Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Are you saying that the UK does not have the ability to self govern as a member of the EU?

Are you saying that Norway does not have the ability to self govern as a member of EFTA?

It's very clear that many seem to be hemmed in with the here and now, status quo, no ability to change goinf forward.

I guess Cameron has no options for negotiation ahead of the EU referendum.

Let's all just shut up then and accept what we get then :rolleyes:

To some extent yes : all members have limits imposed by membership.

Scotland however would have to join the Euro and so would have far less control than countries outside the Eurozone : specifically their budget deficit, their bank rate, government borrowing.

Of course they would still have many ways of affecting their local economy : most of which they have already.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

To some extent yes : all members have limits imposed by membership.

Scotland however would have to join the Euro and so would have far less control than countries outside the Eurozone : specifically their budget deficit, their bank rate, government borrowing.

Of course they would still have many ways of affecting their local economy : most of which they have already.

Your eyes are closed to potential possibilities.
To that extent, you wish to go round a very old mulberry bush to which I declare myself out

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Your eyes are closed to potential possibilities.
To that extent, you wish to go round a very old mulberry bush to which I declare myself out

you haven't made any proposals

merely stated platitudes about change, progress, diversification etc.

I disagree with none of them except most of them can be done NOW except you claim you aren't in 100% control : well Scotland can never be in 100% control of it's destiny so just get on with the actuality and stop making mindless excuses.

Tromking

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Never say never.

Like the majority of the Scottish people have said whenever they've been asked, I'll say never.

browniej

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

In 1979, the majority of voters voted for Independence, however the criteria was not met in terms of the overall population turnout.

There wasn't a Scottish Referendum on Independence in 1979 so the voters could not have voted for Independence.

The 1979 Referendum was to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate. This was an act to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland.

elantan

Nearly a year later and were still discussing independence .... Not really going away is it lol

Still ...? Every day that passes is a day closer to independence

Thrugelmir

elantan wrote: »

Nearly a year later and were still discussing independence .... Not really going away is it lol

Perhaps it would be better for Salmond and co if it did for a while at least. As at the current time. The economic situation is let's say not very favourable.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Never say never.

In 1979, the majority of voters voted for Independence, however the criteria was not met in terms of the overall population turnout.

In 2014, there only needed to be a 5% swing

It is not inconceivable that there could be a time when the future electorate desires the change

In 1979 the majority of those that voted voted for home rule, not for independence. When Home Rule wasn't given as 40% of the electorate didn't vote for Home Rule as required the SNP quit the Government and called a vote of no confidence in the remains of the Government.

I suspect that is part of the reason that Labour don't want to deal with the SNP again as last time the SNP stitched them up.

As to the idea that not letting the SNP join the Government or the official opposition, there is no 'Scotland' in the General Election, only a bunch of constituencies in Scotland. Winning Scotland is meaningless at the General Election.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

In 1979 the majority of those that voted voted for home rule, not for independence. When Home Rule wasn't given as 40% of the electorate didn't vote for Home Rule as required the SNP quit the Government and called a vote of no confidence in the remains of the Government.

Absolute tosh. It was the last minute 40% rule that was the problem everyone had with that referendum in 1979. It's never been put into a referendum past, or present since. It was a stitch-up alright. But it wasn't from the SNP side. Thatcher would've gotten in anyway. Whatever the date of the election.

If the internet had been around then, there would have been a complete outcry over that clause. It would never have gotten through.

1979

Yes 1,230,937 51.62 No 1,153,502 48.38

I suspect that is part of the reason that Labour don't want to deal with the SNP again as last time the SNP stitched them up.

As to the idea that not letting the SNP join the Government or the official opposition, there is no 'Scotland' in the General Election, only a bunch of constituencies in Scotland. Winning Scotland is meaningless at the General Election.

Hmmmmm have you seen the latest polls tonight ? If Corbyn does win, (either YouGov is going out of business soon or else they're in the ballpark).. Corbyn will win outright in the first vote.

YouGov ‏@YouGov 1 hr1 hour ago Latest YouGov/The Times Labour leadership results – Corbyn leads with 53% of first preferences http://y-g.co/1KeG5RY

Liam O'Hare ‏@Liam_O_Hare 4 mins4 minutes ago Full findings of Yougov poll show that even in the final round of voting Corbyn has 12-14 point lead. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/10/corbyn-pull-ahead/ …

If so.. You can welcome that SNP/Labour alliance that was so touted before May. Labour will work with the SNP. As well as a bit of Tory blocking... It's not fab news for the SNP overall if am honest, Labour shifting leftwards presents a few problems. However, in Westminster, that'll be a different story.... Winning Scotland, and teaming up with Labour in England.. Yes, that 'bunch of UK constituencies' will matter then.

Like you so eloquently point out. There's absolutely no reason for EVEL. Since it's the UK as a whole that matters.*

*Please tell me that you aren't trying to have this both ways ? On one hand lauding the fact that SNP are part of the UK, no difference to Yorkshire, winning in Scotland means nothing within Westminster, the SNP should suck it up. But on the other, that they're actually not equals, it does matter if you win in Scotland or England, and that English MP's should get votes Scottish ones don't..

Which is it to be Generali ? You're not making sense in the slightest ? It's one or the other. You can't have both.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

1979Hmmmmm have you seen the latest polls tonight ? If Corbyn does win, (either YouGov is going out of business soon or else they're in the ballpark).. Corbyn will win outright in the first vote.

If so.. You can welcome that SNP/Labour alliance that was so touted before May. Labour will work with the SNP. As well as a bit of Tory blocking... It's not fab news for the SNP overall if am honest, Labour shifting leftwards presents a few problems. However, in Westminster, that'll be a different story.... Winning Scotland, and teaming up with Labour in England.. Yes, that 'bunch of UK constituencies' will matter then.

Like you so eloquently point out. There's absolutely no reason for EVEL. Since it's the UK as a whole that matters.*
.

Seems to me to be an awful lot of wishful thinking not to mention assumptions in the above.