the UAE, whose currency is tied to the dollar, despite operating the economy in a completely different fashion to the USA (esp. in terms of budget deficits).

3
elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> And if England refuses to allow you to use sterling, what happens then? 

Would that require England to convert at sterling into something that can't be traded internationally? Possible I suppose but unlikely.

Post edited at 20:27
elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Ian W:

I guess 50 or a 100 countries have got a new currency and independence in the last 100 years. 

Due to end of empires, ww2, end of cold war and introduction of euro most of Europe has changed currency 2, 3 or 4 times. So within Europe there's 50 or a 100 currency changes.

Even the UK has had six or seven currencies in the last hundred years. Pegged to gold, unpegged from gold, pegged to dollar, unpegged from dollar, entry to ERM, exit from ERM. Plus floating GBP between gold, dollar and ERM. The names sterling or pound are the constants.

summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Ian W:

Dollar would allow zero freedom. UK sterling the same. Euro the same and likely a slight devaluation that most have suffered when they joined. So independent -ish Scotland. 

A new Scottish pound, but then they wouldn't get eu entry unless they agreed to the euro. Catch 22. 

2
summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  we have near zero influence on monetary policy anyway.  

An independent Scotland will have way less MEPs proportionally than it currently has MPs in Westminster. So you are giving up a small voice for no voice. 

Proportionally speaking you have more influence per capita than regions of England, because of the disproportionate number of Scottish MPs (large constituencies, low population). 

3
elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Dollar would allow zero freedom. UK sterling the same. Euro the same and likely a slight devaluation that most have suffered when they joined. So independent -ish Scotland. 

> A new Scottish pound, but then they wouldn't get eu entry unless they agreed to the euro. Catch 22. 

You mean the same condition like you in  Sweden. How's your Euro adoption going?

See wiki if you've forgotten...

Sweden does not currently use the euro as its currency and has no plans to replace the krona in the near future. Sweden's Treaty of Accession of 1994 made it subject to the Treaty of Maastricht, which obliges states to join the eurozone once they meet the necessary conditions.

Post edited at 21:18
Blunderbuss 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> England can't refuse. They could make unpleasant noises, but if any other nation wishes to use an existing currency, the "host" nation cant do much about it. Check all the nations using the dollar, and the UAE, whose currency is tied to the dollar, despite operating the economy in a completely different fashion to the USA (esp. in terms of budget deficits).

Fair enough, I seem to remember the Tories saying Scotland wouldn't be able to use Sterling as their currency if they voted for independence....was this bollocks? 

summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> You mean the same condition like you in  Sweden. How"s your Euro adoption going?

> See wiki if you've forgotten...

> Sweden's Treaty of Accession of 1994 made it subject to the Treaty of Maastricht, which obliges states to join the eurozone once they meet the necessary conditions.

They daren't enforce as it'll likely force or trigger a referendum , don't think they'll risk that one! There was an outcry a few years ago when they changed some krona notes for a new design and they became the same size as euros. Same in Denmark. Eu/euro love isn't exactly high. 

1
summo 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> Fair enough, I seem to remember the Tories saying Scotland wouldn't be able to use Sterling as their currency if they voted for independence....was this bollocks? 

In the dollars case, countries can't borrow etc.. create money with qe or set their own interest rates. As that would impact the value of the US dollar in the USA. 

elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> They daren't enforce as it'll likely force or trigger a referendum , don't think they'll risk that one! There was an outcry a few years ago when they changed some krona notes for a new design and they became the same size as euros. Same in Denmark. Eu/euro love isn't exactly high. 

So why do you raise what you know as a non-issue as a catch 22?

elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> Fair enough, I seem to remember the Tories saying Scotland wouldn't be able to use Sterling as their currency if they voted for independence....was this bollocks? 

Yes

Blunderbuss 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> In the dollars case, countries can't borrow etc.. create money with qe or set their own interest rates. As that would impact the value of the US dollar in the USA. 

So they could use sterling but not borrow... What use would that be considering they'd be running a deficit from the off? 

AJM 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

There's a potential difference between using and agreeing to share ownership of.

No-one can stop you from using any currency you like to collect taxes, make payments and generally run things, but you won't have any say over interest rates, QE etc (important for policymakers) nor any ability to be bailed out by the central bank (important for policymakers and banks/finance), unless you come to some sort of agreement that says you can.

AJM 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> So they could use sterling but not borrow... What use would that be considering they'd be running a deficit from the off? 

Anyone can issue dollar denominated or sterling denominated debt. The problem is that you have to actually have sterling/dollars to pay it back - if you don't control the currency you borrow in then the getoutofjailfree card of printing money, either to pay the debt or more generally to manage the economy, isn't there.

elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

Countries can borrow in another currency. It's normal. The lender might prefer to be owed USD, GBP or Euros. Riskier for the borrower, safer for the lender.

Post edited at 21:36
Ian W 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Steling only option short term, but tied to BoE. Dollar would be ok, but more of a long shot. Given Scotlands preference for staying in the EU, the Euro would be the sensible choice, and a small devaluation would be probably a good thing for a small economy starting out as an independent and given their budget deficit, almost inevitable in order to meet EU requirements for membership / use of the euro.

Ian W 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> Fair enough, I seem to remember the Tories saying Scotland wouldn't be able to use Sterling as their currency if they voted for independence....was this bollocks? 


Yes. It was in a "slightly one-sided" report in the Telegraph around the time of the referendum.

TobyA 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Now that you have achieved your wishes for the UK to leave the EU, will you have the integrity of living by what you created and depart Sweden, as the right of living in Europe is one of the rights you have voted and fought to be removed from millions of people,

If Mr Summo is a Swedish resident he wouldn't have got a vote in the referendum. He might have got a vote in general election if he hasn't been abroad for over 15 years. 

1
elsewhere 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Scotland will have way more MSPs proportionately than it currently has MPs in Westminster. 

Scotland will have way more MEPs than UK.

1
Ian W 02 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> In the dollars case, countries can't borrow etc.. create money with qe or set their own interest rates. As that would impact the value of the US dollar in the USA. 


Yes they can (borrow). And there are too many dollars in circluation (especially in m3 broad money supply measures, which the US treasury stopped reporting in 2006). M2 had in 2017 over $13.5 trillion in circulation, so there would be nothing scotland could do that would cause even the slightest flutter in the dollar.. The growth in cash in circulation and demand deposits of the dollar exceeded Scotlands estimated GDP, so qe wouldnt be necessary unless in exceptional circumstances.

See https://quickonomics.com/three-measures-money-supply/ for a quick definition of money supply measures.

Academic anyway, as long term an independent Scotland would use the Euro, as a new member of the EU.

Post edited at 22:13
summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Scotland will have way more MSPs proportionately than it currently has MPs in Westminster. 

Denmark(similar population) has 14 MEPs out of 705. If Scotland joined it would have roughly 14 out of 719.

Scotland currently has 59 out of 650 MPs. 

How do you think your representation will increase? 

elsewhere 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Denmark(similar population) has 14 MEPs out of 705. If Scotland joined it would have roughly 14 out of 719.

So Scotland will have 14 more MEPs than UK.

> Scotland currently has 59 out of 650 MPs. 

Scotland will have 129 out of 129 in parliament.

> How do you think your representation will increase? 

See above.

5
summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

No. You claimed Scotland will have greater eu representation. You are now twisting the argument because you'll likely only have 14 or 15 MEPs. 

1
elsewhere 03 Feb 2020

> Scotland will have way more MSPs proportionately than it currently has MPs in Westminster. 

Summo - have you misunderstood the above? It does not refer to MEPs.

> Scotland will have way more MEPs than UK.

You (Summo) suggest 14 Vs Zero. Technically infinitely more. Where is the twisting?

Post edited at 06:54
2
RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> A new Scottish pound, but then they wouldn't get eu entry unless they agreed to the euro. Catch 22. 

Completely wrong, but then again getting basic stuff wrong is your special skill.

Remind us, what currency do they have in Sweden ?

1
summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

I give up. 

There could be a 10000 Msps... it's irrelevent. That's just hot air amongst yourself. I wouldn't have too many more otherwise you'll need a whole load more of those special little window pod seats they have in holyrood.

Are you really trying to tell me Scotland wants to be isolationist?

Post edited at 07:31
4
RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> I give up. 

> There could be a 10000 Msps... it's irrelevent. That's just hot air amongst yourself.

Your dismissive and contemptuous attitude towards Scottish democracy is exactly why many in Scotland would want to leave.

Post edited at 07:48
3
RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB:

> The overwhelming two Scottish votes  {2016 and GE 2019} must be a 3rd powerful incentive  for the EU as well as Boris to get a close relationship in the Brexit deal.  Eu must see that vote and be responsible {do they want to be so intransigent as to create the circumstances for a country's division} and isn't the European Research group { WTO rule supporters} now powerless, with Boris facing Scottish secession.

If anything it’s an incentive to seek hard brexit as the harder the brexit the more difficult independence is economically.

summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear/elsewhere:

> Your dismissive and contemptuous attitude towards Scottish democracy is exactly why many in Scotland would want to leave.

I think you are getting me wrong. Like you (I presume) I've lived in Scotland. In my case Glasgow and Edinburgh, indeed Glasgow is probably massively under rated as a city, as much as Edinburgh is over rated. Based on my experience, the people I've met, worked with etc. I don't think an independent Scotland would as fair well as the snp make out. Imho.

Referendum; I think they should have indef2, but wait 5 years or thereabouts, so people know what the UK trade deal is and all it encompasses. The population vote knowing far more than they did in indef1 and which ever way the decision goes, they'll be able to carry more of the population with them and have less bitterness. 

> dismissive and contemptuous attitude towards Scottish democracy

Yes. Scotland is currently wasting too much time in fighting for independence(as usual), when they should be focusing on the many many actions which are already devolved to them. Otherwise they are in danger of being seen as an over paid version of neds in George square, with a bottle of buckie, putting the world to rights. 

2
wbo2 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:> An independent Scotland will have way less MEPs proportionally than it currently has MPs in Westminster. So you are giving up a small voice for no voice. 

That's absolutely discretionary though and dependent on political whim.  If Westminster chooses to ignore Scotland it can.  Europe is inherently less likely to have that political will.

summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to wbo2:

Germany might dodge recession again..  predicting 0.2% growth in last quarter. Spain and Italy shrank. And so on. The eu won't do anything that is in Scotland's favour unless it benefits the existing eu or euro far more. They won't even want Scotland to join unless it is clearly a net contributor. 

1
TobyA 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> No. You claimed Scotland will have greater eu representation. You are now twisting the argument because you'll likely only have 14 or 15 MEPs. 

I think you think you are being terribly clever here, but rather it seems you don't understand, or have forgotten how EU governance works.

An independent Scotland would have its ministers sit in the Council of Ministers, its PM sit on the European Council and presumably would get to appoint a Commissioner to the Commission. It would massively increase its power and representation within the EU. Even it's MEPs would all be MEPs from one member state, rather than a small proportion of MEPs from one member state.

1
summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to TobyA:

Which has little impact when majority vote rules on many eu issues. Time will tell of course. 

tom_in_edinburgh 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Germany might dodge recession again..  predicting 0.2% growth in last quarter. Spain and Italy shrank. And so on. The eu won't do anything that is in Scotland's favour unless it benefits the existing eu or euro far more. They won't even want Scotland to join unless it is clearly a net contributor. 

In other news,  "Scotland would be welcomed enthusiastically by the European Union if it won independence from the rest of the UK, according to Donald Tusk."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotland-eu-independent-donald-tusk-dominic-raab-indyref2-a9313336.html

elsewhere 03 Feb 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> I think you think you are being terribly clever here, but rather it seems you don't understand, or have forgotten how EU governance works.

> An independent Scotland would have its ministers sit in the Council of Ministers, its PM sit on the European Council and presumably would get to appoint a Commissioner to the Commission. It would massively increase its power and representation within the EU. Even it's MEPs would all be MEPs from one member state, rather than a small proportion of MEPs from one member state.

Also number of Scottish MEPs was 6 but according to Summo it would go to about 14.

TobyA 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Legislation that passes through the now "Ordinary" (ex Co-decision) procedure I guess is by far the majority of legislation, but it is the much less politically difficult business that doesn't impinge on sovereignty issues as much. Issues like foreign and security policy remain Council dominated, but even within the ordinary procedure, the Council of Ministers is still a partner to the Parliament - up until when we left Scotland had no independent representation on the Council in the way that a similar sized but independent member state (Finland for example) does. Indeed, much smaller independent member states (Estonia, for example) has its ministers on the CoM - something that Scotland (or Catalonia etc) never have.

summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> In other news,  "Scotland would be welcomed enthusiastically by the European Union if it won independence from the rest of the UK, according to donald tusk

He also said in the same interview..

He warned the process of rejoining the bloc would not be automatic and there would still be a process of application for any country wishing to join the EU, 

So no special fast track treatment. 

Post edited at 10:19
1
summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to TobyA:

Catalonia isn't a country why would it.

1
TobyA 03 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

A bit of selective headline grabbing there Tom, which the Independent is guilty of regularly as well it seems. I don't doubt that Tusk speaks for many around Europe in terms of the emotional sentiment but "He warned the process of rejoining the bloc would not be automatic and there would still be a process of application for any country wishing to join the EU." It's foolish to play down the legal requirements involved.

TobyA 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Sorry, I must have been going a bit fast. No Catalonia isn't a country so doesn't send ministers to the CoM. Scotland, isn't a country, so didn't when the UK was a member send ministers to the CoM. Scotland, if independent and having rejoined the EU, would then send ministers to the CoM.

Eric9Points 03 Feb 2020
In reply to TobyA:

I reckon the earliest Scotland could rejoin the EU would be 2033.

This government won't grant a second referendum. Those who think that complaining loudly will force the government to change their minds need to think back to the last century and the intransigence of conservative governments with a strong majority.

If the Scottish Parliament still wanted a second referendum after the next GE they may still not get it anyway depending who wins. Assuming Labour were elected then it seems very unlikely that if asked, they would grant one before they were able to demonstrate what a Labour government could do for Scotland and the country as a whole. Why would any new Labour PM do that? I'd imagine it wouldn't  be earlier than three years into their time in office.

If Scotland then voted to leave and immediately adopted it's own currency, it would need to in order to get into the EU, then the process would take about 5 years. People who want independence inside the EU lay great store by kind words of various Euro politicians but athe boring reality is that a process needs to be followed and that process takes 4 or 5 years.

So, no second referendum before 2028 and no re entry to the EU before 2033.

I think the other point to be clear about is that joining the EU will not solve the very great economic problems facing an independent Scotland. The 7% hit taken to the economy by leaving the UK will not be compensated for by the 2% Scotland would recover by rejoining the EU.

So why are is everyone getting all excited about this? Are too many people still at the first stage of the Brexit grief cycle?

2
tom_in_edinburgh 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I reckon the earliest Scotland could rejoin the EU would be 2033.

I reckon you're wrong.

Let's see what happens.

summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

It took Estonia from 97 to 04 to complete the entry process. But all circumstance are different and estonia was a relatively uncomplicated case. 

Archy Styrigg 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

I think you can make that 2038.
I can't see the Tories losing the next GE, sadly the country doesn't want Labour.

tom_in_edinburgh 03 Feb 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Scotland, isn't a country, 

That is fighting talk.

Actually, I'm coming to the conclusion that debating this on UKC is sterile.  The population of England is 10x that of Scotland and the English are exposed to different media and believe different politicians.  Pro indy arguments don't have a chance.  It is also a waste of time because it does not matter what the English think about Scottish Independence.  It is a matter for Scotland and if we want it bad enough we will take it.  

6
Le Sapeur 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> Check all the nations using the dollar

I think you may be a bit mixed up here. The only other countries that use the US dollar are a handful of 'ragtag' nations. Zimbabwe, Guam, El Salvador etc. Hardly a beacon of anything really.

Lots of countries use 'a Dollar', not the Dollar. Egypt uses a Pound, doesn't mean it's Pounds Sterling (although they did align with Sterling for a few decades, but they had their Pound before that).

TobyA 03 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You know exactly what I mean in that context - Scotland isn't currently an independent sovereign state recognised by the international community.

I know Somalilanders believe Somaliland is a country, and many Catalans and Palestinians and Tibetans feel the same about their 'countries', but they are not recognised as such currently. If Scotland was an internationally recognised country currently we wouldn't be having this discussion.

TobyA 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

Stuff I used to know from my studies without a second thought is now slipping out of my brain, but I think it was 1991 when Sweden said it wanted to join the EU, Finland then said it would also join just weeks later, and I think it was the start of 1995 when both of those countries and Austria acceded. So I guess you can do it in 4 years, Scottish legislation currently at least will already comply why with the acquis communitaire - basic EU law - but Nordic accsession didn't have to deal with the the euro. Croatia is the most recent new member and they took some time, but they had to deal with their war criminal issue. Hopefully that shouldn't be an issue for Scotland! ;-)

tom_in_edinburgh 03 Feb 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Stuff I used to know from my studies without a second thought is now slipping out of my brain, but I think it was 1991 when Sweden said it wanted to join the EU,

There's never been a situation where a country that had been in for decades left briefly and asked to rejoin.

There have been unusual situations such as when East Germany reunited with West Germany when the EU dealt with it very quickly and without fuss.

It is about political goodwill which comes from enthusiasm for Europe and not grandstanding and pissing people about.

The economically significant question is not when does Scotland become a full member of the EU in its own right, it is how quickly can Scotland regain access to the key services provided by the EU.  Right now the UK is not a member of the EU but it feels like it is because it still has access to the single market under the transition agreement.  As part of returning to the EU Scotland could have an accession agreement long before it formally joined as a full member.

RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Referendum; I think they should have indef2, but wait 5 years or thereabouts, so people know what the UK trade deal is and all it encompasses. The population vote knowing far more than they did in indef1 and which ever way the decision goes, they'll be able to carry more of the population with them and have less bitterness. 

I agree.

> > dismissive and contemptuous attitude towards Scottish democracy

> Yes. Scotland is currently wasting too much time in fighting for independence(as usual), when they should be focusing on the many many actions which are already devolved to them. Otherwise they are in danger of being seen as an over paid version of neds in George square, with a bottle of buckie, putting the world to rights.

So far I’d say the opposite, focusing the ideological energies on independence has allowed for pretty pragmatic policy making elsewhere. But of course, just like everywhere else in the U.K., cuts to public services are felt in Scotland.

1
tom_in_edinburgh 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Scotland currently has 59 out of 650 MPs. 

And it does us no good at all because the English/Unionist parties collude to block the MPs we have chosen.   There is an unspoken policy that they will not vote for any amendment proposed by the SNP no matter how reasonable.   The Tories regularly taunt Scotland in fairly rascist ways e.g. a Tory going on about Oliver Cromwell being from her constituency and suppressing the Scots.   

When an SNP MP gets up to speak the senior Tories walk out and most of the time the unionist media cut away.  Last week the SNP spokesperson on health who is an NHS cancer consultant got up to contribute to a debate on the NHS and the Health Minister Matt Hancock whose qualification is a PPE degree from Oxford walked out.

The central problem is that England is 10x the size of Scotland and an even larger multiple of Wales and NI.   The EU can work because there are 27 different countries with a range of sizes and there are country vetoes on key changes.  In an EU like system Scotland could have vetoed Brexit.  Coalitions and concensus are needed to get anything done.  In the UK, England can just laugh and do whatever the f*ck it likes.

RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> That is fighting talk.

> It is a matter for Scotland and if we want it bad enough we will take it.  

It isn’t a matter for Scotland I’m afraid. We need U.K. permission. How do you plan to “take it” ?

summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> But of course, just like everywhere else in the U.K., cuts to public services are felt in Scotland.

Health, education, emergency services, much of transport, fisheries, agriculture, local council services; housing, forestry, law & order and more are all devolved to Scottish parliament; with the additional powers to modify tax rates and it receives more per capita than England or Wales from the UK treasury. Any austerity is self inflicted purely to try and justify indef2. 

5
summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  unspoken policy......

Must be true then? Not just snp propaganda? 

> When an SNP MP gets up to speak the senior Tories walk out and most of the time the unionist media cut away.  Last week the SNP spokesperson on health who is an NHS cancer consultant got up to contribute to a debate on the NHS and the Health Minister Matt Hancock whose qualification is a PPE degree from Oxford walked out.

Health is devolved. His actions would be of no consequence to Scotland?

1
RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> > But of course, just like everywhere else in the U.K., cuts to public services are felt in Scotland.

> Health, education, emergency services, much of transport, fisheries, agriculture, local council services; housing, forestry, law & order and more are all devolved to Scottish parliament; with the additional powers to modify tax rates and it receives more per capita than England or Wales from the UK treasury. Any austerity is self inflicted purely to try and justify indef2.

The power to modify income tax is a bit illusory, without any other lever it’s not very practical to use. But the small leeway there is being used to good effect. I don’t think anybody contesta that healthcare in Scotland is better funded than in England.

But at the end of the day everything is allocated through a central budget with the Barnett formula, so if spending is cut across the U.K. so will it be in Scotland.

At the end of the day I don’t think it matters that much, the main thing that will matters for Scotland is immigration powers. 

1
summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> At the end of the day I don’t think it matters that much, the main thing that will matters for Scotland is immigration powers. 

Ah, infinite growth, based on finding people from poor countries who are willing to work for less than you are willing to pay your own existing national population. 

Why invade and create an empire, make the cheap labour come to you! 

8
RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Ah, infinite growth, based on finding people from poor countries who are willing to work for less than you are willing to pay your own existing national population. 

> Why invade and create an empire, make the cheap labour come to you!

Nonsense and numerically inept. As usual.

1
Andy Johnson 03 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> When an SNP MP gets up to speak the senior Tories walk out and most of the time the unionist media cut away.  Last week the SNP spokesperson on health who is an NHS cancer consultant got up to contribute to a debate on the NHS and the Health Minister Matt Hancock whose qualification is a PPE degree from Oxford walked out.

I wasn't aware of this, but this video is pretty disturbing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alQ-HHaeonA. Clearly choreographed. Nasty party then and now.

Post edited at 14:58
Ian W 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

And those that align to / track the dollar (UAE, not a small economy). But appreciate that the countries using the USD are not really economically significant. But in the global scheme of things, is Scotland? (Sorry, Tom, not looking for a fight). I was just using it as an example of countries being able to choose another nations currency should they wish. Which again is academic as the route for an independent Scotland would be sterling in the short term, and the Euro thereafter.

Post edited at 15:10
summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Nonsense and numerically inept. As usual.

Oh humour me... use your superior intellect and wisdom to explain why Scotland needs immigration? Scotland currently has 4% ish unemployment, low compared to much of Europe, but certainly not at the point that's considered full. 

1
alastairmac 03 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I think I came to the same conclusion some time ago. Over a number of threads relating to who governs Scottish, I've been disappointed by the level of the debate. And frankly by the lack of support for the simple principle that the it's a decision for the people of Scotland and them alone.

I think for those of us that reject being governed by Westminster, our time is better spent building further support around the majority that we now have, winning over more of our fellow Scottish voters, building international recognition for Scottish sovereignty and working with our politicians, trade unionists, church leaders, civic society and others to generate an unarguable consensus.

And if confirmatory plebiscite delivers a resounding "yes", opening negotiations on the terms for independence. If the Scottish people decide on self government, then no matter where you live, if you're a democrat, I hope you'll voice your support.

graeme jackson 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

>  And frankly by the lack of support for the simple principle that the it's a decision for the people of Scotland and them alone.

We made a decision in 2014. That was democracy. Sturgeon trying to force another referendum on us until she gets the result she wants, isn't.

> And if confirmatory plebiscite delivers a resounding "yes"

Presumably 6 years down the line we'd have another one to make it the best of 3?

2
Harry Jarvis 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> I think I came to the same conclusion some time ago. Over a number of threads relating to who governs Scottish, I've been disappointed by the level of the debate. 

I sometimes think that being 'disappointed by the level of the debate' is another way of saying 'I don't want to hear anyone who has an alternative point of view'. I'm not saying this is the case for you,  but I'm afraid all too often, in all political discussions, there is a great reluctance to accept that, every now and again, the 'other side' might actually have a point worth considering. For example, I recall discussions in the previous independence referendum regarding currency issues, and anyone disputing the Salmond line about the use of Pounds Sterling was shut down without any consideration of their arguments. 

If the Brexit debacle has taught us anything, it should be that disentangling entwined institutions is not simple (although some of us recognised that from the start). That is not to say that difficult negotiations and decisions cannot succeed, but to listen to some evangelists for independence, the unsuspecting might be led to believe that Scottish independence would be a simple process. Personally, I would prefer an honest recognition that disengagement will be complicated, and that Scotland may not be in the stronger bargaining position. 

Brushing aside inconveniences is not a winning formula. 

RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Oh humour me... use your superior intellect and wisdom to explain why Scotland needs immigration?

 

Because

1) we have a biased age pyramid due to historical patterns in birth rates

2) We need to attract international talents to get the skills we need to grow our economy.
 

> Scotland currently has 4% ish unemployment, low compared to much ofEurope, but certainly not at the point that's considered full. 

You are completely disconnected from what the needs of the economy are. 4% is essentially full employement by any standard, but go in the tech/financial sector in Edinburgh and Glasgow, the main issue we have is recruitment.

This isn’t about paying people less, on the contrary, It’s simply about having access to sufficiently deep and broad talent pool to be an investable country.

it does not require a superior intellect to understand that, for example, London, has different immigration policy needs than Scotland. 
 

The reality is that the U.K. government doesn’t want Scotland to thrive and grow in strength. Perfectly reasonable requests for having a slightly different immigration policy are brushed off immediately by Westminster.
It wants Scotland to suffer economically and demographically to eliminate the problem.
 

Post edited at 16:26
3
RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> I think I came to the same conclusion some time ago. Over a number of threads relating to who governs Scottish, I've been disappointed by the level of the debate. And frankly by the lack of support for the simple principle that the it's a decision for the people of Scotland and them alone.

> I think for those of us that reject being governed by Westminster, our time is better spent building further support around the majority that we now have, winning over more of our fellow Scottish voters, building international recognition for Scottish sovereignty and working with our politicians, trade unionists, church leaders, civic society and others to generate an unarguable consensus.

> And if confirmatory plebiscite delivers a resounding "yes", opening negotiations on the terms for independence. If the Scottish people decide on self government, then no matter where you live, if you're a democrat, I hope you'll voice your support.

I’d agree with all of that, but don’t forget to convince the people you actually need to convince to win this: the English conservative voter. 

1
alastairmac 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I don't think anybody doubts that winning independence from Westminster won't be easy. Or that winning over the unconvinced will need patient, considered and respectful debate. But my agreement with Tom, was simply that supporters of Scottish self government ( on this forum and elsewhere ), should now spend our time trying to convince those with a vote/influence in Scotland. Not spend time convincing those that won't have a say in determining the future of Scotland. 

RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> I don't think anybody doubts that winning independence from Westminster won't be easy. Or that winning over the unconvinced will need patient, considered and respectful debate. But my agreement with Tom, was simply that supporters of Scottish self government ( on this forum and elsewhere ), should now spend our time trying to convince those with a vote/influence in Scotland. Not spend time convincing those that won't have a say in determining the future of Scotland. 

I repeat, those that have a say in determining the future if Scotland aren’t Scottish, they are English.

As long as the Independence movement doesn’t understand that, you’ll keep losing.

1
alastairmac 03 Feb 2020
In reply to graeme jackson:

Yes, we made a decision in 2014, based on coercive misinformation, unfulfilled promises and the threat that voting for independence would lead to leaving the EU. Political and economic circumstances have changed massively over the last six years. And democracy is a process not an event. If the people of Scotland want to change their minds then in a democratic society, we get to do that. The latest You gov poll now shows support for independence now above 50%. For those under 60 the proportion of those supporting independence rises to 60%. And for those under 50, it rises again to just under 70%. The same poll shows that over 60% of people in Scotland now agree that any decision about the future of Scotland must be made in Scotland and not Westminster.  The Survation poll released this evening will, I'm pretty sure, make even bleaker reading for Unionists. I understand that not everybody in Scotland supports independence. That's an individual choice that people will make at some point in the near future. But if you deny the people of Scotland that choice then you're weakening our democracy to a very dangerous degree. 

Harry Jarvis 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> I don't think anybody doubts that winning independence from Westminster won't be easy.

I'm afraid my experience with independence-supporting friends suggests otherwise. 

> Or that winning over the unconvinced will need patient, considered and respectful debate. But my agreement with Tom, was simply that supporters of Scottish self government ( on this forum and elsewhere ), should now spend our time trying to convince those with a vote/influence in Scotland. Not spend time convincing those that won't have a say in determining the future of Scotland. 

This is an interesting point. While we have a Conservative government in Westminster, there is little chance of an agreement for a second referendum, and the levers available to supporters of independence are short and not very strong. So it could be argued that the best chance for another independence referendum lie with the election of a different government in Westminster. From an independence point of view, this would be probably be best if it were a Labour/SNP coalition, at which point the levers are able to exert far more power. So, if you want another Scottish independence referendum, you need to be supporting the Labour Party in England. Which is a slightly topsy-turvy way of going about things, but then politics is rarely simple and linear. 

alastairmac 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

At present you're right. We know that Westminster and this government won't play by the rules. They never do. But I think that the "game" has now entered a new stage..... the focus is now on building consensus at home, democratic validation at the right time and international recognition for Scottish sovereignty. Negotiations with Westminster over the separation terms will come when those things have built the foundations for a "grown up" conversation.

Post edited at 17:21
alastairmac 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I agree with a lot of what you say.....but waiting for Westminster to "give permission" for a referendum is only a holding position. And having received a nasty fright after the last referendum, I think Westminster under any form of government will resist another in every way possible. Scotland is just too economically and strategically valuable to the "UK Project". So it begs the question, what do you do if there is a meaningful majority in Scotland that want independence, a government in Scotland elected on a mandate to deliver that, yet the means to achieve it are denied to them by a government in Westminster that is behaving in an increasingly undemocratic manner. You have to find alternative, peaceful and democratic routes to win the case for independence and open negotiations on the terms of separation. There's no doubt this decade is going to be an "interesting" one for Scotland and for the other nations of the UK.

summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> 1) we have a biased age pyramid due to historical patterns in birth rates

> 2) We need to attract international talents to get the skills we need to grow our economy.

You think these are unique positions to Scotland?

How many countries don't have an ageing population?

An ageing population is something 99% of the world needs to adapt to, in terms of health or social care, pension funding and so on. 

Are you suggesting Scotland's long since independent and devolved education system hasn't been delivering for the previous 10, 20, 30, 40 years and you've been relying on those educated elsewhere to shore up its industry? 

1
RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> You think these are unique positions to Scotland?

> How many countries don't have an ageing population?

Many. 

> An ageing population is something 99% of the world needs to adapt to, in terms of health or social care, pension funding and so on. 

Again completely untrue and statistically inept, if anything many countries have the opposite problem.

But in any case isn’t an argument.
It isn’t because many countries face a similar issue that we should be deprived of the tools available to mitigate it.

> Are you suggesting Scotland's long since independent and devolved education system hasn't been delivering for the previous 10, 20, 30, 40 years and you've been relying on those educated elsewhere to shore up its industry?

You’re completely off the mark, as usual, Scottish graduates are very qualified and most of them will find employment.


But the simple reality is that there simply aren’t enough people in Scotland. It’s not a problem of the education system it’s simply a problem of population size. Scotland is a small country with a small population. 

Post edited at 17:42
3
TobyA 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> the focus is now on building consensus at home, democratic validation at the right time and international recognition for Scottish sovereignty.

I'm interested in the last bit - I just looked up something I vaguely remembered writing about on my blog, turns out 11 years ago - https://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2009/03/scotland-and-not-recognising-kosovo.html about EU member states who wouldn't recognize Kosovar independence. Wikipedia has an amazingly detailed article on recognition of Kosovo's independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo which suggests none of those countries have actually changed their positions despite some suggesting they might and the EP demanding all member states should.

I think the consensus is not there and, quite unlikely to be there in the foreseeable future within the EU28, let alone within the UN more generally. The more I think about it the more it seems that gaining the UK government's support for another referendum seems the most vital task.

I suspect the Conservative govt currently are shooting themselves in the foot by refusing. It will just increase nationalist support in Scotland for when they finally buckle (or lose a GE and another govt allows a vote). It seems that within Scotland support for independence is far from overwhelming - maybe Johnson should have said straight away - "fine, do it now" and let the still unresolved issues in Scotland play out. Even if the SNP did squeak a win, it wouldn't be an enviable position to start saying we're going to leave the UK on something like 52:48 majority. Just look how loved the current UK government by those of us opposed to leaving the EU. :-/

RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> At present you're right. We know that Westminster and this government won't play by the rules. They never do. But I think that the "game" has now entered a new stage..... the focus is now on building consensus at home, democratic validation at the right time and international recognition for Scottish sovereignty. Negotiations with Westminster over the separation terms will come when those things have built the foundations for a "grown up" conversation.

What negotiation ? Since when does Scotland negotiates with Westminster ? Westminster has absolute total power over Scotland. It does not need to negotiate with it.

rogerwebb 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

Speaking from the other side of the fence. It seems to me that the independence movement has got lost in process. There seems to be plenty of argument about mandates, S30s, and timing but no one appears to be trying to argue the philisophical case. Granted there is some attempt to argue on the economy and simplistic arguments about the EU, but that is the extent of it. 

Why would I consider that the west coast has more in common with the central belt than Cornwall or central Wales? Why does Glasgow have more in common with Edinburgh than Newcastle or Liverpool? I think that the central premise that places in Scotland have more in common with other places in Scotland than similar areas in the rest of the UK is one that seems so obvious to independence supporters that you have forgotten to argue it. You need to. I see statements that have lines like 'our MPs' why would I consider a central Glasgow MP to be one of mine? Neither Scotland or England are uniform blocks of sentiment or need. To persuade the other 50% is going to take a more fundamental approach to the argument. 

alastairmac 03 Feb 2020
In reply to TobyA:

I think that's an interesting point. I see that the Latvian foreign minister has signalled his broad support for a relatively pain free Scottish entry to the EU today. But I don't disagree that there is still much to be done. There are some in the independence movement that think EFTA mike make more sense at least during a transition phase.

summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Many. 

Ok. List a modern western country/ies that don't have an ageing population. 

> But in any case isn’t an argument.

You are the one who just said it was why Scotland needs migrants. 

> It isn’t because many countries face a similar issue that we should be deprived of the tools available to mitigate it.

You must see that every country can't solve it's ageing population by having net immigration? 

> But the simple reality is that there simply aren’t enough people in Scotland. It’s not a problem of the education system it’s simply a problem of population size.

So Scotland can only grow, by increasing the population. Is that really growth if gdp/capita remains the same? Who is kidding who?

> Scotland is a small country with a small population. 

Which means what? You are better off being part of a larger top ten country like the UK? 

1
alastairmac 03 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

I agree that building consensus should now be a primary focus for the independence movement. Particularly reaching out to those that are still unconvinced. My own view, is that an honest , realistic but inspiring sense of the kind of Scotland we want to contribute to, is something that we can all share. Where we may differ I think is that for me, Scotland already has a clear sense of nationhood, identity, culture and values that many of us share, regardless of whether we live or work in Glasgow or Gairloch. And it is fundamentally different from the English regions, which while being close neighbours are part of another nation. In 2020 those social and political differences between Scotland and the English regions have become stark. While polling isn't infallible, the Yougov poll from earlier this week now shows another positive movement towards independence, as does the Survation poll today and I'm led to believe a Panellise poll due to be released this evening will do the same. So, things are moving, but I agree that there is still much to be done and it's a time for patience, respect and winning over those on the "opposite sides of the fence". 

1
rogerwebb 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

There appears to be no effort to make the arguments necessary to get not just a narrow majority but an overwhelming one which would be necessary for a country at peace with itself. What are those values you speak of and are they really that different from the neighbours? (I don't expect an answer on this forum it would take too long but it's something the wider independence movement should be considering). 

Some politicians are there own worst enemies, Dominic Raab brings out my inner nat, then Mike Russell speaks and cancels it out and more. 

Post edited at 18:42
RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Ok. List a modern western country/ies that don't have an ageing population. 

 

Relevance ?

> You are the one who just said it was why Scotland needs migrants. 

Syllogistic.

> You must see that every country can't solve it's ageing population by having net immigration? 

It absolutely can! I suggest you look at the world age pyramid. 
In any case it isn't a valid argument, even if that premise was correct, which it isn't.
 

> So Scotland can only grow, by increasing the population. Is that really growth if gdp/capita remains the same? Who is kidding who?

Who said GDP per capita has to remain the same?  Having access to a good talent pool means more investment, more productivity, more talents, and therefore, higher GDP per capita.

> Which means what? You are better off being part of a larger top ten country like the UK?

No, we are worse off, because London naturally sucks all the talents and immigration out. Nothing wrong with it it just is agglomeration economy

In order to attract people Scotland needs a more open immigration policy. That is simply a reality. 

The best option would be to stay in the UK but have our own immigration policy. But the UK government categorically refuses it.

Post edited at 19:06
2
summo 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, we are worse off, because London naturally sucks all the talents and immigration out. Nothing wrong with it it just is agglomeration economy

And the people of the highlands say the same about the central belt. There will always be push and pull. 

At least we have established that your solving the ageing population problem was utter nonsense. ;) 

TobyA 03 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

Mighty Latvia! ;-) Only joking - I've only been to Riga, but it was great. I fully understand why the Baltic States are very understanding of the wish of small countries to break away from larger unions dominated by a much bigger neighbour! The Balts in both the EU and NATO have been strong supporters of Ukraine for example. But it does show how geography AND history shape politics. Has anyone heard the Spanish foreign minister encouraging Scotland? Probably not (he might be busy trying to get Gibraltar back now its not EU territory!).

RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> And the people of the highlands say the same about the central belt. There will always be push and pull. 

 

Except the Highland population is one of the fastest growing in Scotland. Devolution saved the highlands.

> At least we have established that your solving the ageing population problem was utter nonsense. ;) 

Hum, no, you’ve certainly not established that in the contrary !

If anything, your argument is totally absurd if not slightly disturbing, you’re essentially telling us it’s ok for England to keep growing its population but not OK for Scotland to attempt to keep up, or at least mitigate.

What’s next ? Forced castration of all the jocks to prevent them from reproducing ?

Why don’t you just let people do what they want ? If we want more people to come what is your problem ?

Post edited at 19:50
3
rogerwebb 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Except the Highland population is one of the fastest growing in Scotland. Devolution saved the highlands.

Population growth in the Highlands has slowed considerably. Over all growth conceals the fact that Inverness is expanding, other places not so much. The population is imbalanced and we are looking young people. 

The successes that there have been and the very great effort to reverse the decline long predate devolution. Many of those success such as UHI have had a very long gestation. 

RomTheBear 03 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Population growth in the Highlands has slowed considerably. Over all growth conceals the fact that Inverness is expanding, other places not so much. The population is imbalanced and we are looking young people. 

 

All the more reason to not kick out foreigners who come from afar to bring life and businesses outside of towns like Inverness.

> The successes that there have been and the very great effort to reverse the decline long predate devolution. Many of those success such as UHI have had a very long gestation.

Maybe but the fact is that since devolution it’s easier for people in the Highland to get their interest represented, and I’ve seen a lot of progress in terms of transport links, digital, investment in renewable, land reform,  etc etc.


 

2
rogerwebb 03 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Maybe but the fact is that since devolution it’s easier for people in the Highland to get their interest represented, and I’ve seen a lot of progress in terms of transport links, digital, investment in renewable, land reform,  etc etc.

Try living here. The picture isn't quite so uniformly rosy as you make out. 

1
Stichtplate 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> All the more reason to not kick out foreigners who come from afar to bring life and businesses outside of towns like Inverness.

Really good point. Except it's not a good point at all. Half a million of those foreigners didn't "come from afar", they came from the country immediately South of the border and there are almost four times more of them than from all the other 27 EU countries combined.  Oh, and who apart from a tiny minority of knuckle dragging retards, is talking about kicking out foreigners anyway? 

2
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Really good point. Except it's not a good point at all. Half a million of those foreigners didn't "come from afar", they came from the country immediately South of the border and there are almost four times more of them than from all the other 27 EU countries combined.  

I don’t understand where is your logic or your point here.

Why would having a more open immigration policy than the rest of the U.K. change anything much to patterns of people coming South of the border ?

> Oh, and who apart from a tiny minority of knuckle dragging retards, is talking about kicking out foreigners anyway?

 

They are called “the Home Office” 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-39791228

Post edited at 07:16
2
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Try living here. The picture isn't quite so uniformly rosy as you make out. 

Not the point really.

Post edited at 07:21
4
summo 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> They are called “the Home Office” 

There is part of the story missing. If they read the criteria he'd have seen he didn't qualify in the first place. Plus after 12 years why not apply for citizenship? 

elsewhere 04 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> There is part of the story missing. If they read the criteria he'd have seen he didn't qualify in the first place. Plus after 12 years why not apply for citizenship? 

Costs 1500 or so each?

summo 04 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Costs 1500 or so each?

Not cheap, I'd agree. If the article said they couldn't afford the £1330 each, then indeed that would be different story. 

This isn't a Brexit related case, nothing has changed since 2016, so isn't qualifying for residency, costs of either a right to abode or citizenship and the rules, something you'd research long before you committed 12 years to another country. 

Don't get me wrong, it's crap for the family, possibly the local community too, but I think it's preventable. 

RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> There is part of the story missing. If they read the criteria he'd have seen he didn't qualify in the first place. 

It’s indeed the criteria that need to be adapted to Scotland’s needs. We need more businesses and investment in the highlands, making it hard for people who want to invest their life there is totally counter productive, narrow minded, cruel, and idiotic.

BTW since this article the situation for entrepreneurship visa has gotten way, way  worse.

Post edited at 08:03
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Not cheap, I'd agree. If the article said they couldn't afford the £1330 each, then indeed that would be different story. 

> This isn't a Brexit related case, nothing has changed since 2016, so isn't qualifying for residency, costs of either a right to abode or citizenship and the rules, something you'd research long before you committed 12 years to another country. 

Nobody said it’s brexit related, it’s just an example of immigration policy made in Westminster that doesn’t suit Scotland.

We don’t need ultra-restrictive entry and settlement criteria.

Post edited at 08:02
summo 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

But in this particular case they didn't qualify for it? Hard to speculate as the article doesn't actually say if the shop makes a profit, has paid employees and if that has been their employment for x number of years. 

RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> But in this particular case they didn't qualify for it? 

Sheesh, that’s exactly the problem ! The requirements aren’t adapted ! 

Sometimes....

Post edited at 08:06
summo 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> We don’t need ultra-restrictive entry and settlement criteria.

I agree.

But there has to be some criteria. Of course it needs to be practical. An income or turnover threshold that is ok for Kent, is probably inappropriate for Laggan. 

summo 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Sheesh, that’s exactly the problem ! The requirements aren’t adapted ! 

I don't think you have enough information to pass judgement on the Canadians case. 

RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> An income or turnover threshold that is ok for Kent, is probably inappropriate for Laggan. 

 

The penny dropped. Finally.

1
summo 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The penny dropped. Finally.

But we dont know if that was the issue here. You are presuming. 

2
Stichtplate 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I don’t understand where is your logic or your point here.

> Why would having a more open immigration policy than the rest of the U.K. change anything much to patterns of people coming South of the border ?

Unsurprising that you don't understand the point since you didn't read it properly. I never mentioned "patterns of people coming South of the border".

>> Oh, and who apart from a tiny minority of knuckle dragging retards, is talking about kicking out foreigners anyway?

> They are called “the Home Office” 

Apparently you didn't bother reading your own three year old link either. It documents the stories of one family who left voluntarily and two that stayed. The very fact that the story made national headlines underlines the relative rarity of such cases, even in instances such as this, where the family failed to meet immigration criteria.

RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Unsurprising that you don't understand the point since you didn't read it properly. I never mentioned "patterns of people coming South of the border".

So, what was your argument ? What’s your logic ?

Post edited at 08:46
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> But we dont know if that was the issue here. You are presuming. 

Ok, looks like the penny hasn’t dropped after all.

3
rogerwebb 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Not the point really.

You stated 'Devolution saved the Highlands'.

Has it? Or has it simply continued an effort, that is not yet finished, that, in modern times, started with the foundation of the North of Scotland hydro Electric Board in 1943. Other notable landmarks being, and it's not an exhaustive list, Highlands and Islands Development Board 1965, Sabhal Mòr Ostaig 1973, HIE 1991, The Assynt Crofters buyout in 1993. UHI project started 1992, University status 2011.

The revival of the Highlands is down to determined effort by Highlanders with the help and assistance, sometimes, of central government whether that has been UK or Scottish.

Sometimes you overstate things. Devolution I agree is a good thing, it would be even better if there was more internal devolution. Sometimes, as in the centralisation of services it can be argued it has not been beneficial to the Highlands. There is as there is in the wider UK a tension between the needs of centre and the rest.

Post edited at 09:50
tom_in_edinburgh 04 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Don't get me wrong, it's crap for the family, possibly the local community too, but I think it's preventable. 

Lot's of things are preventable once we stop taking orders from English Tories with Oxford PPE degrees and start implementing evidence based policies designed for Scotland.

Scotland has completely different needs from England with regards to immigration policy as is pretty obvious from the graph of Scottish vs English population change over time.  

https://twitter.com/Caledonia1314/status/1218480332862885888

2
Harry Jarvis 04 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Can I ask the relevance of that graph in the context of population growth/decline over the next 25 years or so? 

MargieB 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

to change tack, is it not disrespectful of leave voters that the press are having to stand up for the Democratic right of scrutiny of a deal. Reduction of press's scrutiny was not in the conservative manifesto. this is in reference to the press atno 10 collectively supporting a principle that a government seems less inclined to uphold.

summo 04 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Scotland has completely different needs from England with regards to immigration policy as is pretty obvious from the graph of Scottish vs English population change over time.  

Full marks to whoever chose the timescale and scales of the graph to make it look as dramatic as possible, but it doesn't show anything relevant. 

Age of population? Longevity? Migration? Age range of Migration? 

Then there is the whole debate of using population growth as the only means of pretend growth? It's not really growth if you have to share that new found wealth between ever increasing numbers of people. 

Will Scotland follow the line of some former eastern block nations and start financially encouraging larger families? 

Post edited at 12:06
fred99 04 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Lot's of things are preventable once we stop taking orders from Tories with Oxford PPE degrees and start implementing evidence based policies designed for Britain.

> Britain has completely different needs from London with regards to immigration policy as is pretty obvious from the graph of British vs London population change over time.  

Fixed that for you.

neilh 04 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Interstingly there was a fascinating Bagehot article in the Economist on this very subject. Pointing out that the latest intake of Tory MPs were not Tories with Oxford PPE degrees. You only have to look at the background of  MP's elected in the North East to grasp this issue.I would hestitate to suggest you need to refocus your thinking on this point as you may be seriously out of touch

The Economist ( which was Remain and recommended voting Liberal) welcomed this realignment and even suggested it was a welcome step forward in political partys reconnecting with their voters.

MargieB 04 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

But are these new conservative voters really supportive of their party grandees because , like the business of less newspaper representatives at the meetings at no 10, do they think it is the party they think it is or is the conservative party a new departure from the past and members are unaware of those hard right changes?I wonder if conservative supporters are supportive of Cummings? If not, why don,t they speak out.....

neilh 04 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB:

Its odd on those newspaper changes in that the Guardian ( hardly a harbinger of right wing views )was one of those allowed in.

Cummins is an interesting person, he wants research funding doubling in the UK and wants to stop the civil service employing graduates with PPE backgrounds. he is advocating that the civil service goes down a more scientifc route and employs more graduates with those backgrounds. There are barely any scientists in the top echelon of the CS and he is saying this is not good enough. We might not agree with some of his stuff, but other ideas are on the nail.

RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Interstingly there was a fascinating Bagehot article in the Economist on this very subject. Pointing out that the latest intake of Tory MPs were not Tories with Oxford PPE degrees. You only have to look at the background of  MP's elected in the North East to grasp this issue.I would hestitate to suggest you need to refocus your thinking on this point as you may be seriously out of touch

> The Economist ( which was Remain and recommended voting Liberal) welcomed this realignment and even suggested it was a welcome step forward in political partys reconnecting with their voters

It also suggest a change of direction for the Conservative party, towards being more socially conservative, more isolationist, and less economically liberal.

Glug 04 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Looks like the English are more welcoming to immigrants than the Scottish.😉

1
neilh 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

Another  view is that Parliament is reconnecting with voters and that is a good thing.

Of course it is a two edged sword .

MargieB 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

And it is not just a broad social inclusion that is the measure , it is the ideas that are the measure. Let's not forget Mosley mobilised different classes of people.

That prorogation abuse last year- any party could have exploited that loophole, but it was the recent definition of conservative thought  that actually did.

And I had a friend who, though supporting Leave, was in a quandary because ,although a long term member of the Conservative Party ,she more and more felt compelled to distance herself from them.

Post edited at 16:32
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Another  view is that Parliament is reconnecting with voters and that is a good thing.

Well Hitler also reconnected with voters. Godwin point but you get the gist.

3
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Cummins is an interesting person, he wants research funding doubling in the UK and wants to stop the civil service employing graduates with PPE backgrounds. he is advocating that the civil service goes down a more scientifc route and employs more graduates with those backgrounds. There are barely any scientists in the top echelon of the CS and he is saying this is not good enough. We might not agree with some of his stuff, but other ideas are on the nail.

Actually it isn’t scientist he is after, it’s pseudo scientists.

There is a big new wave of pseudoscience that is reviving eugenism and racial tendencies, of which Cummins is a big fan.

2
tom_in_edinburgh 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Can I ask the relevance of that graph in the context of population growth/decline over the next 25 years or so? 

It shows a few things:

1.  Before the union of the parliaments the populations of Scotland and England weren't that different.

2.  After the union of the parliaments England's population kept growing but Scotland's did not.   Nor did Ireland's.

3.  Ireland started to recover after it got independence in 1916. 

4.  England may arguably be 'overcrowded' after its massive population expansion.  Scotland absolutely is not.   It needs immigration at the level of recent years just to stay stable.

After the Union of the Parliaments the political and financial power moved to England.  Scotland has suffered from continual relative under-investment and as a result a continual drain of young people and talent to England and also to the US and EU.  So did Ireland.  The persecution of clans that supported the Jacobites, and the clearances accelerated the loss of population in Scotland as did the famine in Ireland.

Scotland has continually had inappropriate monetary policy designed to suit the requirements of England forced on it and has not benefited from its opportunities such as oil and the plethora of Scottish inventions.  All the value was stolen by England, just like it took resources from India and accounted for them at a fraction of their value while over-pricing manufactured goods India was forced to buy from the UK to create an illusion of a deficit.

England has always used dodgy accounting along with the 'you are too small, we subsidise you, you can't support yourself argument.   It said the same thing to the US, India and Singapore when they tried to get independence as it is saying to Scotland now.

2
tom_in_edinburgh 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Glug:

> Looks like the English are more welcoming to immigrants than the Scottish.😉

Looks like the money is in England and immigrants are following it.

1
Harry Jarvis 04 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It shows a few things:

> 1.  Before the union of the parliaments the populations of Scotland and England weren't that different.

Not remotely relevant to the next 25 years or so.

> 2.  After the union of the parliaments England's population kept growing but Scotland's did not.   Nor did Ireland's.

Also not remotely relevant to the next 25 years or so.

> 3.  Ireland started to recover after it got independence in 1916. 

Surprisingly, not remotely relevant to the next 25 years or so.

> 4.  England may arguably be 'overcrowded' after its massive population expansion.  Scotland absolutely is not.   It needs immigration at the level of recent years just to stay stable.

The only population expansion relevant in the context being discussed would be the expansion that has occurred over the past 25 years or so. The graph you showed is not scaled in such as way as to be able to make a useful judgement in this regard. 

> After the Union of the Parliaments the political and financial power moved to England.  Scotland has suffered from continual relative under-investment and as a result a continual drain of young people and talent to England and also to the US and EU.  So did Ireland.  The persecution of clans that supported the Jacobites, and the clearances accelerated the loss of population in Scotland as did the famine in Ireland.

Not remotely relevant to the next 25 years or so.

> Scotland has continually had inappropriate monetary policy designed to suit the requirements of England forced on it and has not benefited from its opportunities such as oil and the plethora of Scottish inventions.  All the value was stolen by England, just like it took resources from India and accounted for them at a fraction of their value while over-pricing manufactured goods India was forced to buy from the UK to create an illusion of a deficit.

It might help if you didn't stop banging on ad nauseam about injustices inflicted hundreds of years ago. It gets very tiresome, and does nothing to improve the credibility of your arguments. 

So I'll try again:

Can I ask the relevance of that graph in the context of population growth/decline over the next 25 years or so? 

It would be helpful if you confined your comments to prospects for the 21st Century. 

1
L mondite 04 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Cummins is an interesting person, he wants research funding doubling in the UK and wants to stop the civil service employing graduates with PPE backgrounds. he is advocating that the civil service goes down a more scientifc route and employs more graduates with those backgrounds. There are barely any scientists in the top echelon of the CS and he is saying this is not good enough.

The problem there is his background isnt exactly much different from the bogstandard PPE and career working in politics. Just that he did English instead and had a few failed years in business before spending most of his life bouncing around various political campaigns.

He seems to one of those humanities graduates who fetishes technology and the sciences but doesnt actually have any provable background or skill in those areas and hence understanding of both the advantages and disadvantages. Plenty of times where a economist, especially with a behavioural bent, is going to be more use than someone who studied chemistry and likewise for someone who has studied philosophy.

Archy Styrigg 04 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Ireland started to recover after it got independence in 1916. 

I've been going to Eire for the last 40 odd years.
Up to about the late 1980s / early 1990s (aboutish), it was almost like a third world country.
They've certainly well milked the EU since to modernise the place.
Last time I looked, I believe it's payback time now.

2
Glug 04 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Oh OK, so there have been no opportunities for employing immigrants in Scotland in the last 40 odd years, because they only pay better rates than most of eastern Europe in England 😉 

1
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> It might help if you didn't stop banging on ad nauseam about injustices inflicted hundreds of years ago. It gets very tiresome, and does nothing to improve the credibility of your arguments. 

Actually long and sustained historical evidence does improve the credibility of his argument.
 

2
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Glug:

> Oh OK, so there have been no opportunities for employing immigrants in Scotland in the last 40 odd years, because they only pay better rates than most of Eastern Europe in England 😉 

It did, one in 20 worker in Scotland is from another EU country.

The basic problem is that the U.K. immigration policy is designed to satisfy English wants and needs: maximise the economic benefits to natives at the expense of migrants, whilst keeping numbers low and limiting settlement.

But Scotland has almost diametrically opposed needs, it needs to encourage settlement and increase numbers, as almost all of its population growth will have to come from immigration, even more so its working age population.

Frankly, it’s rather bleeding obvious, and you would think, uncontroversial, to say that a place like Scotland has a different demographic needs and different attitude to immigration than a place like Kent. I’m not to sure why it’s so hard to accept this reality.

Post edited at 20:19
2
Glug 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

What has  England been doing for the last 40 years to stop People from staying in Scotland, but allows them to stay in England? Obviously the needs in parts of England are different to parts of Scotland, but there have still been opportunities for employment that migrants could exploit if they wanted too. 

1
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Glug:

> What has  England been doing for the last 40 years to stop People from staying in Scotland, but allows them to stay in England?

Setting salary requirements which are much more difficult to meet outside London salary, forcing the Scottish government to scrap post study visa, imposing, again, salary requirements for spousal visas etc etc...

> Obviously the needs in parts of England are different to parts of Scotland, but there have still been opportunities for employment that migrants could exploit if they wanted too. 

Well, no the UK immigration policy disproportionately reduces opportunities in Scotland.

Glug 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

Can't see that the migrants that settle in the rest of England, not London would find it any harder in Scotland.

Archy Styrigg 04 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well, no the UK immigration policy disproportionately reduces opportunities in Scotland.

As far as I'm aware, Scotland has had Freedom of Movement, like the rest of the UK, since its introduction.

Come on then, explain to us ignorami, with links to evidence, how does UK immigration policy disproportionately reduce opportunities for immigrants in Scotland?  Surely Scotland is subject to the same policy as the rest of the UK, or is Holyrood imposing different criteria?
(simple bullet points will do, reams of waffle won't be read, to be honest!)

Post edited at 22:23
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> As far as I'm aware, Scotland has had Freedom of Movement, like the rest of the UK, since its introduction.

Absolutely ! Of which we benefited and will disproportionately be impacted by its unwanted removal.

> Come on then, explain to us ignorami, with links to evidence, how does UK immigration policy disproportionately reduce opportunities for immigrants in Scotland?  Surely Scotland is subject to the same policy as the rest of the UK, or is Holyrood imposing different criteria?

I’ve already explained to you why, it’s simple, the requirement are too tight. This doesn’t work for Scotland which needs looser requirements. It’s not hard.

I’m not sure why it’s so hard to understand that tight requirements might suit England (or at least parts of it) but don’t suit Scotland.

Post edited at 00:03
1
RomTheBear 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Glug:

> Can't see that the migrants that settle in the rest of England, not London would find it any harder in Scotland.

Quite right but that isn’t the point at all.

At the end of the day, it’s very simple, I don’t want some protofascist Home Office bureaucrats telling us who we are allowed and not allowed to welcome in. 

Just let us manage our immigration as we want it, and England can manage it the way they want it, everybody is happy, and everybody gets what they want. Where is the problem ?

I strongly suspect that the main reason the government is vehemently opposed to this is because investment would flock to the Scottish economy if it had easier access to a broader talent pool than the rest of the country. And anything that would give an edge to Scotland - economically or otherwise - is very bad politically for them. 

Post edited at 00:24
2
Archy Styrigg 05 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I’ve already explained to you why, it’s simple, the requirement are too tight. This doesn’t work for Scotland which needs looser requirements. It’s not hard.

Bullshit!
My understanding was that the UK were a bit lax with FoM, (that's what got your hardcore leavers in a tizz).
UK could've excluded loads of immigrants, but didn't. I think you and others have pointed this out many times before.

> I’m not sure why it’s so hard to understand that tight requirements might suit England (or at least parts of it) but don’t suit Scotland.

As above, show me why it was so harder to immigrate to Scotland than England.

Ciro 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

It's not harder to immigrate to Scotland than England, the point is just that Scotland needs immigration more than England does right now - and thus will harmed more than England if it is restricted.

Ciro 05 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> You and others claim a mandate etc..  just answer how many percent of the entire Scottish voting population did the snp accrue in December's GE? 

A larger percentage than the conservatives got UK wide, does Boris have a mandate?

tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Can I ask the relevance of that graph in the context of population growth/decline over the next 25 years or so? 

The graph shows very clearly why Tory policies designed to clamp down on immigration may appeal in England but are totally inappropriate and damaging for Scotland.   Scotland needs to maintain immigration at recent levels just to maintain its current population.

1
RomTheBear 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> Bullshit!

> My understanding was that the UK were a bit lax with FoM, (that's what got your hardcore leavers in a tizz).

Hello, FoM is ending, hence the situation.

> UK could've excluded loads of immigrants, but didn't. I think you and others have pointed this out many times before.

> As above, show me why it was so harder to immigrate to Scotland than England.

Sheesh. Are you a bit puff puff in the head ?

It’s a bit harder because of salary requirements which are more easily satisfied in London (as explained 5 times) but that isn’t the main point, 
the point is that Scotland needs more immigration. (As explained about ten times)

Now I stop there because there is no point arguing with someone who pretends to have the IQ of a goldfish just for the sake of trolling me.

Post edited at 05:48
3
summo 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Scotland needs to maintain immigration at recent levels just to maintain its current population.

If the snp are so fantastic at running a country and its services, shouldn't it just be one way traffic over the border as they all head north. Onto the greener grass of Scotland away from those incompetent tory empire rulers in England with their inferior everything? 

2
RomTheBear 05 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> If the snp are so fantastic at running a country and its services, shouldn't it just be one way traffic over the border as they all head north. Onto the greener grass of Scotland away from those incompetent tory empire rulers in England with their inferior everything? 

If you engaged on the issue instead of piling your hate and prejudice on the SNP it would be more interesting.

But I guess that’s not to be.

2
summo 05 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If you engaged on the issue instead of piling your hate and prejudice on the SNP it would be more interesting.

> But I guess that’s not to be.

No. As I said before I've lived in scotland, I think they should have indef2 when they know what they are voting for etc.. in say 4 or 5 years time.  What I'm against are the current flawed arguments and poor me, us hard done by Scots blah blah blah..  with folk ranting back to the clearances, act of union etc. That was literally centuries ago.  Scotland right now has a bloody good deal compared to everywhere else and they are too busy with their nationalist agenda to see it. 

RomTheBear 05 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> No. As I said before I've lived in scotland, I think they should have indef2 when they know what they are voting for etc.. in say 4 or 5 years time

In other words, you can have your referendum, but only one day when your leverage will be at the minimum.

>  What I'm against are the current flawed arguments and poor me, us hard done by Scots blah blah blah..  with folk ranting back to the clearances, act of union etc. That was literally centuries ago. 

No, we were talking about the impact of U.K. immigration policy on Scotland now and in the future. 

> Scotland right now has a bloody good deal compared to everywhere else and they are too busy with their nationalist agenda to see it.

Yes, we know, Scots are spoiled brats who are too thick to understand their luck... blah blah blah... the usual.

3
Harry Jarvis 05 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Actually long and sustained historical evidence does improve the credibility of his argument.

No, it really doesn't. The Scotland I want to see in the future is confident, assertive, imaginative, positive and forward-looking. Tom's repeated Scotland-as-victim narrative suggests quite the opposite - introverted, backward-looking, unable to stand on its own, unable to make its own way in the world. It's a tiresome and pointless narrative. Nobody is going to vote for independence because of events of 300 yeas ago - they're going to vote because they believe in a strong new Scotland, led by people who believe in the strength of Scotland and the Scottish population., not by those who are continually harking back to the injustices of the past and whinging about England and the English.

Harry Jarvis 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The graph shows very clearly why Tory policies designed to clamp down on immigration may appeal in England but are totally inappropriate and damaging for Scotland.   Scotland needs to maintain immigration at recent levels just to maintain its current population.

No, the graph does not show that very clearly. I agree that Scotland's need for immigration is quite different to that of England, but your graph does not serve to demonstrate that. If you really want to win your arguments, you need better evidence than that. 

Post edited at 09:00
summo 05 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, we know, Scots are spoiled brats who are too thick to understand their luck... blah blah blah... the usual.

Nope. The Scots aren't. Their power greedy leaders in the snp are. 

But I'll accept I'm 25% thick on my mother's side. I can live with that. After all, you do think you are the cleverest person on ukc. 

rogerwebb 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It shows a few things:

> 1.  Before the union of the parliaments the populations of Scotland and England weren't that different.

In 1700 1.2 million as opposed to 5.1 million those populations are quite different. 

> 2.  After the union of the parliaments England's population kept growing but Scotland's did not.   Nor did Ireland's.

Why would the population of Scotland have continued to grow without the union? 

> 3.  Ireland started to recover after it got independence in 1916. 

Why is the history of Ireland relevant here? 

> 4.  England may arguably be 'overcrowded' after its massive population expansion.  Scotland absolutely is not.   It needs immigration at the level of recent years just to stay stable.

Quite right. It also needs to do better at retaining young people 

> After the Union of the Parliaments the political and financial power moved to England.  Scotland has suffered from continual relative under-investment and as a result a continual drain of young people and talent to England and also to the US and EU.  So did Ireland.  The persecution of clans that supported the Jacobites, and the clearances accelerated the loss of population in Scotland as did the famine in Ireland.

In what way do you suppose Scotland would have responded to the Jacobite rebellions? Why would the clearances not have happened if there had been no union? 

> Scotland has continually had inappropriate monetary policy designed to suit the requirements of England forced on it and has not benefited from its opportunities such as oil and the plethora of Scottish inventions.  All the value was stolen by England, just like it took resources from India and accounted for them at a fraction of their value while over-pricing manufactured goods India was forced to buy from the UK to create an illusion of a deficit.

Given for example that by 1900 one fifth of all ships in the world were built on the Clyde is that historically true? 

> England has always used dodgy accounting along with the 'you are too small, we subsidise you, you can't support yourself argument.   It said the same thing to the US, India and Singapore when they tried to get independence as it is saying to Scotland now.

I think you mean the UK rather than England which hasn't been a sovereign state since 1707 

Was that ever said about any of those countries? 

We are where we are. If there is to be an independence debate let us have it about the here and now. What are the reasons for it and why would it be a good thing? 

Simply trying to make out that the UK is and always has been a nefarious state trying to suppress part of itself is historically questionable and offers no reasons for independence other than 'we have been and are oppressed'. A quick look around the world makes that argument questionable too. 

1
Glug 05 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear

I've got to ask again, what has been stopping Scotland from attracting more talent over the last 40 years? and don't just say it's easier to earn more money in London, as the rest of England still attracts migrants. Maybe people don't find it as welcoming as you believe it is, or maybe it's also partly down to the climate, pretty sure most people take that into account when planning to move, not everything is about money.

> At the end of the day, it’s very simple, I don’t want some protofascist Home Office bureaucrats telling us who we are allowed and not allowed to welcome in. 

> Just let us manage our immigration as we want it, and England can manage it the way they want it, everybody is happy, and everybody gets what they want. Where is the problem ?

> I strongly suspect that the main reason the government is vehemently opposed to this is because investment would flock to the Scottish economy if it had easier access to a broader talent pool than the rest of the country. And anything that would give an edge to Scotland - economically or otherwise - is very bad politically for them. 

1
summo 05 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

Many historians say that when the UK united under one common language, English, that is what allowed it go from strength to strength through the centuries. Especially when English became the language of various colonies and then the independent USA. It also just made trade easier internally within the UK. 

Had the UK not united, and they kept speaking Welsh, English, French and Gaelic, it's considered it would never have reached the size and economic strength it did or is.

Something everyone in the UK can probably thank those evil English kings for many centuries ago. 

1
RomTheBear 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Glug:

> In reply to RomTheBear

> I've got to ask again, what has been stopping Scotland from attracting more talent over the last 40 years?

Visa restrictions, mainly.
 

> and don't just say it's easier to earn more money in London, as the rest of England still attracts migrants. Maybe people don't find it as welcoming as you believe it is, or maybe it's also partly down to the climate, pretty sure most people take that into account when planning to move, not everything is about money.

Of course there are many reason as to why London, as a global capital, is intrinsically more attractive to working age immigrants than Scotland.

But that’s exactly why Scotland needs a different policy.

Why you don’t get that, I don’t know.

Post edited at 09:04
1
summo 05 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Of course there are many reason as to why London, as a global capital, is intrinsically more attractive to working age immigrants than Scotland.

List them, what does London offer that Edinburgh or Glasgow doesn't? 

RomTheBear 05 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> List them, what does London offer that Edinburgh or Glasgow doesn't? 

Size, mainly. It’s not beyond the wit of man to understand that the gravity pull of a global capital isn’t the same as the pull of a regional one.

Post edited at 09:07
summo 05 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Size, mainly. It’s not beyond the wit of man to understand that the gravity pull of a global capital isn’t the same as the pull of a regional one.

Does gravity really exert those kind of forces to stop people leaving, is Watford Gap it's range? Are there gravity anomalies over all big cities?

Or can't you actually list anything that London offers, which Scotland's two largest cities can't? 

1
neilh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

Spot on. Some would even say it is the global capital.

But I doubt anything that Scotland could ever do would attract more migrants in comparison no matter how imaginative or how much they restructre things.

Nor is it a Scottish issue. The pull of the capital has alot of appeal for the young etc etc even in the rest of England, Wales, NI and so on.

Glug 05 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Visa restrictions, mainly.

What visa restrictions does Scotland have that England doesn't?

> Of course there are many reason as to why London, as a global capital, is intrinsically more attractive to working age immigrants than Scotland.

I think your obsession with London is clouding your view, I asked about the difference between the rest of England (forget London) and Scotland.

> But that’s exactly why Scotland needs a different policy.

> Why you don’t get that, I don’t know.

I do get that you think Scotland needs a different policy, what I don't get is why you can't tell me why it has not benefited from migration like the rest of England over the last 40 years.                                                                                                   

 Why you don't understand a simple question, I don't know😉

Post edited at 10:04
tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Why would the population of Scotland have continued to grow without the union? 

The population scaling trends on the graphs wildly diverge after the union.   Before that they aren't identical but they track each other reasonably closely and you can see the same events causing blips on both countries.

That says to me that something changed after the union.  After the union political and financial power moved to London.  Talent moved with it.  It became harder to raise money for business in Scotland.  Economic choices were made according to Englands needs rather than Scotlands and over 300 years Scotland's economy substantially underperformed England's. 

> Why is the history of Ireland relevant here? 

Because it shows that as soon as it got independence the graph changed and population started to increase.    Ireland is not a bad proxy for Scotland.  If we get independence, bring back the political and financial power and start running things in a way that suits Scotland our graph will do the same.

> Quite right. It also needs to do better at retaining young people 

Never going to happen when the opportunities are in London and the Westminster system will always look after London because the people with power live in London and their wealth is in London property.

> In what way do you suppose Scotland would have responded to the Jacobite rebellions? Why would the clearances not have happened if there had been no union? 

Scotland didn't 'respond' to the Jacobite rebellions in started them.  Obviously we'd have had a Jacobite King in Edinburgh.

There would probably have been a movement of population to towns due to industrialisation.  It wouldn't have been anything like as brutal and there wouldn't have been as much emigration.

> Given for example that by 1900 one fifth of all ships in the world were built on the Clyde is that historically true? 

Scotland has had successful industries and inventions which should have created massive industries.  They never got support from the politicians that they should have.   If banking has a problem Westminster politicians will print unlimited amounts of money to save it.  London's industry has unconditional support from London politicians.   A regional industry in Scotland - shipbuilding, railway locomotives, steel, oil, electronics does not.   The first time it hits a serious problem it is allowed to fail.   London does not give a sh*t and if it doesn't like the politics of the workforce it will even hasten its demise.

> I think you mean the UK rather than England which hasn't been a sovereign state since 1707 

No I mean England.  The UK is pretty much England as far as power goes because England accounts for well over 80% of the population and almost 100% of the power.

> Was that ever said about any of those countries? 

Yes,  I've seen photographs of the front page of London newspapers at the time of US and Singapore Independence making the exact same 'they can't afford it to be independent, we subsidise them' argument they are making about Scotland.

> We are where we are. If there is to be an independence debate let us have it about the here and now. What are the reasons for it and why would it be a good thing? 

This graph and the McCrone report http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf are worth reading.  McCrone isn't just about oil he also makes interesting comments about Scotland needing different interest rate policy to England.   Our economy has been underperforming for hundreds of years because the levers have been pulled according to the circumstances in England.

> Simply trying to make out that the UK is and always has been a nefarious state trying to suppress part of itself is historically questionable and offers no reasons for independence other than 'we have been and are oppressed'. A quick look around the world makes that argument questionable too. 

The UK has been a fairly nefarious state run mainly for the benefit of SE England.  Leaving the 'Empire' has not hurt its more developed former colonies.  It's amusing that the Tories are now talking about Singapore as a model when before it became independent they were claiming it was too small, could never support itself and was subsidised.

The recent revelations about the COP climate summit in Glasgow are revealing.   The UK government is running it from London with a bunch of Tory acolytes managing it.  The one that got forced out is now complaining that she wanted to hire the people who organised the London Olympics.   That's the problem.  Civil servants in London naturally want to hire people from London.  The conference is in Glasgow, why aren't they running it out of Glasgow and hiring the people who worked on the Commonwealth Games?   They'll get their London event manager and the London event manager will hire the London subcontractors and London talent they know.   Same thing is happening in a thousand other areas and everybody thinks it is 'normal'.  The result is that if you want to get ahead in the UK you need to move to London.  After independence, that will change.  A conference in Glasgow will hire contractors in Glasgow, oil companies in Scotland will be regulated and taxed from Scotland and will need senior managers, lawyers and accountants in Scotland.

4
rogerwebb 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The population scaling trends on the graphs wildly diverge after the union.   Before that they aren't identical but they track each other reasonably closely and you can see the same events causing blips on both countries.

Are you though correct in assigning the union as a cause or is it a result of that divergence? 

> Scotland didn't 'respond' to the Jacobite rebellions in started them.  Obviously we'd have had a Jacobite King in Edinburgh.

The first Jacobite rebellion was in 1689. The Scottish Government responded to it with force. The Battles of Killecrankie and Dunkeld were between Scottish Government forces and the Jacobites. A Jacobite King would not have been a popular option in central Scotland. 

Post edited at 11:00
rogerwebb 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I am unconvinced by your argument that 300 years of union has been all bad for Scotland. That freedom of movement and free trade within the British Isles was a drag on its economy is a curious argument for someone who believes, as do I, that those same freedoms within the EU were beneficial.

I am curious about your conflation of colonies becoming independent from the UK and Scotland leaving the UK of which it is a constituent, and at least until now, a voluntary part (we did vote to stay in 2014). Are you arguing that Scotland is a colony? If so of whom? 

tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> I am unconvinced by your argument that 300 years of union has been all bad for Scotland. That freedom of movement and free trade within the British Isles was a drag on its economy is a curious argument for someone who believes, as do I, that those same freedoms within the EU were beneficial.

The difference between the UK and the EU is that power is centralised to a far greater degree in the UK.  The EU has all kinds of checks and balances to prevent everything of value moving to Brussels - as do most federal countries.  The UK has one constituent nation 10x the size of the others that gets its way every time and one city which dominates the whole country to an unacceptable extent.

> I am curious about your conflation of colonies becoming independent from the UK and Scotland leaving the UK of which it is a constituent, and at least until now, a voluntary part (we did vote to stay in 2014). Are you arguing that Scotland is a colony? If so of whom? 

It is a colony of England.   The treaty of Union was achieved by coercion and bribery and against the will of the wider population.    The terms of the treaty have been ignored (such as the clause which says no court in London shall be above the Court of Session) and we are now being told we can't leave without consent.   If you can't leave without consent you are a colony, not an equal treaty partner.

3
rogerwebb 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The difference between the UK and the EU is that power is centralised to a far greater degree in the UK.  The EU has all kinds of checks and balances to prevent everything of value moving to Brussels - as do most federal countries.  The UK has one constituent nation 10x the size of the others that gets its way every time and one city which dominates the whole country to an unacceptable extent.

> It is a colony of England.   The treaty of Union was achieved by coercion and bribery and against the will of the wider population.    The terms of the treaty have been ignored (such as the clause which says no court in London shall be above the Court of Session) and we are now being told we can't leave without consent.   If you can't leave without consent you are a colony, not an equal treaty partner.

Who are the colonists? 

RomTheBear 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If you can't leave without consent you are a colony, not an equal treaty partner.

Sure one can be pedantic on the definition on colony, but broadly that sums it up.

The irony is that the U.K. government could kill off the independence movement easily simply by giving Scotland the right to self determination, and just devolve more powers, such as immigration.

The only reason they won’t do it is because it would be electorally damaging in England.

Post edited at 14:33
3
tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Who are the colonists? 

England.  

Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,

Fareweel our ancient glory;

Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,

Sae fam'd in martial story.

Now Sark rins over Solway sands,

An' Tweed rins to the ocean,

To mark where England's province stands-

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

4
L mondite 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It is a colony of England.  

Only if you redefine colony to the point of being meaningless. Even the special committee on decolonization dont list it as such.

Its worth noting when James 1st and 6th first turned up in London there was quite a bit of unhappiness about the takeover of English politics by him and his Scottish favourites. That he then skipped on his promises to regularly head back to Scotland says something about the Scottish leadership at the time. As does their actions a century later for the acts of union.

Perhaps you should be blaming them and not the English?

1
rogerwebb 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> England.  

Am I a colonist then? 

graeme jackson 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>.

> Scotland didn't 'respond' to the Jacobite rebellions in started them.  Obviously we'd have had a Jacobite King in Edinburgh.

Surely the Jacobite rebellion was about putting a stuart on the thrones of Great Britain so you'd still have had the same monarch ruling England, Scotland and Ireland. Not much different to today's government. 

Harry Jarvis 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

That parcel of rogues being Scots aristocrats and prominent Scottish MPs who lost money in the Darien Scheme. 

I do tire of your constant looking backward. Please do us a favour and look forward for a change. What's done is done. There could be a brighter future, but you won't see it if all you can do is look back. 

1
tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> That parcel of rogues being Scots aristocrats and prominent Scottish MPs who lost money in the Darien Scheme. 

Obviously.

> I do tire of your constant looking backward. Please do us a favour and look forward for a change. What's done is done. There could be a brighter future, but you won't see it if all you can do is look back. 

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it   - WInston Churchill.

There is more than enough data to show that the UK doesn't work for Scotland and the EU does.  300 years of data for the UK in that graph and 40 years for the EU.

The brighter future is ditching the UK and staying in the EU.  Same as Ireland did and it has worked out far better for them than staying with the UK has done for Scotland.

The Tory Brexit future is a complete disaster and makes it compelling to get Scotland out as fast as possible.   Johnson is like Trump, except that Trump has the power of the US economy and military behind him. 

2
neilh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Those pesky parliamentarians and Cromwell usurping and executing him. I blame the overthrow of the monarchists for all our issues. Bring back the Catholic Church whilst you are at it. 

Anyway  England is a colony of the Normans / Vikings take your pick so Tom needs to start on the French and Nordics  as well.

1
Glug 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There is more than enough data to show that the UK doesn't work for Scotland and the EU does.  300 years of data for the UK in that graph and 40 years for the EU.

> The brighter future is ditching the UK and staying in the EU.  Same as Ireland did and it has worked out far better for them than staying with the UK has done for Scotland.

Looks like I'll have to ask you again, what exactly has the rest of the UK done to stop people migrating to Scotland in the last 40 years, I was hoping Rom had some more information, but he just keeps saying London is the problem. 

1
neilh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Just remind me how the Irish economy did post the GFC.

tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Glug:

> Looks like I'll have to ask you again, what exactly has the rest of the UK done to stop people migrating to Scotland in the last 40 years, I was hoping Rom had some more information, but he just keeps saying London is the problem. 

For starters they've taken us out of the EU.

Scotland has attracted highly qualified and well integrated migrants from the EU over the last 40 years.  Without them our population would have been falling instead of flatlining.  The UK - i.e. England -is doing their best to make them feel unwelcome and stop more coming.

They've also deported or threatened to deport people who've migrated from Australia and Canada to small villages in the Highlands and Islands because of policies designed to placate angry English people from towns they think are 'overcrowded' when the villages are struggling to maintain enough population to continue basic services.

3
TobyA 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The brighter future is ditching the UK and staying in the EU.  Same as Ireland did and it has worked out far better for them than staying with the UK has done for Scotland.

So when Ireland left the British Empire they stayed in the EU?? This would be 1922, so 30 years and a world war before the European coal and steep community was former and 60 years before the EU was formed?

You also don't note that Ireland fought a savage civil war after gaining independence. There must be better examples looking around Europe... Finland! Escaped the clutches of the oppressive Russian empire in 1918 for glorious independence and to rejoin with its natural European family. Oh no, sorry - forgot brutal civil war including mass killings of non-combatants again...

tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> > The brighter future is ditching the UK and staying in the EU.  Same as Ireland did and it has worked out far better for them than staying with the UK has done for Scotland.

> So when Ireland left the British Empire they stayed in the EU?? This would be 1922, so 30 years and a world war before the European coal and steep community was former and 60 years before the EU was formed?

Not what I said.  Look at the graph I posted.  Ireland's population trend changes after 1916, the point of independence.  Separately they have done much better economically since they joined the EU.

> You also don't note that Ireland fought a savage civil war after gaining independence. There must be better examples looking around Europe... Finland! Escaped the clutches of the oppressive Russian empire in 1918 for glorious independence and to rejoin with its natural European family. Oh no, sorry - forgot brutal civil war including mass killings of non-combatants again...

That's got to do with colonial powers using state violence and ethnic manipulation of population in order to prevent independence.

The number of places in the world where England/UK have caused wars by f*cking up other people's borders during their colonisation is large.

Ireland is doing better outside the UK and there is no doubt that Finland is doing better outside Russia.

3
tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Just remind me how the Irish economy did post the GFC.

It had a massive boom before it, then it had a crash, then it recovered.  The perception of Ireland in the UK is part of the problem.  The unionist London press amplify negative events in Ireland and Scotland that suit the narrative of English superiority and they ignore or barely report positive events in Ireland or Scotland which contradict it.

When it was part of the UK it did worse than the UK average.  Now as an independent country within the EU it does better than the UK.  Scotland has geographic and mineral wealth advantages compared with Ireland.  It will do even better once it runs its own affairs.

Post edited at 17:24
3
Glug 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> For starters they've taken us out of the EU.

> Scotland has attracted highly qualified and well integrated migrants from the EU over the last 40 years.  Without them our population would have been falling instead of flatlining.  The UK - i.e. England -is doing their best to make them feel unwelcome and stop more coming.

You linked to a graph that you said showed how the population of Scotland had not grown at the same rate as England, and now you say it's because the English have made migrants feel unwelcome, yet there seems to be plenty of migration to England😉 As I said before, maybe you should be looking closer to home for the reasons people don't want to live there.

1
tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Glug:

> You linked to a graph that you said showed how the population of Scotland had not grown at the same rate as England, and now you say it's because the English have made migrants feel unwelcome, yet there seems to be plenty of migration to England😉

Scotland is less economically attractive to migrants.   They can make more money in London.  Same reason Scotland loses many of its most talented people to England.

If there's less economic incentive then we should counteract that with a more welcoming policy.  Hassling the f*ck out of people and making them feel unwelcome or any kind of policy designed to reduce or reverse immigration is counter productive.  The Tories chucked out the proposal of Scotland being able to issue visa which only allowed migrants to reside in Scotland out of hand, like it was a ridiculous idea, despite the fact that they are used in other countries where some regions are underpopulated relative to others.  Including Australia https://www.visabureau.com/australia/visas-and-immigration/skilled-migration/skilled-regional even though they say they want an 'Australian style system'.

We also need to break away from London and move the services currently being provided for Scotland back to Scotland and to implement economic policies on interest rates and taxation suited for Scotland's needs.

Post edited at 17:54
1
L mondite 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Not what I said.  Look at the graph I posted.  Ireland's population trend changes after 1916, the point of independence. 

Actually its highly variable over time. Grew dramatically from about 1600 before dropping in the 1850s. A trend which continued post independence with a slight uptick in the 1940s before another slump and then pick up. The biggest increases were when part of the UK.

> Separately they have done much better economically since they joined the EU.

Yes a tactic of taking lots of money and acting as a tax island worked well. At the expense of the rest of the EU. Problem is other countries are getting bored of that now and proposing ways to crack down on the aiding and abetting of the tax dodgers.

> That's got to do with colonial powers using state violence and ethnic manipulation of population in order to prevent independence.

You really do devalue the term here in a way. As a general rule I think if the "colony" has had several people as the PM of the "coloniser" then its rather hard to claim its a colony.

> The number of places in the world where England/UK have caused wars by f*cking up other people's borders during their colonisation is large.

I love your convenient England/UK. I suppose in your mind all the Scottish people involved in the empire were valiantly trying to hold those evil English people back but failing through no fault of their own?

1
Stichtplate 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> That's got to do with colonial powers using state violence and ethnic manipulation of population in order to prevent independence.

> The number of places in the world where England/UK have caused wars by f*cking up other people's borders during their colonisation is large.

Even a passing knowledge of our colonial history would inform you that Scots were, if anything, over represented amongst the main players in the expansion of the British Empire. The only reason the union came about was Scotland's thwarted colonial ambitions in Darien. Your continual framing of "it was all the evil English" about every facet of the last 300 years of UK history is pure Nationalist bigotry.

Perhaps its such widespread evidence of nationalist stoked bigotry that has resulted in Scotland's 92% white British demographic as opposed to 79% in England. After all, people vote with their feet and quality of life in the UK is about much more than the wages offered in London.

1
Harry Jarvis 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Obviously.

> Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it   - WInston Churchill.

> There is more than enough data to show that the UK doesn't work for Scotland and the EU does.  300 years of data for the UK in that graph and 40 years for the EU.

> The brighter future is ditching the UK and staying in the EU.  Same as Ireland did and it has worked out far better for them than staying with the UK has done for Scotland.

> The Tory Brexit future is a complete disaster and makes it compelling to get Scotland out as fast as possible.   Johnson is like Trump, except that Trump has the power of the US economy and military behind him. 

My point is not complicated. You will not win over waverers by constant negative backwards-looking diatribes about the iniquities of the past. Harking back to the Jacobites - what possible relevance does that have to a modern liberal 21st democracy. Define Scotland by what it is and can be, not by what it is not. The only vaguely relevant comments you make about the present day are your statements of the obvious about Trump and Johnson. Make a positive case for Scottish independence that is not defined by the relationship with England.

But while you're at it, don't overlook the difficulties faced, or pretend that they don't exist. Like it or not, Scotland has endemic problems which need to be confronted whatever the status of the country. Glib assertions that all that is needed is to be let loose from the shackles of the UK will not address our poor relationships with alcohol and drugs, and will not put an end to the religious bigotry from which we suffer. 

1
TobyA 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Not what I said. 

I took the direct quote from your post?! It might not have been what you meant, but it was literally what you said.

> That's got to do with colonial powers using state violence and ethnic manipulation of population in order to prevent independence.

I'll leave others who have studied the Irish civil war more than I have to comment on that case, but there was no ethnic dimension to the Finnish civil war, not even much of a linguistic dimension which is vaguely like ethnic dimensions in other countries. The Russian state played virtually no role in the Finnish civil war because both the nascent Soviet Union and the remnants of the Imperial Russian state were in an existential struggle inside Russia proper. It was a political- or even class-conflict within Finnish society.

Glug 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Scotland is less economically attractive to migrants.   They can make more money in London.  Same reason Scotland loses many of its most talented people to England.

> If there's less economic incentive then we should counteract that with a more welcoming policy.  Hassling the f*ck out of people and making them feel unwelcome or any kind of policy designed to reduce or reverse immigration is counter productive.  

It looks like I'll have to ask again😒 You stated that the English have stopped the population growth in Scotland, what have they done in the last 40 years (not what they are going to be doing in the future) to stop people settling in Scotland? but lets them settle in England (again not just London) I think you are proving the point that the Scottish may not have been as welcoming as you would like to think over the last 40 years, even Rom abandoned Scotland 😁

1
neilh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It was on life support following the GFC, economy devestated.Far more desperate than anything here. 

I assume you are an avid supporter of their low corporation tax rates. 
 

tom_in_edinburgh 05 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> It was on life support following the GFC, economy devestated.Far more desperate than anything here. 

It had a massive boom leading up to it and it took a different approach to dealing with it.   The UK approach of printing money and protecting house owners, banks and investors reduced immediate pain but it also prolonged recovery,  shifted the burden from the old to the young and has doubled the UK national debt.    I don't think it is clear cut that the UK handled it better.   

> I assume you are an avid supporter of their low corporation tax rates. 

I am a supporter of Ireland's ability to make its own choices.   I think they have done a great job to build their tech economy, not just with inward investors but also growing local startups.   In Ireland money is making its way from banks in Dublin to local high-tech industry.  That's not happening in Scotland on anything like the same scale. 

The low corporation tax rate was an effective tactic.  Doesn't mean to say they can or should do it forever.    They took a bunch of business from London and Frankfurt to grow Dublin as a financial centre.  Good for them.  Scotland should look for similar opportunities when it becomes independent.

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Glib assertions that all that is needed is to be let loose from the shackles of the UK will not address our poor relationships with alcohol and drugs, and will not put an end to the religious bigotry from which we suffer. 

Well yeah it might, for example the SNP's policy on minimum alcohol pricing and before that banning of smoking in public places have had dramatic effects on public health.

If drugs policy was not reserved to Westminster we would have an evidence based approach to that as well - instead of one designed to appeal to Daily Mail readers.   The SNP asked for powers to try consumption rooms and got blocked immediately.

Religious bigotry is nothing like the problem it once was because 2/3 of people never go near a church and even fewer go to football.   

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Even a passing knowledge of our colonial history would inform you that Scots were, if anything, over represented amongst the main players in the expansion of the British Empire.

Of course they were.   People from economically disadvantaged regions get recruited into armies.   Every colonial power recruits soldiers from one territory and uses them to subjugate another, or recruits from one favoured group and uses it to suppress another. 

The question is where is the directing power and where did the money go, not where did they recruit the footsoldiers.

3
Stichtplate 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Of course they were.   People from economically disadvantaged regions get recruited into armies.   Every colonial power recruits soldiers from one territory and uses them to subjugate another, or recruits from one favoured group and uses it to suppress another. 

> The question is where is the directing power and where did the money go, not where did they recruit the footsoldiers.

Yeh course, all those poor disadvantaged Scottish aristos who were so hard up they just had to become viceroys of India. 

http://readinggamesplayingbooks.com/scots/node/192

Meanwhile, all those English soldiers, famously described as 'scum of the Earth' by Irish aristo, the duke of wellington, they were all actually upper middle class Yahs, off on a gap year jolly!

1
RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Just remind me how the Irish economy did post the GFC.

Better than the UK’s according to most measures. It has actually recovered; the UK still hasn’t.

Post edited at 07:40
L mondite 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Of course they were.   People from economically disadvantaged regions get recruited into armies.   Every colonial power recruits soldiers from one territory and uses them to subjugate another, or recruits from one favoured group and uses it to suppress another. 

I am really not sure if this is a victim complex or just trying to avoid any ownership of the downsides of empire and blaming it all on the nasty English? The Scottish middle classes were well represented in Empire and profited nicely from it.

You really do those countries that were colonies a real disservice by your continued comparisons.

rogerwebb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You have I believe made your view that Scotland is a colony of England quiet clear. Others have disputed that theory. I wonder if every one is using the same definition of 'colony'?

What is your definition? 

Post edited at 08:27
RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

« a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country »

Sounds about right ?

neilh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

An unemployment rate of 12%. Lifesupport from the ECB .

Depends on your definition.  

rogerwebb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> « a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country »

> Sounds about right ?

I am interested in Tom's definition, but as you ask yours is 'about right' but misses the rest, the rather important part of the definition

'and occupied by settlers from that country'

Do we really want to go there?

I am assuming/hoping that is not what has been meant by the use of the term 'colony' in the context of the contention that Scotland is a colony of England. 

Post edited at 09:11
neilh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

England was by this definition of Roms's a colony of the Normans, the Romans and the Vikings off the top of my head. You could argue endlessly we became a colony of the Germans with the monarchy links.

I find this type of historical argument pretty weak as justification other than for rabid nationalists in any country.I wish Tom would stick to his economic, voting remain and other arguments rather than tharound Scottish History ( which is incredibly fascinating but vitriolic).

Most of us across the UK could come up with a detailed historically favourable reason for splitting off ( Cornwall, Yorkshire etc) going back.Some people on the fringes do.

1
rogerwebb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

I agree. I believe there are reasonable arguments for independence, I don't necessarily agree with them but they are reasonable and I can imagine being persuaded by them. The bad English argument is not one of them. 

L mondite 06 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> England was by this definition of Roms's a colony of the Normans, the Romans and the Vikings off the top of my head. You could argue endlessly we became a colony of the Germans with the monarchy links.

Romans yes. Where the term started with the outposts in conquered lands often populated by paid off soldiers hence giving the Romans a reserve and loyal force.

Normans: Early days yes (when the power structure remained in Normandy) but changed over time.

Vikings: Maybe on occasion eg Cnut although even then he projected the power the other way. Definitely ticked the settlers box but not really the control remaining in the home country of the settlers.

Of course under "partial political control" that would mean that England is a colony of Scotland. 

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I found the picture I referred to in an earlier post. 

The Tories now go on about the 'Singapore Model'  but when Singapore was trying to get independence there were the exact same 'can't afford it' arguments in the UK press as we get about Scotland today.

https://twitter.com/lllllinda/status/1224460158237118464

neilh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

There are some. Tories who hark on about the Singapore model, but to my knowledge its not mainstream party thinking.They are more likely just to use it as an example of alternatives.Rather like the discussion about Canadian or Australian or Japanese FTA's.

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> What is your definition? 

This guy summarises the argument in a 60 second video.

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1225171526233706496

I don't think the English colonised Scotland in the sense of large numbers of normal folk being used as 'settlers'.  There's more of an argument about the aristocracy / large landowners.

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> There are some. Tories who hark on about the Singapore model,

Like Boris.

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> An unemployment rate of 12%. Lifesupport from the ECB .

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate

Currently 4.8%  not that much more than the UK and you'd need to get into details like how many of the UK 'jobs' are zero-hour contracts to see if it is actually worse.

UK was on life support from Bank of England which was carried out by buying bonds from banks and creating a boom in London.  The people who were responsible for the crash got rich from it.

4
neilh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And if you treat that as policy then you have lost the plot

neilh 06 Feb 2020
Stichtplate 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> This guy summarises the argument in a 60 second video.

His point that Scotland is a colony of England was rather hilariously let down by the fact that the two Tory ministers he chose to bookend his piece, and presumably hammer home the point, were Michael Gove and Alister Jack. Both born and raised in Scotland.

You sure Phantom Power bloke isn't secretly working for the other side Tom?

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> This was post the GFC, not now.

I know - my point before was that Ireland had a very harsh correction but worked through it pretty quickly.  The UK printed a ton of money and had a less harsh correction, managed to protect parts of the economy which caused the problem, but is sitting on a lot more debt which will take longer to work through.   

UK press keep banging on about what a disaster Ireland had because of Euro without giving anything like as much prominence to the size of the boom they had before the crash and how fast they recovered.

The media stories may technically be true but when they go all in on bad news for Ireland/Scotland and largely ignore good news the overall effect is to project a distorted view which favours the unionist agenda.

2
neilh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Interstingly the NYT did a review of the countries worst affected by the GFC. Buoyed by the strong trade links with Britain and the USA it has recovered

Ireland’s fast growth in the 1990s earned it the nickname “Celtic Tiger.” But the 2008 financial crisis revealed that much of that growth had been built on unchecked property speculation, fueled by low interest rates made possible by the European Central Bank.

The fall was swift and painful, as a collapse in housing prices wiped out many families’ savings. Worse, Irish taxpayers were saddled with a tab of 64 billion euros, or about $72 billion, to bail out the country’s banks. (The figure was eventually cut to about €40 billion after a debt refinancing.)

Deep government spending cuts added to the hardship. Unemployment climbed above 15 percent in February 2012, and some young people in this country of only 4.7 million followed the long Irish tradition of immigrating to more prosperous places.

But the bounce-back was more robust than that in most of the rest of the eurozone, as the Irish economy returned to its pre-2008 level by early 2014. Buoyed by strong trade links with Britain and the United States, both of which have outperformed the eurozone over the last eight years, Ireland is now one of the best-performing members of the euro currency bloc.

stevieb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I found the picture I referred to in an earlier post. 

> The Tories now go on about the 'Singapore Model'  but when Singapore was trying to get independence there were the exact same 'can't afford it' arguments in the UK press as we get about Scotland today.


That was Singapore gaining independence from Malaysia. And they were directly quoting a senior Chinese Malay politician. Also, even then, independence for Singapore was more like London or Mumbai aiming for independence than Scotland.

Personally, I'm not in favour of Scottish independence, but if it's what the people of Scotland want, then go for it. The people you need to convince are your fellow Scots. You lost a referendum 5 years ago, and current polls are all around the 52:48 mark. That doesn't feel like a good argument for another once in a generation referendum. Bougainville had a referendum for independence and voted 98.3% for it. Now, that's a mandate.

I also think that there's a disconnect when Scottish people who want better funded services, then promote a race to the bottom on business taxation.

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> I also think that there's a disconnect when Scottish people who want better funded services, then promote a race to the bottom on business taxation.

Why?  The point of reducing business taxation is to increase the business tax base by encouraging investment.  So you end up with more revenue to fund services.  It could be a good strategy for Scotland, just like it is for Ireland.  It wouldn't be a good strategy for the UK because it depends on being able to greatly expand your current position.

The point of being independent is you can use the strategies than suit your circumstances rather than having strategies forced upon you which disadvantage you to protect a 'more important' part of a larger country.   Then you get told you are sh*t and unproductive and 'subsidised by' the region of the country which policy is designed to favour.

1
stevieb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Why?  The point of reducing business taxation is to increase the business tax base by encouraging investment.  So you end up with more revenue to fund services.  It could be a good strategy for Scotland, just like it is for Ireland. 

Because, for the most part, it's a beggar your neighbour approach. The aim is not to increase the 'world pie', the aim is not to share the world pie more equitably, the aim is to take a bigger piece of the pie, and generally feeds into more of the wealth of the world being concentrated in fewer hands.

Post edited at 12:38
Le Sapeur 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> Bougainville had a referendum for independence and voted 98.3% for it. Now, that's a mandate.

If a Tory farts north of the border it's a mandate for the SNP's.

2
tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> His point that Scotland is a colony of England was rather hilariously let down by the fact that the two Tory ministers he chose to bookend his piece, and presumably hammer home the point, were Michael Gove and Alister Jack. Both born and raised in Scotland.

Unfortunately, I'm not capable of talking about Gove and Jack without using language which would get me banned.

2
tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> Because, for the most part, it's a beggar your neighbour approach. The aim is not to increase the 'world pie', the aim is not to share the world pie more equitably, the aim is to take a bigger piece of the pie, and generally feeds into more of the wealth of the world being concentrated in fewer hands.

It takes market share from established centres in big countries like London and Frankfurt and gives it to smaller centres like Dublin or Edinburgh.  That is more equitable. 

stevieb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It takes market share from established centres in big countries like London and Frankfurt and gives it to smaller centres like Dublin or Edinburgh.  That is more equitable. 

No, it takes huge taxable profits from London, Paris and Frankfurt; and for a small slice of the cake allows hugely wealthy multi nationals to park most of their profits in the Virgin Islands. 

1
Stichtplate 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Unfortunately, I'm not capable of talking about Gove and Jack without using language which would get me banned.

I completely sympathise, but even you must admit that they aren't the fault of the English

1
fred99 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Unfortunately, I'm not capable of talking about Gove and Jack without using language which would get me banned.


But you would get a lot of support to be let back in.

summo 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The people who were responsible for the crash got rich from it.

You mean all the bank employees at RBS, not so far away from you? If the government let RBS go under, you'd no doubt be complaining about that too! 

Or those who worked for Lehmans who all lost their jobs. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/dec/28/markets-credit-crunch-banking-2008

A few facts. You might want to see how many bank employees weren't to blame, versus the few that were. 

We'll ignore the fact at the time before and during crash the UK had Scottish born and/or educated chancellors and PMs. But I'm sure you'll find a way to make it all the fault of some English bloke. 

Ps. What is the snp finance minister upto today? 

Post edited at 13:30
2
RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> You mean all the bank employees at RBS, not so far away from you? If the government let RBS go under, you'd no doubt be complaining about that too! 

They should definitely have let it go under.

Le Sapeur 06 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Ps. What is the snp finance minister upto today? 

Probably talking to his lawyer.

He certainly won't be thinking about cycling from Aviemore to Carrbridge along the new dedicated cycle route.

1
RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Just remind me how the Irish economy did post the GFC.

Badly, but better than the U.K’s:

https://data.worldbank.org/share/widget?end=2018&indicators=NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD&locations=IE-GB&start=1990&view=chart

Frankly I’m not sure why you’re still peddling this myth when the data unequivocally disproves it.

It’s ideology or something. Strange.

Post edited at 14:36
RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb

> I also think that there's a disconnect when Scottish people who want better funded services, then promote a race to the bottom on business taxation.

It isn’t contradictory at all.  I have long argued on other thread that corporate taxes should be reduced or brought down to zero, whilst income tax should be significantly increased.

It makes more sense to me to tax incomes more than to punish successful business that create useful things and service and create jobs.

summo 06 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> They should definitely have let it go under.

Easier said than done. Or let go into receivership and split it up, getting rid of the problem areas. 

stevieb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

Do you honestly think that’s the aim? I think the aim is to get EU and UK businesses to move their head offices to a low tax jurisdiction so that the profits earned in Germany, UK etc are taxed in your country. 

I also think your proposal is misguided and would lead to even more money being extracted from poor countries to rich countries, but it’s at a tangent from what is being discussed. 

RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> Do you honestly think that’s the aim? I think the aim is to get EU and UK businesses to move their head offices to a low tax jurisdiction so that the profits earned in Germany, UK etc are taxed in your country. 

Well that would be my aim.
European and global regulation on profit shifting have largely clamped down on this anyway.

> I also think your proposal is misguided and would lead to even more money being extracted from poor countries to rich countries, but it’s at a tangent from what is being discussed.

I’m not sure why.

Post edited at 15:41
RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Easier said than done. Or let go into receivership and split it up, getting rid of the problem areas. 

No. It needed annihilating. Still does. You don’t know the stuff I know, which I can’t tell. But believe me.

Post edited at 15:43
stevieb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear

> I’m not sure why.

Because any tax due will be paid by the investors, who will be predominantly from rich countries. This is assuming you are even taxing dividends or capital gains. 
So the tax on profit for every car that Toyota sell in Kenya will be paid in Japan. 

RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> In reply to RomTheBear

> Because any tax due will be paid by the investors, who will be predominantly from rich countries. This is assuming you are even taxing dividends or capital gains. 

Ive just told you that I’d be taxing income more, that’s any income, whether it comes from dividends or from elsewhere.

stevieb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Ive just told you that I’d be taxing income more, that’s any income, whether it comes from dividends or from elsewhere.. 

Ok, whoopy doo, my point still stands. You’re increasing the tax take in Japan and reducing it in kenya. 
and if you’re not taxing capital gains you’re opening up a route for avoidance 

RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> Ok, whoopy doo, my point still stands. You’re increasing the tax take in Japan and reducing it in kenya. 

Nonsensical, you’re not decreasing any tax take elsewhere, a Japanese business that paid corporation tax  in Japan would just not pay CT in Japan, and the investor would just pay more tax on his dividend.

It has no impact on Kenya which wasn’t getting anything in the first place anyway.

> and if you’re not taxing capital gains you’re opening up a route for avoidance.

I have said ANY income.

stevieb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Nonsensical, you’re not decreasing any tax take elsewhere, a Japanese business that paid corporation tax  in Japan would just not pay CT in Japan, and the investor would just pay more tax on his dividend.

> It has no impact on Kenya which wasn’t getting anything in the first place anyway.

Toyota have wholly owned subsidiaries in loads of countries manufacturing,  assembling, selling and servicing vehicles. Do you imagine that these companies don’t pay corporate taxes in those countries? 
because under your scheme, all the tax is liable to the owners in Japan and other wealthy countries. Poor Kenya. 

> I have said ANY income.

Capital gains aren’t income. Just trying to get you to clarify what you mean. 

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> No, it takes huge taxable profits from London, Paris and Frankfurt; and for a small slice of the cake allows hugely wealthy multi nationals to park most of their profits in the Virgin Islands. 

It's a bit rich to pretend London is all about paying tax and Dublin is about avoiding it.   London is full of dodgy bankers, lawyers and accountants whose whole business is working round tax laws.

stevieb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's a bit rich to pretend London is all about paying tax and Dublin is about avoiding it.   London is full of dodgy bankers, lawyers and accountants whose whole business is working round tax laws.

Yes, and I’ve never managed to convince myself that that’s a good thing. It sounds like you have. 

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> You mean all the bank employees at RBS, not so far away from you? If the government let RBS go under, you'd no doubt be complaining about that too! 

No, I've consistently said that RBS and the other banks should have gone through bankruptcy.   The employees whose pension was invested in bank shares should have been wiped out and got minimum statutory guaranteed pensions.  People whose money was in RBS should have got their legal guaranteed protections and anything above that in their account would be subject to a haircut.

If you don't apply the rules of capitalism to banks and property owners then you don't have capitalism at all, you've got some kind of feudal system.   When the system crashes the rich should get wiped out so things can re-balance and a different set of people get to the top.

2
neilh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So all those business with cash at RBS would have been wiped out in one fell swoop. All the trade deals , forex contracts etc all gone. 20% or so of the economy vanished overnight.  
 

really clever. Get real 

summo 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It would have triggered a run on all banks and caused a collapse. Machines would have been emptied within hours and all electronic payment terminals shut down. What then happens in terms of people obtaining food, police and military on the streets is the stuff of Hollywood movies. 

rogerwebb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> This guy summarises the argument in a 60 second video.

> I don't think the English colonised Scotland in the sense of large numbers of normal folk being used as 'settlers'.  There's more of an argument about the aristocracy / large landowners.


His definition of colony is a little truncated though;

colony /ˈkɒləni/

noun: colony; plural noun: colonies

'a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country.'

I also see a problem with your large landowners colonising, The Duke of Westminster maybe, but the Duke of Buccleuch perhaps not, the Povlsens who knows?

This clearly though is something you feel strongly about and in the restricted definition of colony  in that video you have a stateable, though from my point of view weak, case. 

Am I correct in assuming, that despite the terms of the full definition of colony (from the Oxford Dictionary), you do not consider me a coloniser or settler?

Post edited at 19:48
RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> So all those business with cash at RBS would have been wiped out in one fell swoop. All the trade deals , forex contracts etc all gone. 20% or so of the economy vanished overnight.  

Sorry to bug you again, but FYI 20% of the UK economy did vanish.


And we’re still 15% down. Despite population growth, essentially we never really recovered.


Which isn’t surprising, given that we’ve not addressed the problem. You prefer to put in on the youth and next generation rather than having to bear the cost.

Understandable but immoral.

Post edited at 22:26
RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> Toyota have wholly owned subsidiaries in loads of countries manufacturing,  assembling, selling and servicing vehicles. Do you imagine that these companies don’t pay corporate taxes in those countries? 

> because under your scheme, all the tax is liable to the owners in Japan and other wealthy countries. Poor Kenya. 

I can see you are trying to fudge but sorry still doesn’t make any sense.

In your example the equation hasn’t changed whatsoever for Kenya.

> Capital gains aren’t income. Just trying to get you to clarify what you mean. 

Of course it is a form of income. Anything you receive that increases your capacity for consumption is income.

Post edited at 22:27
stevieb 06 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I can see you are trying to fudge but sorry still doesn’t make any sense.

> In your example the equation hasn’t changed whatsoever for Kenya.

Fudging? It’s you who’s avoiding the question. Do car companies pay tax in the countries where they own assembly plants and dealerships? 

If you’re struggling, I’ll help. The answer is Yes. 

tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

There's no shortage of definitions of colony.  I don't think that one is 'truncated' just because it isn't the Oxford one.  It's kind of colonial to assume that Oxford is the de-facto standard dictionary

Cambridge: "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country that is often far away"

American: "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country"

Webster: "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state"

As regards the Oxford definition and your good self, probably not!    The main problems that Scotland has had as the result of the union are economic damage due to having inappropriate policies imposed and depopulation.  

RomTheBear 06 Feb 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> Fudging? It’s you who’s avoiding the question. Do car companies pay tax in the countries where they own assembly plants and dealerships? 

Yes, so what exactly ?

> If you’re struggling, I’ll help. The answer is Yes. 

Lol ok but doesn’t change anything in your story. 

Post edited at 23:09
tom_in_edinburgh 06 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> So all those business with cash at RBS would have been wiped out in one fell swoop. All the trade deals , forex contracts etc all gone. 20% or so of the economy vanished overnight.  

No.  It would have been put in administration and kept running the same way as other businesses.  There would also have been a chance for a proper criminal investigation - that went away when government bought bank shares for tens of billions and its financial interest became tied to that of the bankers.   We would have had a rough few weeks.  Some people would have lost a proportion of their savings.  But the system would have had a proper correction and would function better for it.   Housing would have been priced differently relative to other products and services because it clearly wasn't a one way bet.  Company shares would start to look more attractive relative to bank interest because there was clearly also risk in bank savings.   Young people would have had an opportunity to buy distressed assets and get on the housing ladder cheaply, instead of suffering to make sure that older people with savings and houses didn't lose out.   

rogerwebb 07 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There's no shortage of definitions of colony.  I don't think that one is 'truncated' just because it isn't the Oxford one.  It's kind of colonial to assume that Oxford is the de-facto standard dictionary

I think its truncated because if you Google 'colony definition' it is the one that comes up. I simply cut and pasted it. It happens to agree with the Oxford definition and is uncannily similar to the definition in your video. Although to be fair I didn't bother copying the line about the Japanese forces overrunning the French colony in Indochina. 

> As regards the Oxford definition and your good self, probably not!    

I would prefer it if you ditched the probably!  

tom_in_edinburgh 07 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> I would prefer it if you ditched the probably!  

Consider it ditched.

summo 07 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> No.  It would have been put in administration and kept running the same way as other businesses. 

But a bank isn't any other business. Look what happened with northern rock. There will be queues for money in seconds and the public know they will be last in line with other creditors. The bank was leveraged umpteen times and there isn't any way everyone would have got their money back.  

Once people think their wages and savings are at risk, what would you do? Cash in the hand becomes king.   

RomTheBear 07 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> But a bank isn't any other business. Look what happened with northern rock. There will be queues for money in seconds and the public know they will be last in line with other creditors. The bank was leveraged umpteen times and there isn't any way everyone would have got their money back.  

 

Indeed, they would have had to take the hit. But blood sweat and tears is the only way you get out of this.

> Once people think their wages and savings are at risk, what would you do? Cash in the hand becomes king.   

 

People savings are at risk. Once you put money in the bank it isn’t technically yours anymore.

summo 07 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Indeed, they would have had to take the hit. But blood sweat and tears is the only way you get out of this.

> People savings are at risk. Once you put money in the bank it isn’t technically yours anymore.

That's not the risk or concern with a banking collapse. What do you think people will do when the machines run dry and electronic terminals are turned off, and they haven't eaten for 2 or 3 days? 

1
RomTheBear 07 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> That's not the risk or concern with a banking collapse. What do you think people will do when the machines run dry and electronic terminals are turned off, and they haven't eaten for 2 or 3 days? 

It’s not pretty, which is exactly why large banks have to be eliminated. We wouldn’t have this problem if we weren’t bailing them out permanently.

Post edited at 08:33
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Have the SNP now taken the crown for sleaze from the Tories? What's going on?

Derek Mackay, Angus MacNeil, Stewart Hosie, Mark Macdonald and of course Alex Salmond.

Do you think there are more scandals to come out?

1
neilh 07 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Its a good thing we had people  running the show at the time who had a proper grasp of the consequences, rather than your flat earth version.For a start young people would not access to money to be able to buy the distressed assets, either they would have been out of work or the banks would not have given them mortgages as they would have had no money to lend or the older people would have their savings wiped out and then been unable to pass money onto younger people.It would not have solved the housing situation.

I agree with the premise that the banks were too big too fail, but that is a separate issue.

And Godwin etc were taken to court and found not guilty and guilty of hubris ( which is not a crime), in case you had forgotten.

tom_in_edinburgh 07 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Its a good thing we had people  running the show at the time who had a proper grasp of the consequences,

None of this is true.  Government doubled our national debt in the aftermath of the banking crisis i.e. another 1 trillion quid and spent it in ways which preserved existing wealth and enriched the bankers that caused it.

Government didn't have to use QE money to buy bonds from banks.  They could have spent printed money on large scale infrastructure, science mega projects or simply divided the 1 trillion pound printed money among 60 million people and handed every man, woman and child in the country £16k.   The spending would have gone into useful parts of the economy and kept business running.  Younger people are going to be paying that debt off but the people who benefited from it are older people with large savings.

Nobody really tried to do a hardcore investigation like happened with Enron with dawn raids to seize records and people getting arrested and pressured to testify against those higher up.  You can only do that if you are willing to let the company fail.   

tom_in_edinburgh 07 Feb 2020
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Have the SNP now taken the crown for sleaze from the Tories? What's going on?

No.  Tories are in a different league.

> Derek Mackay, Angus MacNeil, Stewart Hosie, Mark Macdonald and of course Alex Salmond.

All different cases.   There's a difference between allegations and facts and it isn't legal to comment on the merits of cases which are sub-judice.   The Derek Mackay thing is reprehensible but nothing illegal is alleged.   

The SNP now have a lot of MPs, MSPs and MEPs.   Statistically over a 15 year period - and some of the behaviour you are bringing up goes back to 2005 - you are going to get some sex scandals with that number of human males.

> Do you think there are more scandals to come out?

I wouldn't concede that everything on that list was a scandal e.g. sleeping with your secretary and one is not proven.

There are bound to be more scandals.  If you take a sample of 100 men in any walk of life over a 15 year period you are going to find some problematic behaviour.   All you can expect is that the SNP/Scottish Government deal with things promptly and fairly when they come to light.  They got told about Derek Mackay on Wednesday evening and he was out at 8am on Thursday morning.   I don't see how they could have reacted faster.

neilh 07 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

There are of course downsides to everyone of the points you have listed which were worked through at the time and are nothing new or revelatory. 

RomTheBear 07 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> I agree with the premise that the banks were too big too fail, but that is a separate issue.

That isn’t a separate issue at all, it is the central issue.

tom_in_edinburgh 07 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> There are of course downsides to everyone of the points you have listed which were worked through at the time and are nothing new or revelatory. 

The main downside being that the people making the decisions all had stacks of money in banks and most of their personal wealth tied up in houses in London.

1
Harry Jarvis 07 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm pretty sure that Sir Fred had a nice big house in Blackford, quite a long way from London.  

Post edited at 14:41
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

"The SNP now have a lot of MPs, MSPs and MEPs.   Statistically over a 15 year period - and some of the behaviour you are bringing up goes back to 2005 - you are going to get some sex scandals with that number of human males."

I see.  Its all normal and statistically in line with general human male behaviour. I'm amazed they even bother to report it ;-)

1
Naechi 07 Feb 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Just Fred...

graeme jackson 07 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> No.  Tories are in a different league.

In your opinion maybe. Trouble is, the SNP have always taken the moral high ground and now it turns out that they're just as bad as everyone else.  Can't wait for next week's sordid revelation.

tom_in_edinburgh 07 Feb 2020
In reply to graeme jackson:

> In your opinion maybe. Trouble is, the SNP have always taken the moral high ground and now it turns out that they're just as bad as everyone else.  Can't wait for next week's sordid revelation.

Nothing like as bad as the Tories.  The Tories are still hiding their internal report into Ross Thomson.  Johnson gets away with murder, public money for mistress, not saying how many kids he has, Russian links etc  Gove admits doing cocaine and comes to work in commons so out of it he needs to hold onto the speakers chair to stay upright.  SNP heard about this on Wednesday evening and first thing on Thursday morning he was fired and suspended.

Isn't it a coincidence that this story just happened to break the day he was going to present the Scottish budget.  Somebody was sitting on it waiting to release at the most politically damaging time.

I'm sure there will be more SNP scandals as the pressure for indyref2 grows.   The UK government has GCHQ watching everyone's communications and when push comes to shove and they think their precious union is in jeopardy they'll start leaking stuff to the Tory press.  I don't think it will do them any good because independence isn't about the people in the SNP, it is about running our own economy and getting back in the EU.   SNP is a means to an end, once we get indy politics is sure to reconfigure around left/right rather than nationalist/unionist anyway.

1
summo 07 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You're drifting into conspiracy theory territory, pefa would be proud. But it does discredit the occasional credible points you make. 

6
elsewhere 07 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

It would be nice if Russian funding of UK politics were just a conspiracy theory.

summo 07 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> It would be nice if Russian funding of UK politics were just a conspiracy theory.

Old habits die hard, scargill, unions, far left socialist supporters in the 80s? 

1
elsewhere 07 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Old habits die hard, scargill, unions, far left socialist supporters in the 80s? 

Oh well I guess you think it's all fine then.

MargieB 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

Round one of Brexit  - immigration-  didn't even include a consultation or responsive attitude towards that Scottish Immigration policy produced by the SNP. Now I've never voted for SNP and voted for the Union in 2014 but what is  pretty obvious is that  the existence of a  Union today has to  be actively created. It will be the sum total of omissions of policies to meet specific Scottish needs, a failure to federalise EU returning powers that make the option "dystopia versus independence" - and that similar Singaporean 98% vote for independence will be easily in range. Unlike Timmd, I'm not optimistic that the Conservatives have this insight but will instead produce poor circumstances for Scotland.

Post edited at 09:38
1
RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB:

You are absolutely right, except I’m even more pessimistic - or less naive maybe - I don’t think Scotland will ever get independence unless maintaining Scotland in the union becomes too costly to the English electorate.

That means that if it happens it will most likely be at the end of some form of an armed conflict decades long. Just like Ireland.

It just seems unavoidable I don’t see any other realistic outcome, sadly. 

Just listening to many of the posters on here, summo, neilh , stichtplate, etc etc just shows you the unbridgeable gap and cultural chasm there is.

That is why at this point I don’t support Scottish independence, as it seems to me the only way to ever obtain it is through violence.
Instead I’ll keep arguing for devolution of powers, even if it’s a lost cause...

2
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You are absolutely right, except I’m even more pessimistic - or less naive maybe - I don’t think Scotland will ever get independence unless maintaining Scotland in the union becomes too costly to the English electorate.

> That means that if it happens it will most likely be at the end of some form of an armed conflict decades long. Just like Ireland.

Total crap. Scotland had one referendum, no doubt they'll have another. If a majority want to dissolve the union, then that's exactly what will happen.

> It just seems unavoidable I don’t see any other realistic outcome, sadly. 

Sadly, all you seem to see is unrealistic outcomes. 12 months ago you were telling us that we'd likely see soldiers manning our border controls due to Brexit. 6 months ago you were saying the Brexit party was the most powerful UK political party and how Farage had a very good chance of becoming our new PM.

> Just listening to many of the posters on here, summo, neilh , stichtplate, etc etc just shows you the unbridgeable gap and cultural chasm there is.

What cultural chasm? I'm a fairly regular visitor to Scotland and the stuff people watch on TV, eat, read, listen to, wear, see in cinemas, theatres, galleries and music venues, is pretty much identical to what I see around me in North West England.

> That is why at this point I don’t support Scottish independence, as it seems to me the only way to ever obtain it is through violence.

Yeah, and I bet you check under your bed every night in case of monsters.

> Instead I’ll keep arguing for devolution of powers, even if it’s a lost cause...

Why's it a lost cause? We've been moving steadily in that direction for years and most people (including me) have no issue with it.

1
Archy Styrigg 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That is why at this point I don’t support Scottish independence, as it seems to me the only way to ever obtain it is through violence.

You really are a nasty, poisonous little man, aren't you.

5
elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

Cultural chasm - indyref was different to every other vote I've experienced. I think that campaign made a difference that neighbouring northern England has not experienced. Serious debate in homes and workplaces, close result so not an implausible dream (or nightmare).

Nothing to do with cinema or food so why  even mention that? You seem oblivious to significance of 50/50 pro indy pro union sentiment that does not exist in northern England.

Post edited at 13:21
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Cultural chasm - indyref was different to every other vote I've experienced. I think that campaign made a difference that neighbouring northern England has not experienced. Serious debate in homes and workplaces, close result so not an implausible dream.

Cultural chasm: a major division, separation, or difference between two people, groups, etc

Would you like to explain how this cultural chasm manifests itself? Do you actually mean political differences mainly explicable through the simple fact that people in Scotland can vote for a third viable party, while those South of the border are confined to two parties most are heartily sick of. 

>  you seem to be oblivious to pro indy pro union sentiment.

Not really, no.

Edit: in reply to your edit

>Nothing to do with cinema or food, you seem to be oblivious to significance of 50/50 pro indy pro union sentiment that does not exist in northern England.

Ahh... so what you're saying is there's a cultural chasm between Scots rather than between Scots and English??? I don't agree with you on that either. The thing with Nationalist obsessives is, they see everything through the prism of their Nationalist obsession.

Post edited at 13:24
1
elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Would you like to explain how this cultural chasm manifests itself?

Serious debate in homes and workplaces, close result so not an implausible dream (or nightmare). Did you experience that in your visits?

Tell me about the northern England independence/union 50/50 sentiment if there's no difference.

Post edited at 13:33
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Serious debate in homes and workplaces, close result so not an implausible dream (or nightmare).

> Tell me about the northern England independence/union 50/50 sentiment if there's no difference.

I took issue with Rom's use of the Phrase 'cultural chasm'. There is no cultural chasm. Do you disagree?

elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

The thread is not about cinema or food so culture means political culture. There is a cultural chasm - if not, tell me about independence/unionist 50/50 sentiment/debate in northern England. Tell me how having a non-FPTP government works for northern England giving viable alternatives and representation of minority views within a constituency.

Post edited at 13:49
RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Total crap. Scotland had one referendum, no doubt they'll have another. If a majority want to dissolve the union, then that's exactly what will happen.

This is quite naive and quite deluded. In fact, the government has totally excluded it so it's not even up for debate.

> What cultural chasm? I'm a fairly regular visitor to Scotland and the stuff people watch on TV, eat, read, listen to, wear, see in cinemas, theatres, galleries and music venues, is pretty much identical to what I see around me in North West England.

The fact that you are too culturally monolithic to even understand or grasp any difference of perspective is part of the problem. 

> Why's it a lost cause? We've been moving steadily in that direction for years and most people (including me) have no issue with it.

The politics and the world have changed radically but you're too naive and comfortable to even see it.

Post edited at 13:59
2
summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

>  You seem oblivious to significance of 50/50 pro indy pro union sentiment that does not exist in northern England.

Because northern England is part of England, how can there be an anti English party to whip up anti English sentiment, among the northern English, to have an independent vote so the English there can be independent from the other English. 

The snp don't really care about Scotland, or the Scots people, they just want more powers for themselves. Look at them individually, you've salmond allegedly trying dominate many different women, now we have this other fella grooming a 16 year old... It's all about power. 

4
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> The thread is not about cinema or food so culture means political culture. There is a cultural chasm - if not, tell me about independence/unionist 50/50 sentiment/debate in northern England.

OK, so totally ignoring the fact that 'cultural chasm' encompasses far more than political difference and also ignoring the fact that English/ Scottish political culture is broadly identical, being based on peaceful democratic debate over the same left/right issues...

What do you want me to tell you? I live in the North of England and I'm passionate about the independence/unionist debate. You live in Scotland and are passionate about the independence/unionist debate, where's the 'cultural chasm'?

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> This is quite naive and quite deluded. In fact, the government has totally excluded it so it's not even up for debate.

Excluded forever? No, they haven't.

> The fact that you are too culturally monolithic to even understand or grasp any difference of perspective is part of the problem. 

Well perhaps you could utilise a a tiny portion of your massive intellect to explain how this English/Scottish cultural chasm manifests itself.

> The politics and the world have changed radically but you're too naive and comfortable to even see it.

Yeah, radically. Balls

RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I took issue with Rom's use of the Phrase 'cultural chasm'. There is no cultural chasm. Do you disagree?

It's a matter of individual preferences, most of my Scottish pals think exactly the same, but a few absolutely don't.
It's completely subjective. None of them is wrong.

What is wrong though is to be unrespectful and dismissive of other people's identity. That's exactly the kind of thing that then leads to violence etc. Hence why I am worried about it.

2
RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Excluded forever? No, they haven't.

Sure, put your money where your mouth is, I'll bet you 1000 pounds there isn't any other (official) indyref within the next decade.

> Well perhaps you could utilise a a tiny portion of your massive intellect to explain how this English/Scottish cultural chasm manifests itself.

Well, I think this thread is pretty much a manifestation of it. 

1
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It's a matter of individual preferences, most of my Scottish pals think exactly the same, but a few absolutely don't.

> It's completely subjective. None of them is wrong.

> What is wrong though is to be unrespectful and dismissive of other people's identity. That's exactly the kind of thing that then leads to violence etc. Hence why I am worried about it.

In other words more bluff, huff, guff and blather. You can’t explain yourself as there is no ‘cultural chasm’

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Sure, put your money where your mouth is, I'll bet you 1000 pounds

Yeah, and my dad’s harder than your dad. Grow up

> Well, I think this thread is pretty much a manifestation of it. 

This thread does not exemplify a ‘cultural chasm’. That is, unless you have a completely unique definition of ‘cultural chasm’ that actually means ‘slight difference of opinion’

elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> OK, so totally ignoring the fact that 'cultural chasm' encompasses far more than political difference and also ignoring the fact that English/ Scottish political culture is broadly identical, being based on peaceful democratic debate over the same left/right issues...

Broadly identical? The biggest party here doesn't exist in rUK and its defining policy does not exist in England.

> What do you want me to tell you? I live in the North of England and I'm passionate about the independence/unionist debate. 

Tell me again about the independence/unionist debate in homes/workplaces of northern England to convince me the politics the northern English independence movement is the same as here.

RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> In other words more bluff, huff, guff and blather. You can’t explain yourself as there is no ‘cultural chasm’

I think your comments on this thread exemplify perfectly the cultural chasm there can be.

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Broadly identical? The biggest party here doesn't exist in rUK and its defining policy does not exist in England.

> Tell me again about the independence/unionist debate in homes/workplaces of northern England to convince me the politics the northern English independence movement is the same as here.

I’ve asked you a very specific question: How does this ‘cultural chasm’ manifest itself. You refuse to address this and instead ask me impossible questions about the state of the independence debate in homes and workplaces across the North of England...how the f***k should I know? I personally have had several discussions about it. That good enough?

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I think your comments on this thread exemplify perfectly the cultural chasm there can be.

Yes Rom, you’re repeating yourself without in anyway explaining yourself 

1
RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I've asked you a particular question: How does this 'cultural chasm' manifest itself.

He has answered you many times; it's just that you are unable to grasp it, which in itself, is another example of the cultural chasm. You speak the same language but you clearly don't understand each other.

People who visit Scotland will often be scratching their heads just wondering just what it is that defines the intangible but very unique character of the place and its people.
It's a fusion of many things, of course, but it does it in a very unique way.

It is somewhat sad for you that you are way too closed in your mind to even contemplate or appreciate it for what it is and its intrinsic beauty.

Post edited at 14:43
2
RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Yes Rom, you’re repeating yourself and I keep not getting it.

Fixed it

2
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> He has answered you many times; it's just that you are unable to grasp it, which in itself, is another example of the cultural chasm. You speak the same language but you clearly don't understand each other.

No he hasn’t answered, he’s just thrown it back at me and asked me impossible questions about political debates “in homes and workplaces” across Northern England

> People who visit Scotland will often be scratching their heads just wondering just what it is that defines the intangible but very unique character of the place and its people.

Hmm...scratching their heads and pondering “intangible” differences. That doesn’t scream cultural chasm at me. 


Cultural chasm: a major division, separation, or difference between two people, groups, etc

> It's a fusion of many things, of course, but it does it in a very unique way.

A fusion of many things...but you can’t name any

1
RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> No he hasn’t answered, he’s just thrown it back at me and asked me impossible questions about political debates “in homes and workplaces” across Northern England

He has. you just don't get it.

> Hmm...scratching their heads and pondering “intangible” differences. That doesn’t scream cultural chasm at me. 

And yet, that is what there is. I appreciate that you are unable to appreciate it.

> Cultural chasm: a major division, separation, or difference between two people, groups, etc

Yep. Exactly. Given that about 50% of the Scots want to break from the UK, you'd thought it would be rather obvious, but you don't seem to grasp it.

Post edited at 15:02
1
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> He has. you just don't get it.

Not only do I not get it. Neither you nor him can explain it

> And yet, that is what there is. I appreciate that you are unable to appreciate it.

Hard to appreciate undefined intangible. Intangible was your word Rom... you do understand what intangible means? What is doesn’t mean is major difference, separation or division.

> Yep. Exactly. Given that about 50% of the Scots want to break from the UK, you'd thought it would be rather obvious, but you don't seem to grasp it.

50% of Scots want something that 50% of Scots don’t. That isn’t evidence of a division  between English and Scots, that’s evidence of a division between Scots and Scots.

1
elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I’ve asked you a very specific question: How does this ‘cultural chasm’ manifest itself. You refuse to address this and instead ask me impossible questions about the state of the independence debate in homes and workplaces across the North of England...how the f***k should I know? I personally have had several discussions about it. That good enough?

It manifests as no evidence of a close split on northern England independence with the strongest political party dedicated to northern England independence.  It manifests as in Scotland you would know about debates in homes and workplaces because you would probably have been part of them or probably heard about them from people you know personally.

You having several conversations is not the same as a national referendum, a national debate, a national campaign, a national parliament and national political leadership all characterised by indy/union as a major or most important factor. It's a bit more widespread and national than you having several conversations.

elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Not only do I not get it. Neither you nor him can explain it

> Hard to appreciate undefined intangible. Intangible was your word Rom... you do understand what intangible means? What is doesn’t mean is major difference, separation or division.

> 50% of Scots want something that 50% of Scots don’t. That isn’t evidence of a division  between English and Scots, that’s evidence of a division between Scots and Scots.

Tell me about the same split in northern England to convince me northern England and Scotland share independence as a/the defining political issue.

RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Not only do I not get it. Neither you nor him can explain it

We did. It's just that you don't get it, which in itself, is a manifestation of the cultural gap there is.

> Hard to appreciate undefined intangible. Intangible was your word Rom... you do understand what intangible means? What is doesn’t mean is a major difference, separation or division.

You don't seem to understand what intangible means. it just means it doesn't have a physical presence, or cannot be quantified. It doesn't mean it's not important or doesn't exist. 

> 50% of Scots want something that 50% of Scots don’t. That isn’t evidence of a division between English and Scots, that’s evidence of a division between Scots and Scots.

No, it's evidence of both.

Post edited at 15:41
3
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Tell me about the same split in northern England to convince me northern England and Scotland share independence as a/the defining political issue.

That’s not an argument I’ve made. I’ve specifically taken issue with the assertion that there exists a ‘cultural chasm’ between Scotland and England.

 ...and you really want me to explain why there isn’t a nationalist independence movement in a region that has never existed as an independent nation. 

1
alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

It seems to me you're being intentionally obtuse. Defining those things that represent national identity for any nation is complex and pretty difficult to sum up in a short thread. Much of it is subjective ....but in short I always think Scotland is communitarian rather than individualistic......with a sense of European identity as a small North Sea nation  National identity is tied up with the land, the people, the culture, their institutions and shared history/experience. But most importantly, national identity is about a group of people that want to self identify as a nation. Scotland has been doing that in one form or another for over 1,000 years. To deny that uniqueness in all of it's rich and untidy complexity because you don't understand it is crass. 

RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> To deny that uniqueness in all of it's rich and untidy complexity because you don't understand it is crass. 

You've nailed it

elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> That’s not an argument I’ve made. I’ve specifically taken issue with the assertion that there exists a ‘cultural chasm’ between Scotland and England.

I'm inviting you to provide evidence that northern England where you live has an indepence movement like Scotland as you said there was no cultural chasm.

>  ...and you really want me to explain why there isn’t a nationalist independence movement in a region that has never existed as an independent nation. 

Thus illustrating the cultural chasm that there isn't an independence movement for northern England but is for Scotland.

Post edited at 15:54
1
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> It seems to me you're being intentionally obtuse. Defining those things that represent national identity for any nation is complex and pretty difficult to sum up in a short thread. Much of it is subjective ....but in short I always think Scotland is communitarian rather than individualistic......with a sense of European identity as a small North Sea nation  National identity is tied up with the land, the people, the culture, their institutions and shared history/experience. But most importantly, national identity is about a group of people that want to self identify as a nation. Scotland has been doing that in one form or another for over 1,000 years. To deny that uniqueness in all of it's rich and untidy complexity because you don't understand it is crass. 

Again, I’m not denying Scottish identity, I’m denying there exists a ‘cultural chasm’ between Scotland and England. Nothing obtuse or crass in this, it’s simply recognition of the fact that we all speak the same language, live on the same small rainy island and share broadly the same culture.

2
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Thus illustrating the cultural chasm that there isn't an independence movement for northern England but is for Scotland.

That’s not evidence of a cultural chasm, that’s evidence of a quirk of history

1
RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> it’s simply recognition of the fact that we all speak the same language

And yet you don't seem to understand us.

Post edited at 16:02
2
alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I think we'll have to disagree about having "broadly the same culture". And while we share a language we've also got our own as well, which I'm pleased to say is having a dramatic resurgence. Politically and culturally Scotland and England are in my view very different. And that's always been the case, but never more so than in 2020. Despite inhabiting the same island I've got just as much and possibly more in common, politically and culturally, with our Scandinavian or Breton neighbours as I have with our English neighbours. But whatever happens politically I'm certain that we'll always be bound by ties of family, friendship and I hope mutual respect. That's enough eh?

Post edited at 16:16
1
summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> Politically and culturally Scotland and England are in my view very different. ...... Despite inhabiting the same island I've got just as much and possibly more in common, politically and culturally, with our Scandinavian or Breton neighbours as I have with our English neighbours.

I'd suggest the line of difference could just as easily be drawn between Dundee and Oban ... the cities in the central belt probably have more in common with English cities than those further north. Which would logically be explained as these areas over the last 2000 years have been ruled by various non Scottish tribes, the Roman and northumbrians etc..

Personally having lived in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Scandinavia, I don't see anything distinct in common at all. The closer knit rural communities of the highlands, one road, one pub, one village hall, one school, all socialise together.... are probably more similar to the remoter parts of sweden where towns might be 50-60km apart. 

Post edited at 16:52
5
alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Well, what can I say. Regardless of where you've lived, with respect, that's a very superficial way to look at things. I wonder if you freely share the same view about nations other than your own and their identities....or is it just Scottish national identity that provokes your dismissiveness.

From Hugh MacDiarmid "Yet my dear, as who upon the Cornish moors breaks apart a piece of rock will find it, impregnated through and through with the smell of honey, so lies the gaelic tradition in the lives of our dourest, most ununconscious and denying of Scots, it is there though it is unnoted, and exerts its secret potent influence..." A bit of Scottish culture for you!

2
summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> Well, what can I say. Regardless of where you've lived, with respect, that's a very superficial way to look at things. I wonder if you freely share the same view about nations other than your own and their identities....or is it just Scottish national identity that provokes your dismissiveness.

I've lived in both nations you claim are similar, I'm 25% Scottish although I'm not sure which bit, not my taste buds as I can't really abide whisky, irn brew or buckie. I'm not against indef2, I just think it makes sense for Brexit to conclude. It could take 5-10 years for Scotland to join the eu so waiting a couple of years longer for indef2 doesn't really matter, especially when you consider Scotland has been in the union for 300 plus years. 

> From Hugh MacDiarmid "Yet my dear, as who upon the Cornish moors breaks apart a piece of rock will find it, impregnated through and through with the smell of honey, so lies the gaelic tradition in the lives of our dourest, most ununconscious and denying of Scots, it is there though it is unnoted, and exerts its secret potent influence..." A bit of Scottish culture for you!

Probably not by chance. Given that the during east and south coast invasions of the UK over the last 2-3000 years, those tribes that could, fled west and north. So those residents of Wales, Cornwall, Scottish highlands and so on, are more the original tribes of the UK(at least of the bronze age and earlier), than the George cross flag waving Essex boy. 

2
RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> I’m not against indef2, I just think it makes sense for Brexit to conclude.

I don’t disagree, but it should be up to the Scottish Parliament to decide when is best and appropriate to hold one. Not up to Westminster.

Post edited at 18:14
1
summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I don’t disagree, but it should be up to the Scottish Parliament to decide when is best and appropriate to hold one. Not up to Westminster.

True... But you can't have one every time the snp change leader because they personally want their name in history grabbing power back. There needs to be some formula or plan behind justifying each indef... So waiting until Brexit negotiations have concluded would seem logical. 

alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

I don't think you quite got the point Hugh MacDiarmid was trying to make.....which is not surprising if you think we all drink, whisky, irn bru and buckfast. 

3
RomTheBear 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> True... But you can't have one every time the snp change leader because they personally want their name in history grabbing power back. There needs to be some formula or plan behind justifying each indef...

Again, up to the Scottish Parliament to decide and assess.

> So waiting until Brexit negotiations have concluded would seem logical. 

Maybe it is and I am sure that MSP are perfectly able to judge that for themselves.

1
summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Again, up to the Scottish Parliament to decide and assess.

> Maybe it is and I am sure that MSP are perfectly able to judge that for themselves.

It would appear at least two very senior snp politicians have shown very poor judgement in recent times. 

3
bouldery bits 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> It would appear at least two very senior snp politicians have shown very poor judgement in recent times. 

That's putting it lightly.... 

1
summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> .....which is not surprising if you think we all drink, whisky, irn bru and buckfast. 

Well I did live in the 'new' gorbals opposite the brazen head, then the top of Vicky road over looking the park gates. After that I was plastic posh jock and moved east to newhaven, but that area and leith was some what less gentrified then. 

So yeah..  I'd say I've got Scottish liquid consumption reasonably summarised. ;) 

1
Dr.S at work 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

Perhaps you could set it out clearly - but my reading is he suggests even if they do not feel they are different, the Scots secretly are.

nationalistic claptrap.

1
HansStuttgart 08 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> People who visit Scotland will often be scratching their heads just wondering just what it is that defines the intangible but very unique character of the place and its people.

Maybe I wasn't paying attention then....

To me places (and people) in Scotland were quite similar to places in England, so Skye and Orkney vs Lakes and Cornwall, St Andrews vs Cambridge, etc. The one place that to me is really different in the UK is London.

2
graeme jackson 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> which is not surprising if you think we all drink, whisky, irn bru and buckfast. 

true enough. Very few West Lothian residents can afford whisky

alastairmac 08 Feb 2020

In reply to rogerwebb:

You're right. And Scotland does have a very untidy history. But one that has always pivoted around the concept of a defined nation....since the Declaration of Arbroath 700 years ago...even if boundaries and loyalties were fluid. And the principle of "the sovereignty of the Scottish people". However, I agree that the debate we're having in Scotland presently needs to be about the future.

alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to graeme jackson:

I thought they only drank the finest single malt in Linlithgow?

alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Well that's one way to write off one of Scotland's finest poets. My own interpretation is that you don't need to scratch much below the surface to find a network of traditions, chains of kinship, collective memories and cultural connections in Scotland or any other nation, that contribute to a sense of community or identity. But I suppose everybody reads things differently. I was really just trying to lift the tone of the discussion a little.

Post edited at 19:51
rogerwebb 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

Sorry I deleted the post because I thought life might be too short for the debate that might ensue with some on this forum (not you). I think in many ways the Gaels and their history have been written out of or marginalised within the history of Scotland. Significant events, such as Harlaw being dismissed as 'Clan battles'. For much of the time Lowland Scotland having a very questionable attitude towards Highland Scotland. Perhaps because of the two different languages and very contrasting cultures. 

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> You're right. And Scotland does have a very untidy history. But one that has always pivoted around the concept of a defined nation....since the Declaration of Arbroath 700 years ago...even if boundaries and loyalties were fluid. And the principle of "the sovereignty of the Scottish people". 

The  MacDiarmid quote, the blood, history and land tenor of your posts and of course,  your insistence that British and Scots are divided by this (in my eyes mythical) 'cultural chasm' would all indicate that you have a very firm idea of what makes a Scot.

Straight question, and I hope I'll get a straight answer, are the 500,000 English born living in Scotland Scots? and if they are, how are they different from the 44 million born, raised and residing in England? 

If it is simply geographic location what's happened to the cultural chasm?

1
elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Straight question, and I hope I'll get a straight answer, are the 500,000 English born living in Scotland Scots?

Speaking as one of them, I will remain English although my allegiance has moved over to Scotland.

How are we different? We live here.

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Speaking as one of them, I will remain English although my allegiance has moved over to Scotland.

> How are we different? We live here.

I was asking what makes a Scot. Telling me you're English isn't really helping.

1
elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Straight question, and I hope I'll get a straight answer, are the 500,000 English born living in Scotland Scots?

Speaking for myself, I will remain English.

and if they are, how are they different from the 44 million born, raised and residing in England? 

We live here. That has an influence.

alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

I think that's is still true today. Politically, the Highlands and Islands have often received much less support and attention that they deserve. In historical terms it's probably pretty recent, with a step change between Highlands and Lowlands caused by industrialisation, changes in land management and emigration. But if I think of the big events that have shaped modern Scotland then the introduction of protective legislation for Crofters and Crofting is up near the top. It's interesting that Gaelic is seeing such a strong resurgence at the moment ( partly thanks to Duolingo....and people like Ian Noble in Isleornsay/Sabhal Mor ) along with the music and traditions of the Gaidhealtachd. I sense a new assertiveness and confidence that needs to be nourished and encouraged. But it needs to be set in a modern and forward looking economic polity.

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Speaking for myself, I will remain English.

> and if they are, how are they different from the 44 million born, raised and residing in England? 

> We live here. That has an influence.

Yeah, you've told me twice now you're English. You keep answering a question Ive not asked.

3
elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Yeah, you've told me twice now you're English. You keep answering a question Ive not asked.

Read the posts above for where I see the differences.

1
elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I was asking what makes a Scot. Telling me you're English isn't really helping.

I'm not a Scot. An independent Scotland is for people here. It's not an ethnic state. That was pretty clear to me in the indyref campaign.

Post edited at 20:31
alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I think that's a leading question....but I'll give you an answer anyway. People that come to live in Scotland, wherever they come from are welcome....and we need more people to come and live in Scotland. How they choose to identify themselves over time is up to them....some might choose to identify as Scottish, and that's great. Some might prefer to retain their parent nationality but still be part of the communities they live in. It's a personal thing. The important thing for me is that wherever they're from they feel warmly welcome and add to the rich mix that makes up what has always been a bit of a "mongrel" nation. That's a positive thing as far as I'm concerned.

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Read the posts above for where I see the differences.

The only difference between Scots and English you've pointed out in 5 hours of posting is that Scotland has an independence movement. Since the available evidence suggests this view is supported by a minority of Scots and since I can't find how many English want independence, this hardly presents as any sort of definition of what makes a Scot.

2
rogerwebb 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Straight question, and I hope I'll get a straight answer, are the 500,000 English born living in Scotland Scots? and if they are, how are they different from the 44 million born, raised and residing in England? 

As one of the 500,000 I don't feel Scottish, despite being here since 1978, I used too feel like an adopted Scot but 2014 changed that. I don't feel English though, or Welsh (I would have a claim). I do feel British. I have too many links with too many places within the British Isles (and some further afield) to further subdivide my identity. 

Post edited at 20:46
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> I'm not a Scot. An independent Scotland is for people here. It's not an ethnic state. That was pretty clear to me in the indyref campaign.

Pretty clear to me too. So it's not an ethnic state, it encompasses people who self identify as multiple nationalities and it's not predicated on blood, history or place of birth...so where's the sodding cultural chasm you keep insisting is so glaringly evident???

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> I think that's a leading question....but I'll give you an answer anyway. People that come to live in Scotland, wherever they come from are welcome....and we need more people to come and live in Scotland. How they choose to identify themselves over time is up to them....some might choose to identify as Scottish, and that's great. Some might prefer to retain their parent nationality but still be part of the communities they live in. It's a personal thing. The important thing for me is that wherever they're from they feel warmly welcome and add to the rich mix that makes up what has always been a bit of a "mongrel" nation. That's a positive thing as far as I'm concerned.

So you're all encompassing. Anyone can self identify as a Scot. It's not down to blood, belief or history... so where's the cultural chasm you insist exists?

alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

Just for the record your facts are wrong. The most recent three polls (yougov / survation / panelbase - all show a small majority for independence.

I really don't understand what you're trying to articulate. It seems to be that Scots have no national identity....on the basis that we cannot demonstrate how different we are from other nationalities or races. Try out that kind of "exceptionalism" with a few other countries and see how it works. A bizarre and slightly sinister argument if I understand you correctly. 

elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I'm not the right person to define a Scot.

Other differences, but you would have to be pretty ignorant not to know most of them

Parliament

How parliament is elected

Government

Parties

Legal

Education tradition

Brexit

History

Linguistic

But really it's summed up by an independence movement polling 49-51%.That doesn't happen when people feel there is no difference and "there is no difference" is not a pro-union argument of unionist parties in Scotland so I think they've recognised what you haven't.

alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I'll have one last try.....Ethnicity has nothing to do with it....nationality is about shared identity, values, culture, community, traditions, politics and a hundred other things that bind people and countries together. If you follow your logic there would be no such thing as a nation or country......which even if you prefer that as a way of organising the world, might bring with it a few organisational challenges. But I'll finish by giving you one big and simple difference between Scotland and England.....we don't vote for  Conservative governments .....and we never will.

Post edited at 20:59
3
Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> Just for the record your facts are wrong. The most recent three polls (yougov / survation / panelbase - all show a small majority for independence.

> I really don't understand what you're trying to articulate. It seems to be that Scots have no national identity....on the basis that we cannot demonstrate how different we are from other nationalities or races. Try out that kind of "exceptionalism" with a few other countries and see how it works. A bizarre and slightly sinister argument if I understand you correctly. 

No, Rom insisted a cultural chasm exists between Scotland and England. I called bullshit, you and elsewhere said I was wrong.

I see both Scotland and England as fundamentally open, welcoming and pluralistic societies, accepting of many different peoples and cultures. You can just as easily identify as Scottish Nigerian as English Nigerian. Imposing the belief that to be a Scot means that there exists a cultural chasm between yourself and the English requires the belief that to be a Scot means you have a specific cultural identity.

 Either there's a cultural chasm or to be a Scot isn't predicated on culture. You cant have it both ways.

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> But really it's summed up by an independence movement polling 49-51%.That doesn't happen when people feel there is no difference and "there is no difference" is not a pro-union argument of unionist parties in Scotland so I think they've recognised what you haven't.

I'm sure some people do feel there's a difference. European politics is currently awash with Nationalist parties making much political capital by insisting their people are different. Is this a trend you're in favour of?

Post edited at 21:07
1
summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> .....we don't vote for  Conservative governments .....and we never will.

Every rule has an exception.. 1955 

alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate: Of course culture is a significant part of national identity. It clearly is for every nation. I've already said that. But not ethnicity. It's not that complicated. What you seem to be struggling with is the complex and sometimes subtle differences in culture between different nations, who at the same time often have much in common. That's a good thing. And it applies between England and Scotland as much as it does between England and other countries. 

elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

You -  I'm sure some people do feel there's a difference.

NO political party or movement says there is no difference. You are completely out of touch on that.

You - politic is currently awash with Nationalist parties making much political capital by insisting their people are different. Is this a trend you're in favour of?

Scottish nationalism is about independence. It's not  about xenophobia (rather the opposite) so it's fine here.

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> Of course culture is a significant part of national identity. It clearly is for every nation. I've already said that. But not ethnicity. It's not that complicated. What you seem to be struggling with is the complex and sometimes subtle differences in culture between different nations, who at the same time often have much in common. That's a good thing. And it applies between England and Scotland as much as it does between England and other countries. 

I totally agree. But you can't say there are subtle cultural differences between Scotland and England and at the same time insist this presents a cultural chasm.

Do you see my point? "cultural chasm" versus "Subtle differences". 

summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Scottish nationalism is about independence. It's not  about xenophobia (rather the opposite) so it's fine here.

You might see it that way, but snp politicians have no problem whipping up anti English sentiment to keep themselves in power. 

3
alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I hope most of us are in favour of self determination and democracy for peoples and nations. You can only rule by consent. Your questions would seem to suggest that you think that should have been denied to countries that chose to become independent from Westminster rule.......Ireland, Malta, India, Kenya...I could go on. 

elsewhere 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> You might see it that way, but snp politicians have no problem whipping up anti English sentiment to keep themselves in power. 

You might see it that way. But as somebody actually living here, I don't see that.

alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

That is an utterly irresponsible statement. One example...Just one?

Stichtplate 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> I hope most of us are in favour of self determination and democracy for peoples and nations. You can only rule by consent. Your questions would seem to suggest that you think that should have been denied to countries that chose to become independent from Westminster rule.......Ireland, Malta, India, Kenya...I could go on. 

Again your making an argument I've not made while avoiding the argument I have made. I'm all in favour of self determination. I'm definitely not in favour of people creating artificial division where none exists. Prime example: the mythical "cultural chasm".

summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> That is an utterly irresponsible statement. One example...Just one?

It's constant... always about those south of the border etc.. they obviously never say kill the English... But their dislike is always there to be inferred. English politicians deciding on Scottish matters etc. Scotland's oil money being spent in England and on it goes. Near daily. 

1
summo 08 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> You might see it that way. But as somebody actually living here, I don't see that.

Wait until indef2 and look for the scottish(or english) person who publically supports the union online and watch the barrage they face. Where does that come from? Why is it tolerated or accepted? Because the same folk are voting and funding the snp. 

The clue is in the name, Scottish NATIONALIST party 

4
alastairmac 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Oh it's inferred is it...thought so....not one example. 

bouldery bits 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Wait until indef2 and look for the scottish(or english) person who publically supports the union online and watch the barrage they face. Where does that come from? Why is it tolerated or accepted? Because the same folk are voting and funding the snp. 

> The clue is in the name, Scottish NATIONALIST party 

The abuse does go both ways in our sad, polarised society. Neither side is built free. We're all so lucky to live in the relative comfort of the West. Why can't we all just get on and be pleasant?

Post edited at 21:59
Deleted bagger 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Indeed, didn't Strathclyde extend nearly to Preston in Lancashire and Northumbria to Dundee. I suppose it depends on when you want to stop the clock.

rogerwebb 08 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Wait until indef2 and look for the scottish(or english) person who publically supports the union online and watch the barrage they face. Where does that come from? Why is it tolerated or accepted? Because the same folk are voting and funding the snp. 

> The clue is in the name, Scottish NATIONALIST party 

Whilst I share your distrust of nationalism and have experienced the abuse although in person rather than online you are I think being unfair. 

The party is The Scottish National Party not Nationalist and in modern times has tried to distance itself from the more extreme tribal supporters of independence. It is not always successful and I believe underestimates the problem and doesn't always recognise the existence of prejudice within it's own ranks. However it does try and explicitly follows a legal, peaceful and constitutional path. 

Gordon Stainforth 08 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

It annoys me reading Summo's comments about Scotland. I wonder when he was last there? I was there (Perth) a fortnight ago for the first time in several years and was struck by how friendly, welcoming and open-minded all those we talked to were. Just as I remember it in the past, indeed more so than ever. Quite refreshing after England now. (So sad). Yet some people seem to be hailing Brexit as progress, when it's so utterly retrogressive in every way.

Post edited at 00:16
3
Archy Styrigg 09 Feb 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Aye, it is quite notable that the two most vociferest individuals are neither Scottish and don't live there.

I only take an interest in these threads because I'm one or two generations Scottish, I have a slightly obscure surname and to be honest, I can't help ridiculing poor old brain washed fools like TiE.

As for the other one ..........

tom_in_edinburgh 09 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> True... But you can't have one every time the snp change leader because they personally want their name in history grabbing power back. There needs to be some formula or plan behind justifying each indef... So waiting until Brexit negotiations have concluded would seem logical. 

The mandate for indyref2 is that it was in the SNP manifesto for the last Holyrood elections and they are the elected government.  They then passed all the necessary legislation through the Holyrood Parliament to hold one.  The 'formula or plan' is convincing the Scottish people to elect you. on that platform.

This goes back to the claim of right.  It is about whether the UK is a union of nations or an English empire.   Scotland believes it remains a nation and it can choose to leave.   The current Tory government in Westminster thinks Scotland is a colony that can be refused permission to leave.

There are three different questions here:

a. Should Scotland be Independent.

b. Should Scotland hold an indyref in 2020.

c. Is Scotland a nation that has the right to leave the UK if it chooses.

By refusing point blank to 'allow' a referendum Boris is moving the issue to question c and he is on a loser because most people who think Scotland should stay in the UK also think that it has the right to leave if it chooses.

2
Dr.S at work 09 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

I don’t think I wrote off the poet, just the message in his prose.

summo 09 Feb 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It annoys me reading Summo's comments about Scotland. I wonder when he was last there? I was there (Perth) a fortnight ago for the first time in several years and was struck by how friendly, welcoming and open-minded all those we talked to were. 

Did I say any part of Scotland was not welcoming? No.

TIE compared Scotland to Scandinavia. I said Glasgow and Edinburgh probably have more in common with large English cities. Rural Scotland could in places be like parts of Scandinavia as far as the make up of the communities go or rural lifestyle. 

Nothing in my post had anything to do with how friendly people are. I just don't see the relevance. 

Post edited at 07:07
summo 09 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

I would agree, but I still won't be popping into the Brazen Head for a pint when back visiting next, despite living opposite it for a few years. 

summo 09 Feb 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

> The abuse does go both ways in our sad, polarised society. Neither side is built free. We're all so lucky to live in the relative comfort of the West. Why can't we all just get on and be pleasant?

I'd agree, the UK is a long way off a coalition style political culture. It's all or nothing, winners and losers etc. At least Scotland made an effort in the layout their parliaments debating chamber. 

rogerwebb 09 Feb 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I don't think you have read my post in full. There is now a deep divisions within society here (in Scotland) and unpleasant undercurrents. Perhaps they are not obvious to a brief visitor. The fault, in both senses of the word, is not the sole responsibility of one side or another but of the binary choice provided.

If you are not convinced by that proposition. By chance I have been in Bristol for the last few days for the first time in a couple of years. I have been struck by how friendly, welcoming and open minded all those we have spoken to have been. Just as I remember it in the past. Also quite refreshing.

The divisions south of the border are not necessarily obvious to a visitor either. 

I could also say in parallel to your comments about brexit, 'Yet some people seem to be hailing independence as progress when it's so utterly regressive in every way' I think I would be wrong to make such a bald assertion of fact. I think you are wrong to make such an assertion of fact about brexit although I agree with your analysis. These are just our opinions. Once we get into asserting them as fact, whichever side we are on, discussion, compromise and accommodation are over. 

Post edited at 08:01
2
RomTheBear 09 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> No, Rom insisted a cultural chasm exists between Scotland and England. I called bullshit, you and elsewhere said I was wrong.

> I see both Scotland and England as fundamentally open, welcoming and pluralistic societies, accepting of many different peoples and cultures. You can just as easily identify as Scottish Nigerian as English Nigerian. Imposing the belief that to be a Scot means that there exists a cultural chasm between yourself and the English requires the belief that to be a Scot means you have a specific cultural identity.

>  Either there's a cultural chasm or to be a Scot isn't predicated on culture. You cant have it both ways.

Yes, you can. As usual you don’t seem to fathom that national identities and culture are neither exclusive nor one dimensional.

if anything, this difference of conception  is just another example of the gap in understanding. And which makes conversation almost impossible.

Post edited at 09:31
2
MargieB 09 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well, I'm one of those people and I agree with you on that last point. And just as a matter of record, I think I have made it quite obvious I live in the Highlands , never have voted SNP and have advocated a Lib Dem approach in the last GE, as I myself voted, and I voted for the union in 2014, and I have never been poorly treated

Even in the last referendum, the focus of attention was on economics, advantages and disadvantages. My accent has never been commented on, English sounding as it is. And it seems to me that it is a Scots /Scots issue, and, in the Highlands, as yet, I have never seen acrimony myself.

My thread is about Brexit as it unfolds vis a vis Scotland. 

Round 2 . Replacing the Common Agricultural Policy. We have an interesting inkling on that. Pretty relevant to a largely agricultural Scotland.

I have a smallholding and have received no Cap payments for the extensive improvement for wildlife and meadow land for the many species of bee I have in this area.Duke of Westminster gets a lot.

But Environmentalism should be entrenched in Law , as much has come from EU law, and not just entrenched through agricultural grant system. Problem here .

Post edited at 10:48
L mondite 09 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> if anything, this difference of conception  is just another example of the gap in understanding. And which makes conversation almost impossible.

Have you thought there might be a failing in your ability to make a case. Announcing that if anyone disagrees it shows they are wrong is a fairly novel argument and does render conversation hard but not for the reasons you claim.

Culture is of course quite hard to measure but we can, for example, look at attitudes to immigration and so on. The problem is Social Attitudes surveys dont support your case.

There isnt any real obvious differences in attitudes north and south of the border.

I would suggest there would be a lot more commonality between some of the small holders near me and a Scottish crofter than either would have with someone from Edinburgh or London for example.

Post edited at 11:13
1
Dr.S at work 09 Feb 2020
In reply to MargieB:

Indeed - the CAP replacement is one of the few obvious opportunities for Brexit to have a positive impact. It’s a two edged sword of course, but I think Gove is generally on the right page with this and has considerable pull.

Of course it will be interesting to see how approaches differ in England, Wales and Scotland - hopefully a fairly joined up approach can be taken.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.