Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

mwpt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Catalonia isn't a nation.

They believe they should be, though.

Why do you want out the UK but in the EU?

.string.

mwpt wrote: »

They believe they should be, though.

Why do you want out the UK but in the EU?

It was explained once by one of the acolytes that if Natland did not immediately join the EU or if they changed their mind about joining then they could join EFTA or something.

But if Brexit happened, who would become the biggest player in that particular garden. As a guess I would say the U.K. !

Life's twists can get strange sometimes.

.string.

The shiny new politics of the SNP

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/three-cheers-for-the-new-politics/

Ooops

wait that should be

Double Ooops
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14209164.Second_SNP_MP_admits__mistake__over_failure_to_declare_company_shareholding/

But never fear, SNP MPS are asserting their "independence"

http://www.thenational.scot/news/snp-mps-divided-over-plan-to-ban-donald-trump-from-uk.12538

I don't understand the so-called split actually for once the Sturgeon has spoken, that is surely that?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Do you have any regard for the democratic wishes of the people? (except for the Scots of course).

You've already excluded the people of Catalonia democratic self determination just because their region wasn't born in murder and bloodshed by the Scottish warlords.

It's different in circumstances. No push for independence is ever under the exact same circumstances as any other.

Scotland and England joined in a political union in 1707. At some point, and it's looking like the Scots at the present time.. one country in the union may wish to withdraw from it. What's your problem with that if the Scottish electorate want it. Scotland isn't some sort of 'possession'. It runs under the same rules of democracy as England does.

Catalonia has a completely different history.

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I would currently vote to stay in the eu. But if we do leave getting rid of the needy whingers up north would be some compensation

Yes, you're exactly the reason half of Scotland now want to go.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Are you comfortable in your bubble Shakey? You should get out more. You need to take on board what others' reaction might be and and what the consequences might be. It is the equivalent to all those times you have said things like " that won't play well in Scotland", it's not about what you think will happen, it's about unintended consequences.

Cameron has been accused variously of placating his right wing, sceptics, or running scared of UKIP. I'm sure that those have been thoughts in his mind, but not necessarily the primary driver. The real, fundamental, driving force is public opinion, in other words the voters because they are the ones that need to be convinced, and who choose Goverment policy via the ballot box, not this or that political faction. My guess is that it was that which drove him.

Cheered on by Euro Sceptics of all hues, including much of the media, the public has been turning against the EU. The boil has to be lanced before it gets too late.

A referendum gives a chance for the voting public to see some real arguments - you would agree with that I presume. So it's better that a decision is based on rationality rather than gutter emotion.

So rather than appeasing anyone, Cameron is actually taking them head on. It's a gamble of course, but it is regrettably necessary.

By running a referendum that is just as 'legal' as the any the Scottish get. Oh yes he's taking a big gamble... And by the way, it's very strange that you envoke the 'real, driving power is public opinion'.. because that's what's driving the independence debate in Scotland too. So you're saying Cameron had no choice due to 'public opinion'.. but at the same time Nicola Sturgeon should completely ignore Scottish public opinion if it looks like a majority of Scots want another referendum ? Dream on.

We might start with the EU Referendum Act, which received royal assent just before Christmas. It sets out the referendum rules, so could be expected to define the effect of a vote either way. Alas, it does not: it makes no provision as to the referendum’s legal effect.

That is because, strictly speaking, it has no legal effect. It will be purely advisory and, in law, the government could simply ignore the result. In this it contrasts with the legislation for the electoral system referendum in 2011, which required the minister responsible to enact the result. But it is the same as the legislation underpinning the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 and, indeed, the referendum on membership of the Common Market in 1975.
Whatever the legal position, however, the political reality is that the government will have to respect the result.

http://constitution-unit.com/2016/01/19/what-happens-if-we-vote-for-brexit/

You should take note of the above the next time a Scottish referendum is discussed.

And do feel free to read the rest, all of you should in fact. It goes into great detail about the legalities of a Brexit. Very interesting.

Shakethedisease

mwpt wrote: »

They believe they should be, though.

Why do you want out the UK but in the EU?

It wasn't a nation that joined a union though. Like the EU or Scotland and England.

You first. Why are you voting to stay ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

It was explained once by one of the acolytes that if Natland did not immediately join the EU or if they changed their mind about joining then they could join EFTA or something.

But if Brexit happened, who would become the biggest player in that particular garden. As a guess I would say the U.K. !

Life's twists can get strange sometimes.

And you accuse the SNP of inflating their power ! Yet according to you the UK will positively dictate to another 27 nation states what the EU should do in the event of a Brexit. As well as Scotland into the bargain as the 'biggest player in the garden' ! Well, never let it be said you didn't have a certain arrogance there.. either that or complete delusion.

Is also strange that if Scotland leaves the UK, then the EU will immediately stop all trade agreements. Yet when the UK leaves the EU, suddenly they'll all be fine and the UK will 'tell them how it is'. Wake up a bit. Seriously.

skintmacflint

Generali wrote: »

:rotfl:
As they say in Aus, "If you keep pulling it'll spit".
:T

Talking about splits, the arguments have continued apace over the past few weeks on social media sites and twittersphere within the SNP/Yes movement over the 2 votes for SNP campaign.

Seems fervent SNP voters don't want the risk of a pesky unionist candidate of any kind winning a single seat. Nor any of the small lefty Yes independent parties winning a seat and showing up SNP in H/R for the centrist ,don't rock the boat, talk left, walk right party they've been for years.

Perish the thought.

mwpt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It wasn't a nation that joined a union though. Like the EU or Scotland and England.

You first. Why are you voting to stay ?

Why me first?

But anyway, do you mean In the EU? Or the Scotland vote?

I'd vote to stay in the EU because I now call the UK my home after ~14 years and the EU allowed me to do that. I believe being in the EU has on the whole been beneficial to citizens of the EU including us in the UK. This is gut feel because quite obviously no-one can know if that is true or not, no-one can quantify that with hard evidence. Really, I'm the wrong person to ask though because obviously as someone who has come here on an EU passport and now calls it home, it would be completely disingenuous to vote out. Some of my heritage is actually from the UK, I just happened to be born elsewhere in the world to a mixed heritage. I could in theory apply for UK nationalisation.

If you meant Scotland and UK, then If I were a Scot, I'd vote to stay in the union because I believe Scottish people are better off for being in the union. I don't believe an SNP government would make the Scots better off, in fact worse off, for quite some time. I'd care more about the people who wanted to remain in the UK and would be negatively affected. And it is very worrying that some Out voters know this but just don't care. Xenophobes.

I also don't do nationalism. I understand why people do though, it's a tribal concept that will be around for a while, humans love to divide themselves into "us" and "them". But I just think it's a bit silly and will one day (a long time away) be scoffed at, much like xenophobia, misogyny, etc. I find your (and most peoples) adherence to some lines drawn on the ground at some point in the past, lines that shifted, changed and still change, primitive. Particularly because some lines are more important than others to you. You said once, "Scotland is a country, Catalonia isn't" - just think that through for a minute. What if Catalonia becomes a country. These new arbitrary lines suddenly gain a whole new legitimacy in your eyes.