Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

HornetSaver wrote: »

Ever heard of Catalonia?

I don't think there is any question of the Scottish government holding a referendum in the next decade without agreement of the British government, unless there is a Brexit. Winning a referendum not recognised by the international community as being legal and with Westminster considering itself under no obligation to negotiate the terms of separation would put Scotland in a needlessly poor position.

Ever heard of countries going independent from Britain before ? The referendum as long as it's held democratically and under controlled electoral conditions, will be recognised. Self determination is one of the founding principles of international law. The last referendum set the 'precedent'. It will be difficult for Westminster to say that the 2014 ref was valid.. but any other one held under the same conditions wouldn't be... ( other than they don't want it. But that's entirely usual historically for a larger entity not wanting to lose a part of itself ). You're thinking UDI. Which Sturgeon and Salmond before her ruled out completely.

I'm in no doubt that a referendum will be called by the Scottish government before 2022 (by the SNP government after the 2016 one), and that indyref 2 will be held in the mid-to-late 2020s. But barring a Brexit, any talk of a shorter timeframe is self-defeating nonsense. Hence the SNP's current emphasis on the EU - it is the only card they hold if they want to get bilateral agreement for a binding referendum in the next Holyrood parliament - they know that the parliament after is the more realistic option in any other circumstances.

2020, or 2021. They'll reap the realities of this period of the Tories, and then another prospective 5 years after that. There's not many expect another referendum any sooner than that. I wouldn't worry.

There is a genuine and justified conviction among nationalists that they will win the next referendum. But I think there is a degree of acknowledgement that even a few extra years of Westminster is better than being de facto independent sooner, but botching the job of completing separation.

There are different views. But Labour in Scotland are loosening hold on staunch unionism. They even now have MSP's standing in May that voted Yes. It'll take time, but independence acceptance is filtering though Labour grassroots to above and beyond slowly but surely. Once Labour in Scotland go down that path.. but it'll take time. But time the SNP have. Unfortunately for the Scottish Conservatives. Labour No voters aren't turning to them. Instead they're reconsidering...

Everyone loves Ruth Davidson. No one will vote for her

...Anecdotally, some of them will. Labour’s commitment to the Union is palpably weakening and there are some former Labour voters who are now prepared to back the last remaining unimpeachably unionist party. Nevertheless, the electoral mathematics are unforgiving: the SNP continues to poll at 50 per cent and a divided unionist opposition is likely to be routed on polling day....

....The truth is that the Conservatives remain toxic in Scotland. Some 30 per cent of Scottish voters approve of the job David Cameron is doing, but barely half those voters are prepared to endorse Conservative candidates. The modernisation project has not been enough.

Moreover, in a world in which half the electorate will back the SNP, and Labour — even in its present crippled state — cannot avoid winning at least 20 per cent of the vote, it follows that once the minor parties have been accounted for, the Tories’ best possible result would see them winning approximately one in five votes.

All of this matters. The SNP are biding their time before calling another referendum. As Corbyn leads Labour into the wilderness, the Tories have a chance to govern from Westminster until 2030 even as they remain poisonous in Scotland. In those circumstances, many left-of-centre Scots might be prepared to risk a punt on independence. North and South Britain really would seem like different political cultures, no longer suited to cohabitation.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/everyone-loves-ruth-davidson-no-one-will-vote-for-her/

Generali

The Scottish Government can't call a referendum because it can't pay for it.

The SNP leadership isn't stupid and as a result has absolutely no desire to go for independence with oil at $35/bbl.

Shakethedisease

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

Perhaps he's just wishing he was with his English girlfriend?

The last four letters of your username... apt.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The Scottish Government can't call a referendum because it can't pay for it.

The SNP leadership isn't stupid and as a result has absolutely no desire to go for independence with oil at $35/bbl.

Yes. That's exactly why Nicola Sturgeon has been plastered all over Scottish newspapers/social media the last few days. * Notice 'months'. They're setting the stage already until May with independence still up there. But as I've said, long range aim in 2020 ish if it's to happen. There's been a lot of private polling reported Scotland wise the last month or so also.

NICOLA Sturgeon has said she is "confident" the SNP will build majority support for independence over the next few years...

Ms Sturgeon, who is seeking her own mandate to govern when Scots go to the polls on May 5, told MSPs: "We will use the powers we have as a government to the full. "Of course, I believe today as strongly as I ever have that independence is the best future for our country.

"That’s why in the months to come we will also lead a renewed debate about how the enduring principle of that case, that decisions about Scotland are best taken by people who live here, is relevant to, demanded by, the circumstances of the world we live in today.
"We will make that case positively and powerfully and we will do it in a realistic and relevant way and in doing so I’m confident that over the next few years we will build majority support for that proposition."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14183212.Sturgeon_voices_confidence_on_independence_as_election_battle_begins/


Keep up !

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes. That's exactly why Nicola Sturgeon has been plastered all over Scottish newspapers/social media the last few days. * Notice 'months'. They're setting the stage already until May with independence still up there. But as I've said, long range aim in 2020 ish if it's to happen. There's been a lot of private polling reported Scotland wise the last month or so also.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14183212.Sturgeon_voices_confidence_on_independence_as_election_battle_begins/


Keep up !

Better hope the oil price comes back in your favour. I don't see it myself.

I'm sorry that you find discussions of the oil price boring but without substantial revenues from oil, an independent Scotland would be insolvent. The fact is that frackers in the US that can get oil out of the ground at ~$40/bbl means that the oil price is unlikely ever to rise above about $45/bbl. Worse for Scotland, the US recently announced that the US will start exporting oil once again (the US hasn't been an oil exporter since the 1970s).

In turn that means the end of oil in Scotland so 15% of GDP will end up going down the Suwannee directly which will only be made up with transfers from London.

Any future debate on independence will simply be blown out of the water as soon as finances are discussed.

Innit.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Any future debate on independence will simply be blown out of the water as soon as finances are discussed.

Innit.

... And then the cold hard possibility of Boris Johnson as PM hits home. Suddenly the Daily Labour ( Record ) is headlining 24/7 'Sturgeon MUST get Scotland out of this now'...

I am sorry Generali. And I know it will take a few years yet. But there's no way, on this planet that Scots voters will continue voting to stay in a union/Westminster where they don't feel politically represented at all. There's just no point. People will vote out regardless of oil prices. Even Alex Massie above recognises that.

Better crappy oil prices dealt with by Holyrood, than some clown who thinks it's funny to say things like 'aJockalypse now' and compare Sturgeon to 'Herod in a baby farm'... in charge of dealing with oil price effects on Scotland. If this is all Scotland and her MP's ( of whatever flavour ) have to look forward to within the UK. Then it's over already.

And right doll, that's plenty wi' the cockney geezer stuff.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

... And then the cold hard possibility of Boris Johnson as PM hits home. Suddenly the Daily Labour ( Record ) is headlining 24/7 'Sturgeon MUST get Scotland out of this now'...

I am sorry Generali. And I know it will take a few years yet. But there's no way, on this planet that Scots voters will continue voting to stay in a union/Westminster where they don't feel politically represented at all. There's just no point. People will vote out regardless of oil prices. Even Alex Massie above recognises that.

Better crappy oil prices dealt with by Holyrood, than some clown who thinks it's funny to say things like 'aJockalypse now' and compare Sturgeon to 'Herod in a baby farm'... in charge of dealing with oil price effects on Scotland. If this is all Scotland and her MP's ( of whatever flavour ) have to look forward to within the UK. Then it's over already.

And right doll, that's plenty wi' the cockney geezer stuff.

It will be interesting to see how the Scots are pulled. No Tories vs Granny's cancer getting treated as realistically that will be the choice. I don't fancy your chances.

Sorry about the accent, it slips out now and again. In writing. It's not a silly affectation.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

... And then the cold hard possibility of Boris Johnson as PM hits home. Suddenly the Daily Labour ( Record ) is headlining 24/7 'Sturgeon MUST get Scotland out of this now'...

I am sorry Generali. And I know it will take a few years yet. But there's no way, on this planet that Scots voters will continue voting to stay in a union/Westminster where they don't feel politically represented at all. There's just no point. People will vote out regardless of oil prices. Even Alex Massie above recognises that.

Better crappy oil prices dealt with by Holyrood, than some clown who thinks it's funny to say things like 'aJockalypse now' and compare Sturgeon to 'Herod in a baby farm'... in charge of dealing with oil price effects on Scotland. If this is all Scotland and her MP's ( of whatever flavour ) have to look forward to within the UK. Then it's over already.

And right doll, that's plenty wi' the cockney geezer stuff.

Seems like a lot of wishful thinking in this post. Has it not occurred to you Nicola Selfies new independence spin is simply aimed at keeping her noisey supporters on a leash. Nothing in that article of any significance at all, nor in anything she said herself either for that matter.

HornetSaver

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Ever heard of countries going independent from Britain before ?

I presume you mean Ireland (the only directly relevant example) which is hardly an example of an orderly transition. They did it the way they did it because more palatable options were not there.

Unless of course you are referring to overseas colonies which were clearly too large and too distant to remain part of a centralized British Empire.

The referendum as long as it's held democratically and under controlled electoral conditions, will be recognised. Self determination is one of the founding principles of international law. The last referendum set the 'precedent'. It will be difficult for Westminster to say that the 2014 ref was valid.. but any other one held under the same conditions wouldn't be...

That precedent, and those conditions, included a bilateral agreement on the fact that the referendum would be binding and how it would be conducted. Barring a constitutional crisis, it would be at least a decade before a referendum held without agreement with Westminster would be likely to be considered to meet that by countries who would otherwise be neutral on the subject. And barring Brexit it'd be at least that long before Westminster would recognize a vote. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, simply that that's what would happen.

( other than they don't want it. But that's entirely usual historically for a larger entity not wanting to lose a part of itself ). You're thinking UDI. Which Sturgeon and Salmond before her ruled out completely.

Completely agree on the brackets (though give Cameron credit where it's due, to agree to the referendum was historically unusual in and of itself, particularly given that his party had little to lose by acting like the Spanish would have in the same situation).

As for the rest, calling a disputed referendum when the union permitted one less than a decade ago would amount to a UDI. I'm not saying that to do so anyway would necessarily be wrong, merely that it would be a unilateral move and that that would have its downsides.

2020, or 2021. They'll reap the realities of this period of the Tories, and then another prospective 5 years after that. There's not many expect another referendum any sooner than that.

Agreed, except I take the view that there might be another Holyrood election in 2019, if there are grounds to think the Tories won't be the largest party after 2020 (or, in theory, if the SNP had any reason to believe that they might not walk it a year or two later, but that seems extremely unlikely).

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

... And then the cold hard possibility of Boris Johnson as PM hits home. Suddenly the Daily Labour ( Record ) is headlining 24/7 'Sturgeon MUST get Scotland out of this now'...

I am sorry Generali. And I know it will take a few years yet. But there's no way, on this planet that Scots voters will continue voting to stay in a union/Westminster where they don't feel politically represented at all. There's just no point. People will vote out regardless of oil prices. Even Alex Massie above recognises that.

Better crappy oil prices dealt with by Holyrood, than some clown who thinks it's funny to say things like 'aJockalypse now' and compare Sturgeon to 'Herod in a baby farm'... in charge of dealing with oil price effects on Scotland. If this is all Scotland and her MP's ( of whatever flavour ) have to look forward to within the UK. Then it's over already.

I see no reason why Scots would vote for self induced penury just because Westminster has a semi permanent Tory majority.
I think most will be happy to enjoy a £1700 per capita subsidy from London being spent by a SNP Holyrood at least for a generation or two.