The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

abz88

mollycat wrote: »

At the point made ^^^^.

With respect, I think you are missing the whole point of those who oppose independence in Scotland. It may be because you do not live in Scotland, (I did ask you politely before, but I don't recall an answer).

Far from "going to hell in a handbasket", I think living in Scotland and the UK in a whole is fantastic. To be born in the UK is a huge stroke of fortune that billions around the world who are in poverty, victims of injustice etc envy. We are educated, prosperous have free education and an NHS, and despite the news media attempting to persuade people otherwise, comparitively stable government and fiscal security.

These are precisely the reasons I am opposed to Independence; to put in jeopardy all of the above for what? Manufactured grudge and grievance from a minority of the disaffected with no insight into their good fortune, nor the potential harm independence will bring.

Of course posts from others regarding the lack of attention to the day job from Sturgeon are respected, welcomed and thanked by myself; after all any stick used to beat down Independence is a good stick as far as i am concerned.

But for clarity, I will repeat the 2 points I consistently make regarding the folly of seperation.

1. How does an iScotland raise the massive amounts of tax revenue it needs to provide it's citizens with basic services without the support (read subsidy) of the wider rUK economy?

The only answer is all or any combination of higher taxes/extreme austerity/cutting essential services.

2. Why focus on a purely geographical basis within the UK? I will have more in common with people from Cardiff, Wigan etc than I do with someone that lives a mile away. rUK posters on this thread will have more in common with myself rather than Farage/ Corbyn/Boris, (delete as applicable). People throughout the UK will have links through trade unionism, party affiliations, professional bodies etc, etc.

There is a huge distrust of WM within the Independence movement, (they don't have the insight to realise this is a common theme throughout the UK), but it seems illogical to mistrust a politician based there whilst being prepared to trust one based in either Edinburgh or Brussels.

SNP (wrongly in my view), say the wider UK gives us little respect; why then will making ourselves more isolated in the world with less influence in Brussels than we have in WM help?

People in the wider UK, I think see the Independence movement as a heroic liberal minded force taking on the Tory government. I think there is support for that movement in the wider UK as people see the potential for the government to be given a bloody nose.

The reality is the only people with bloody noses following any Independence will be the 6 million people that live north of Hadrian's Wall.

This also brings up the issue of figuring out how we geographically split. What happens in the event of a yes vote if constituencies in the borders vote remain? To we drag them out of a Union they voted to remain in (after complaining its what the UK is doing to Scotland with the EU)? What happens if Orkney (the largest % of No votes last time round) and Shetland decide they want to remain in the UK or decide they want their own Independence? Do we drag them out of the union or refuse their independence? If they do get to stay/go independent, given a lot of Oil and fishing waters are around them how go we split that up?

mollycat

abz88 wrote: »

This also brings up the issue of figuring out how we geographically split. What happens in the event of a yes vote if constituencies in the borders vote remain? To we drag them out of a Union they voted to remain in (after complaining its what the UK is doing to Scotland with the EU)? What happens if Orkney (the largest % of No votes last time round) and Shetland decide they want to remain in the UK or decide they want their own Independence? Do we drag them out of the union or refuse their independence? If they do get to stay/go independent, given a lot of Oil and fishing waters are around them how go we split that up?

Great points, although too inconvenient for the glasgow centric heirarcy of the indy movement to debate seriously.

To be swept under the carpet I fear along with all the other valid reasons to say NO

Malthusian

abz88 wrote: »

There is no way to distinguish what SNP votes were from voters wanting independence and what SNP votes were tactical votes to try and stop Brexit.

By this standard no government should ever be allowed to do anything ever, because we can't be certain that people voted for the blues because they supported blue policies, they may only have wanted to stop the reds.

Again, if anyone seriously believed that the Scottish didn't vote for the independence party with the independence manifesto because they wanted independence, they would support a referendum, in the knowledge that Remain would win, and settle the question for another generation (or until the next Brexit-style black swan).

It's also not what their manifesto stated, "In order to put a referendum beyond legal challenge,
we will seek a transfer of power, such as a section 30 order under The Scotland Act." They have sought the transfer of power and been told no so manifesto fulfilled, move on.

Did the manifesto say "If London won't give us a transfer of power we'll give up and change our name to the Scottish Surrender Party"?

And the whole "its a dramatic change since Indy Ref due to Brexit" is wrong. If we had voted for independence, we would have been out of the EU so we are in the exact same situation now, albeit out as part of the UK and not as an independent Scotland.

It's completely different. Vassal Scotland = out of the EU indefinitely. Independent Scotland = can apply for membership of the EU and begin the process of reforming its economy to qualify for membership. If Romania and Bulgaria managed it so can Scotland. If self-hating Scots think that Scotland is more of an economic basketcase than Romania that's their psychological issue to deal with, not that of the millions of Scots yearning to be free.

abz88

Malthusian wrote: »

By this standard no government should ever be allowed to do anything ever, because we can't be certain that people voted for the blues because they supported blue policies, they may only have wanted to stop the reds.

In an election where other parties openly told their supporters to vote tactically there is no way to be certain (again, even Sturgeon has said this). If they run a manifesto in the next Scottish Parliament election based purely on a run for Independence, then they can show a mandate.

Malthusian wrote: »

Again, if anyone seriously believed that the Scottish didn't vote for the independence party with the independence manifesto because they wanted independence, they would support a referendum, in the knowledge that Remain would win, and settle the question for another generation (or until the next Brexit-style black swan.

Why would we support a referendum when less than 50% of the voting public voted for independence parties? They also costs a fortune to run, are divisive and the SNP will focus purely on the referendum while ignoring their day job (then in turn blame Westminster for them not performing their day job)!

We have already settled it for this generation! If the next generation want another vote, then fair enough.

Malthusian wrote: »

Did the manifesto say "If London won't give us a transfer of power we'll give up and change our name to the Scottish Surrender Party"?

No, but it did say "An agreed process means that no-one will be able to question the legitimacy of the referendum both here in Scotland and in the wider international community. For EU member states in particular, it will be essential to demonstrate that a referendum has been held legally and constitutionally" so they can't just hold their own as even the SNP accept it would be pointless.

Malthusian wrote: »

It's completely different. Vassal Scotland = out of the EU indefinitely. Independent Scotland = can apply for membership of the EU and begin the process of reforming its economy to qualify for membership. If Romania and Bulgaria managed it so can Scotland. If self-hating Scots think that Scotland is more of an economic basketcase than Romania that's their psychological issue to deal with, not that of the millions of Scots yearning to be free.

It's not completely different, an Independent Scotland would have to vote on rejoining the EU. If we vote yes to Indy and no to EU, then what's the difference?

Convenient that you have missed out the whole issue of Spain not vetoing us from joining as an independent country and setting a precedent for Catalonia being able to join if it goes independent...

"Self-hating Scots". The classic Indy Extremist logic, that abusing people that want what they feel is best for Scotland is the way to convince them to change their mind from the last independence vote.

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

This also brings up the issue of figuring out how we geographically split. What happens in the event of a yes vote if constituencies in the borders vote remain? To we drag them out of a Union they voted to remain in (after complaining its what the UK is doing to Scotland with the EU)? What happens if Orkney (the largest % of No votes last time round) and Shetland decide they want to remain in the UK or decide they want their own Independence? Do we drag them out of the union or refuse their independence? If they do get to stay/go independent, given a lot of Oil and fishing waters are around them how go we split that up?

Very good point. I guess there'd be nothing preventing the border shifting a bit should parts of the border want to remain in Britain. In the same way I would be all for allowing parts of the North becoming Scotland if it was geographically possible to do so.

For the islands, no reason they couldn't be the same idea as the Falklands, though that'd result in years of arguing over fishing waters.

How we'd handle a land pocket wanting to remain, like Dundee, I'm not sure. They probably need to go with their neighbour's.

It'd be a bit of a rampaging double standard to try and use that to prevent independence when it was shot down for brexit.

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

It's not completely different, an Independent Scotland would have to vote on rejoining the EU. If we vote yes to Indy and no to EU, then what's the difference?

The difference is that an in independent scotland, its scotland that gets to decide and not england.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

Very good point. I guess there'd be nothing preventing the border shifting a bit should parts of the border want to remain in Britain. In the same way I would be all for allowing parts of the North becoming Scotland if it was geographically possible to do so.

How would that work in terms of voting though? How many other "referendums" would you have to have around the borders for those wanting to join an iScotland, and at what point do you say "no, that's too far South"

Herzlos wrote: »

For the islands, no reason they couldn't be the same idea as the Falklands, though that'd result in years of arguing over fishing waters.

Not just fishing rights, but oil and gas rights as well. The potential loss of those earnings won't be factored into the next white paper I imagine, so again more unanswered questions.

Herzlos wrote: »

How we'd handle a land pocket wanting to remain, like Dundee, I'm not sure. They probably need to go with their neighbour's.

It'd be a bit of a rampaging double standard to try and use that to prevent independence when it was shot down for brexit.

It'd be a bit of a rampaging double standard to try and justify a second IndyRef because we are being ripped out of the EU and then saying if Dundee voted to remain the UK it would have to go with its neighbors and be ripped out of the Union.

I am not using any of that to prevent independence, if the SNP/Pro Indy parties gain a majority of Scottish votes on a purely pro-Indy manifesto then Indy should be discussed, including how the above issues are handled (they were never discussed last time around). However, to claim there is a mandate based on less than 50% of voters voting for pro-Indy parties when the SNP themselves admit that in the last election not everyone that voted SNP were voting for Independence is nonsensical.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

The difference is that an in independent scotland, its scotland that gets to decide and not england.

The difference is that an in independent Orkney/Shetland/Western Isle's/Grampian and Highlands/etc, its Orkney/Shetland/Western Isle's/Grampian and Highlands/etc that gets to decide and not the central belt.

Or does that logic only work when you can blame Westminster for an outcome you don't like?

baldelectrician

mollycat wrote: »

They won 48 seats by continually repeating "stop brexit" and keeping absolutely silent about independence; the "I" word did not appear at all in any pre vote literature in many constituencies, and the rhetoric about the result being a "mandate" only started once the results started rolling in.

The rest of your post sounds a mix of wishful thinking and outright desperation to persuade others independence still has momentum.

All in my humble opinion of course.

Oh my god- I would have never known that the SNP wanted independence until you told me......

Saying things like 'I can't believe the SNP want independence is a bit unusual'

if this surprised you it may be news that bears defecate in the woods.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

The difference is that an in independent scotland, its scotland that gets to decide and not england.

So you would be quite happy for Scotland to be able to stop the UK and therefore England from leaving the eu, but you still think England should not have equivalent rights.