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

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

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.

No. I'm perfectly happy for England to decide to leave the EU whilst leaving Scotland in it.


England (being the bigger landmass) has so many more MP's than Scotland, NI and Wales that the 3 provinces are completely steamrollered at every vote.

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

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?

No, I'd also be fine if Orkney wanted independence from Scotland.

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

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"

I guess that'd be up to the areas voting to join Scotland. It'd be logistically much easier if it was just a case of moving the border down to allow a contiguous area. So if Northumberland became Scotland, Durham could also join. If Durham didn't, then Yorkshire couldn't.

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.

Yeah, it'd open some pretty serious cans of worms, especially when you have stuff that spans borders like the police service.

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.

Not entirely, Dundee hasn't been a distinct sovereign entity since 1295, and some kind of line needs to be drawn somewhere or you'd end up with individual houses being in or out.

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.

I'm sure I've seen figures claiming 3% of SNP voters don't want independence, which is why I think it's important to ask that direct question instead of all the proxy voting.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

No, I'd also be fine if Orkney wanted independence from Scotland.

Why Orkney and not the other islands/regions I stated? At what point do you draw a line and say "you can have a right to self determination, but you can't"

Herzlos wrote: »

I guess that'd be up to the areas voting to join Scotland. It'd be logistically much easier if it was just a case of moving the border down to allow a contiguous area. So if Northumberland became Scotland, Durham could also join. If Durham didn't, then Yorkshire couldn't

That could be a logical way of doing it, however,I am not sure how practical it would be. There are also International precedence's for land locked parts of a country like Alaska being cut off by the rest of the USA by Canada .

Herzlos wrote: »

Not entirely, Dundee hasn't been a distinct sovereign entity since 1295, and some kind of line needs to be drawn somewhere or you'd end up with individual houses being in or out.

By that logic, at some point we would have to consider Scotland as having been part of the UK for long enough that it loses its right to independence?

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm sure I've seen figures claiming 3% of SNP voters don't want independence, which is why I think it's important to ask that direct question instead of all the proxy voting.

I am not opposed to a direct question, but only if there is a mandate to ask it (which in my opinion there isn't). With the SNP already holding less than 50% of the vote they can't afford to lose 3% of that.

I would also like to say that I appreciate you are actually looking at the questions I have put forward and are providing potential solutions. Whilst I might not agree with the solutions or some of the ideals behind them it is refreshing to actually have a conversation on Indy without being told I am "self-hating" (as Malthusian put it), a traitor, afraid, not welcome in my home etc etc. As I said before, if you want to convince people to change their mind (and based on the last vote, you need to) insulting them and attacking them is not the way to go about it.

mayonnaise

Malthusian wrote: »

Ok, let's look at the message then. Scotland has fallen slightly down the OECD rankings (as all countries will at times, they're not written on golden tablets) and this is evidence that Scotland should carry on as it is now... how exactly?

The implication that it's all devolution's fault is complete nonsense unless you can show a direct causation. Was Scotland the Garden of Eden before 1997?

"Scotland is going to hell in a handbasket, we must do absolutely nothing before it's too late." Genius.

Yes, let's look at the message, and the report.
http://scottishtrends.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Index-of-Well-Being-Full-Report-2020-full.pdf
Wales and N.I are doing even worse and - as far as I know - Nicola nor the SNP have any sway there.
The common denominator is that devolved regions under Westminster rule are not doing too well.

abz88

mayonnaise wrote: »

On a choice of two unions, Scotland will choose the European one which is structurally a partnership of equals, and not the UK one, which is an imperial England draped in nothing more than flimsy pretence.

Except its not a union of equals. Certain policies require a unanimous vote (which means 1 member can effectively veto the vote of everyone else) and on other issues proposed by the Commission or the EU's High Representative there is the double majority rule that requires 55 % of the members of the Council vote in favour (i.e. 16 out of 28); and the members of the Council voting in favour represent EU countries representing at least 65 % of the total EU population (which gives more of a say to countries with a larger population eg German, France, Italy, UK (not now) and Spain).
When the Council votes on a proposal not coming from the Commission or the High Representative it needs "at least 72 % of Council members vote in favor and they represent at least 65 % of the EU population." (again, favoring larger countries due to population size)

Herzlos

It's a union more of equals than Britain where England can essentially veto everything dueo the sheer size imbalance.


To give a really basic example of how the views differ too - if we wanted to leave the EU, we'd just need to trigger Article 50 like Britain did. If we wanted to leave the UK, we can't because England says no.

abz88 wrote: »

Why Orkney and not the other islands/regions I stated? At what point do you draw a line and say "you can have a right to self determination, but you can't"

Purely from a logistical point of view. If X region wants to become English, but you can't get to it without going through Scotland, then unless you have a West-Berlin style corridor, some or kind of electronic nonsense or a customs union it's going to be really hard to do much.


So Orkney, being an island, would be easy enough, there are British islands as far away as Argentina, so having an English one in the North Sea is easy.


Having Dundee be part of England would be a logistical nightmare, though it does have docks so could bypass Scotland too. Stirling, being essentially land-locked would be even worse.

By that logic, at some point we would have to consider Scotland as having been part of the UK for long enough that it loses its right to independence?

Scotland is supposedly still a sovereign entity with it's our Parliament, legal system and so on. However, some are trying to claim (and act as if) Scotland became an English province back in 1707, which if true would mean the same would apply as Dundee - it's too late.


If we want to go down that route, we should go the whole hog, rename the country, dissolve the Parliament and legal system and become 100% English. Would anyone vote for that?

I am not opposed to a direct question, but only if there is a mandate to ask it (which in my opinion there isn't). With the SNP already holding less than 50% of the vote they can't afford to lose 3% of that.

But also all of the seats. If you want to try and claim that SNP doesn't have a mandate for a referendum, you'd need to also concede that the Tories don't have a mandate for Brexit since they also got less than 50% of the vote.


I just want Scotland to be treated fairly and not as some province to be ignored unless there's wealth to remove.

I would also like to say that I appreciate you are actually looking at the questions I have put forward and are providing potential solutions. Whilst I might not agree with the solutions or some of the ideals behind them it is refreshing to actually have a conversation on Indy without being told I am "self-hating" (as Malthusian put it), a traitor, afraid, not welcome in my home etc etc. As I said before, if you want to convince people to change their mind (and based on the last vote, you need to) insulting them and attacking them is not the way to go about it.

No problem, proper debate is the reason I (foolishly) remain on the forums. It's good to have these discussions without them devolving into claims of traitorism or whatever.

mollycat

baldelectrician wrote: »

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.

If deliberately misrepresenting people is the best you can do you should probably give up

Actually, after that cringeworthy, smart alec appearance on the telly you should probably well give up,full stop.

Ps Great couple of pages BTW.....can't believe people are advocating Northumberland can be part of a future iScotland where the Orkneys and maybe Dumfries shouldn't be...I predict a few PMs from your beloved leader later telling you all to get back "on message".

Not that there's much sense in the "message" mind.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

It's a union more of equals than Britain where England can essentially veto everything dueo the sheer size imbalance.

A union more of equals, is not a union of equals though which was the point I was making. And in terms of size imbalance, Scotland have more MPs per head than England does. The point I am trying to make is that there will always be imbalances in power and we will never really have a "Union of Equals", even in an iScotland the central belt would very likely be "more equal" to the rest of Scotland as it is in Hollyrood just now. In the same way that if all bar 1 EU country voted in favor of an iScotland joining the EU would that be democratic, especially if for whatever reason is was someone like Malta that has 0.1% of the EU population?

Herzlos wrote: »

To give a really basic example of how the views differ too - if we wanted to leave the EU, we'd just need to trigger Article 50 like Britain did. If we wanted to leave the UK, we can't because England says no.

If we voted Yes at the last IndyRef, we could have left. The issue now is that rUK is saying we cannot hold a vote on it because a) we've had one recently and b) there is no mandate for one.

Herzlos wrote: »

Purely from a logistical point of view. If X region wants to become English, but you can't get to it without going through Scotland, then unless you have a West-Berlin style corridor, some or kind of electronic nonsense or a customs union it's going to be really hard to do much.

So Orkney, being an island, would be easy enough, there are British islands as far away as Argentina, so having an English one in the North Sea is easy.

Having Dundee be part of England would be a logistical nightmare, though it does have docks so could bypass Scotland too. Stirling, being essentially land-locked would be even worse..

Not that I disagree with you on this part, but Alaska is the obvious example of a region disconnected from the rest of a country (you can sail to it, but to drive you need to go via Canada). So legally, I am not sure how that would be covered.

Herzlos wrote: »

Scotland is supposedly still a sovereign entity with it's our Parliament, legal system and so on. However, some are trying to claim (and act as if) Scotland became an English province back in 1707, which if true would mean the same would apply as Dundee - it's too late..

Again, you can go even more granular with this, regional councils exists that pass local government rules and regulations. The Scottish Parliament is relatively new as the previous Parliament of Scotland was dropped during the Union and although we still have a separate legal system our highest court is still the Supreme Court which sits in England (they apply Scots law, but it still highlights that its not 100% separate)

Herzlos wrote: »

If we want to go down that route, we should go the whole hog, rename the country, dissolve the Parliament and legal system and become 100% English. Would anyone vote for that?

There is no reason, in my opinion, to go whole hog either way. We are not the only country that has distinct laws, parliaments, taxes etc to the rest of the Union but with certain overarching issues being centralised. Pretty much every state in the USA has its own laws, courts, taxes etc, but ultimately power rests in Washington.

Herzlos wrote: »

But also all of the seats. If you want to try and claim that SNP doesn't have a mandate for a referendum, you'd need to also concede that the Tories don't have a mandate for Brexit since they also got less than 50% of the vote.

I have seen this argument a lot, however, I don't see them as one in the same as the mandate for Brexit came from the EU referendum,

Herzlos wrote: »

I just want Scotland to be treated fairly and not as some province to be ignored unless there's wealth to remove.

I fully appreciate that, most unionist votes want exactly the same, they just don't feel we are being treated unfairly to the point it requires us to leave the UK.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

No. I'm perfectly happy for England to decide to leave the EU whilst leaving Scotland in it.


England (being the bigger landmass) has so many more MP's than Scotland, NI and Wales that the 3 provinces are completely steamrollered at every vote.

That cannot happen. Scotland is not a member of the eu. And before you say we are leaving NI in the eu, that is purely for the transition period.