Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

zagubov

Off you go and start a thread about Shetland becoming an independent country. This one's about Scotland, IIRC.

wotsthat

I long for Shetland to be part of Norway like it was in the good old days.

I sometimes have a little cry about it and write in a mockney Norweigan accent.

Enterprise_1701C

IT's quite funny reading back on this thread again.

What amazes me is the cheek of Sturgeon, always wanting the attention to rest on Scotland.

I hope we do vote to leave the EU, they are undemocratic and will soon be controlled by the Eastern Bloc if they aren't already.

The funny thing is that Sturgeon wants independence but wants to remain in the EU. How can she not see these two ambitions are incompatible.

IF we vote to leave and IF Scotland then gains independence, then she would almost certainly have to apply for membership of the EU as a new country. She is making the assumption that they could just not leave the EU, but Scotland would still be part of the UK when we left.

So she wants to leave the UK but join the EU. If Scotland are a rich country as she seems to think then their net contribution to the EU if they were even allowed in would be massive, and they would be forced to have the Euro and probably be part of the Shengen agreement.

So she does not really want independence, she wants publicity.

mwpt

zagubov wrote: »

Off you go and start a thread about Shetland becoming an independent country. This one's about Scotland, IIRC.

The question about Edinburgh or Shetland gaining independence belongs to this topic. I'm trying to illustrate to you that your view is too narrow. You're focusing on this concept that your particular definition of "we" is the only one that counts. But to most people in the UK, "we" means all of us, including Scotland. Your nationalists complain that they are governed by a region that doesn't represent them and I think that's a nonsense argument for the reasons that no government is going to represent every region in the nation it governs. That is democracy.

Scotland sits inside some lines in the ground that define the UK. Some of the people inside Scotland decide that their smaller lines in the ground (Scotland) are more important and want to govern themselves. But there are also people within these lines in the ground that don't want what you want. So why can't they also have their even smaller lines in the ground respected, and perhaps leave Scotland?

You fall back to the argument that Scotland is a "country" as if that is the terminus point, with no further logical debate required. I don't believe that's good enough.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

The question about Edinburgh or Shetland gaining independence belongs to this topic. I'm trying to illustrate to you that your view is too narrow. You're focusing on this concept that your particular definition of "we" is the only one that counts. But to most people in the UK, "we" means all of us, including Scotland. Your nationalists complain that they are governed by a region that doesn't represent them and I think that's a nonsense argument for the reasons that no government is going to represent every region in the nation it governs. That is democracy.

Scotland sits inside some lines in the ground that define the UK. Some of the people inside Scotland decide that their smaller lines in the ground (Scotland) are more important and want to govern themselves. But there are also people within these lines in the ground that don't want what you want. So why can't they also have their even smaller lines in the ground respected, and perhaps leave Scotland?

You fall back to the argument that Scotland is a "country" as if that is the terminus point, with no further logical debate required. I don't believe that's good enough.

Apparently only the most recent iteration of the borders of nations that make up the UK are worth considering.

Nations like those that make up Scotland that had perfectly decent histories of their own before Scotland was ever dreamed of don't count because SNP.

ruggedtoast

Its all bluster. There is no scenario where Scotland is going to become independent of Westminster or anywhere else.

The 1% doesn't want it so it won't happen.

The UK will not be independent of Europe for the same reason.

This would be a good opportunity for Sturgeon and Salmond to complain loudly that whatever way the UK / Scotland jump they are stuck in an unaccountable undemocratic mess. One that considers the liberties of individuals to be irrelevant balanced against those of corporations and the wealthy.

Oddly enough, main stream politician and MP, Nicola Sturgeon, and Economist / Banking employee Alex Salmond appear to be somewhat reluctant to appear in any way critical of the hand that has so handsomely fed them.

They want independence in the same way that Mr Creosote doesn't want that last wafer.

Meanwhile this sht-show keeps rumbling on with all the drama and nonsense that gets people to click on newspaper articles, and most people will approach the EU ballot box in June thinking that they have some kind of choice.

Exactly like they thought they had a choice in referendum last year.

elantan

Yep rugged toast I can see where yer coming from there .... and so can a lot of Scotland

Shakethedisease

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

IT's quite funny reading back on this thread again.

What amazes me is the cheek of Sturgeon, always wanting the attention to rest on Scotland.

I hope we do vote to leave the EU, they are undemocratic and will soon be controlled by the Eastern Bloc if they aren't already.

The funny thing is that Sturgeon wants independence but wants to remain in the EU. How can she not see these two ambitions are incompatible.

IF we vote to leave and IF Scotland then gains independence, then she would almost certainly have to apply for membership of the EU as a new country. She is making the assumption that they could just not leave the EU, but Scotland would still be part of the UK when we left.

So she wants to leave the UK but join the EU. If Scotland are a rich country as she seems to think then their net contribution to the EU if they were even allowed in would be massive, and they would be forced to have the Euro and probably be part of the Shengen agreement.

So she does not really want independence, she wants publicity.

No. It's far more interesting than that. You're still thinking '2014'. It'll take ages before the UK formally leaves the EU IF there's a Leave vote. Plenty of time for a quick Scottish referendum ( well, look at the speed of this one ) without Scotland ever having to leave the EU for even a day IF it's a Yes vote.

Holyrood would be handed a raft of new powers if the UK votes to leave the EU, a leading academic has said...

..But Prof Scott, the professor of European Union Studies at the University of Edinburgh, told the BBC's Scotland 2016 programme that it would have more immediate consequences for the constitution. The current devolution arrangement means that some matters are declared as being reserved to Westminster, with everything else being handed to the Scottish Parliament.
As long as the UK remains a part of the EU, many of the devolved powers - including environment, agriculture, fisheries and social policy - are guided by EU law.
But Prof Scott, who advised the Scottish government ahead of the independence referendum in 2014, said: "If the UK leaves the EU, then by default these powers will come back to the Scottish Parliament, not to the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35601764

Shakethedisease

mwpt wrote: »

The question about Edinburgh or Shetland gaining independence belongs to this topic. I'm trying to illustrate to you that your view is too narrow. You're focusing on this concept that your particular definition of "we" is the only one that counts. But to most people in the UK, "we" means all of us, including Scotland. Your nationalists complain that they are governed by a region that doesn't represent them and I think that's a nonsense argument for the reasons that no government is going to represent every region in the nation it governs. That is democracy.

Scotland sits inside some lines in the ground that define the UK. Some of the people inside Scotland decide that their smaller lines in the ground (Scotland) are more important and want to govern themselves. But there are also people within these lines in the ground that don't want what you want. So why can't they also have their even smaller lines in the ground respected, and perhaps leave Scotland?

You fall back to the argument that Scotland is a "country" as if that is the terminus point, with no further logical debate required. I don't believe that's good enough.

I'm afraid your own argument falls completely to bits after 10 seconds on Google with the search term 'countries who have gained independence'. In fact, 'countries who have gained their independence from the United Kingdom would even do. Lines in the ground seem to matter somehow. Scotland wouldn't be the first or the last ever to entertain the notion of self governance in the world. Why don't you explain that ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. It's far more interesting than that. You're still thinking '2014'. It'll take ages before the UK formally leaves the EU IF there's a Leave vote. Plenty of time for a quick Scottish referendum ( well, look at the speed of this one ) without Scotland ever having to leave the EU for even a day IF it's a Yes vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35601764

so, in the unlikely event that the UK leaves the EU, scotland gets more powers so the scots voters won't want to leave the UK