Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

There could well be difficulties both before and, if "Yes" won the referendum, after.

I would not be surprised if a referendum was refused on the grounds that it was not according to previous agreements with the SNP or Scotland's interest at this time. That would make any such referendum illegal with many difficulties facing the SNP both in discussions/negotiations they might subsequently have with the UK and the EU (if the EU were allowed by their Member States).

There were no 'previous agreements' re further referenda. And even if there was, no government can ever bind a previous one down on agreements made. That's a very basic fact of UK democracy. If the SNP win again in May, then it's a brand new government, and elected First Minster.

An illegal referendum would allow the UK Government to be free of any restraints cf "Purdah", also the press, the whole works.

The 'Vow' broke every single possible rule there is re purdah last time. There are no restraints that can't be gotten around. As you'll soon see yourself with the EU referendum.

The SNP would therefore be under pressure to agree a legal referendum. They would whine and moan and few would care.

From that viewpoint I would also not be surprised to see a few conditions coming up for a referendum to be agreed legal by the U.K., possibly including some of these

No they'll hold it. And call it a 'consultative referendum'. Salmond was pretty adamant about that last time too. A referendum there would be because the Scots voted for it by voting the SNP into Holyrood. There are no rules barring those. The legalities would come only after it was held, and Westminster 'refusing to recognise' the result. They could try that I suppose. But honestly string, once there's a majority there for independence.. what's the point really of denying it ?

o. Separation to be with 18 months, backed by cancellation of the Barnet formula(*)
o. Votes of Scottish people living in the rest of the UK to be included in those qualified to vote
o. Non UK citizens to be excluded from voting
o. A more neutral question being used instead of Yes /No
o. A minimum of 60% required for changing the status quo

A bit bullish? Certainly, but the SNP will sooner or later bear the fruits of having pi**ed off the rest of the UK.

(*) This because the SNP would be quite happy to dwell under the money tree while they wait for oil prices to go up

If there is a Yes vote. What on earth makes you think that any conditions 'laid down' will all be by Westminster ? There will be negotiations, hopefully amicable ones in the best interests of both countries. You simply wouldn't be in control anymore in order to dictate anything. Which is entirely the point.

And as above. No one really IS that bothered if Scotland goes anymore. The prospect of an EU referendum, where Scotland leaves as a result.. has certainly laid that fallacy to rest over the last few weeks and those 'Leave' polls in the lead start to look worrying.

Massie is a Tory, who voted Labour ( vainly ) in the General Election in order to keep the SNP out at ALL costs. And he wrote articles about doing so. Please see his last sentence.

I assure Brexiters that a post-Brexit indyref campaign that argued Scotland cannot afford to be independent or in the EU if England is not is an argument that cannot be won with honour even if it were won at all. It would leave many Scots thinking, Well, maybe that’s true. But we’ll no be told that by the likes of you. We’ll make our own decisions, for ourselves, for better or even for worse.

Now you may object that would be irrational, but voters are not perfectly rational calculating machines. Nor should they be expected to be. In this instance, the picture would be one in which Scotland is being told by England to do things it does not want to do. That’s a prospect guaranteed to make Nats out of Yoons. Why, I could be tempted to vote Yes in such circumstances myself.

* Yoons = Unionists.

Shakethedisease

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Maybe we should keep the £5 billion that we are supposed to be handing over under the Barnet formula because of HS2 and actually dredge the rivers instead, which is what we should have been doing anyway and we could restart doing if we get rid of those lily livered idiots in brussels.

Oh, and it really makes me laugh that Sturgeon seems to think that the EU would actually let Scotland rejoin in their own right, I find that highly unlikely, and why on earth would you want to leave the UK and then join the EU that would never let you even breathe without asking permission.

I reckon the EU would be all over Scotland. With 'offers' to stay if it looks like England really does want out. Why wouldn't they be ?

Mistermeaner

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I reckon the EU would be all over Scotland. With 'offers' to stay if it looks like England really does want out. Why wouldn't they be ?

Because it would be a drain on eu resources and give little back.

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Because it would be a drain on eu resources and give little back.

I suspect that the Spanish aren't too keen on nations with separatist ambitions being given anything much at all.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I reckon the EU would be all over Scotland. With 'offers' to stay if it looks like England really does want out. Why wouldn't they be ?

Dream on!
What you describe would be interference in the internal machinations of a Sovereign State to a totally unacceptable level, and simply won't happen. You overplay Scotland's importance by suggesting it will. In the event of Brexit, it'll be way more in the interest of the EU to treat the democratic will of the British people respectfully rather than agitate with Nationalists to break up the United Kingdom.

CLAPTON

scotland would be a large net contributor to the EU (unlike now with their 3,000 per family subsidy from the English

and they would be required to reduce their budget deficit to 3%

should be interesting to see how the voters view this

angrypirate

CLAPTON wrote: »

scotland would be a large net contributor to the EU (unlike now with their 3,000 per family subsidy from the English

and they would be required to reduce their budget deficit to 3%

should be interesting to see how the voters view this

You expect the voters to know and understand this before voting? Ignorance of the public is the SNPs key to power

Generali

angrypirate wrote: »

You expect the voters to know and understand this before voting? Ignorance of the public is the SNPs key to power

Sad to say but I think this is right.

Yes voters seemed to have been poor people from the Central Belt, just the people that would have had their welfare taken away if Yes had won.

Oh well, them's the breaks innit.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I suspect that the Spanish aren't too keen on nations with separatist ambitions being given anything much at all.

Yes, that would be England regarding the EU.

Catalonia isn't a nation.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, that would be England regarding the EU.

Catalonia isn't a nation.

well obviously not

as we know a 'nation' is anything that the SNP call a nation irrespective on any thing defined in international law.