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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're free to so exactly that. As long as Scotland is in the UK.

So if Dumfries and Galloway held a referendum on self-determination after a 'Yes' to Scottish independence to remain in the UK as you're hoping to do to remain in the EU you would respect that?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Scotland is a constituent region of a nation state. The nation being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore Scotland are currently in exactly the same position regarding the UK that Dumfries and Galloway would be in regarding Scotland if it were to become independent - a constituent region of a nation state.

Under UN self-determination it doesn't matter if they've ever been a country or not.

So why is it OK for Scotland to break away from its nation but not Dumfries and Galloway in your eyes? Is it because you see Scotland/Alba as one nation?

That's how unionists see the United Kingdom, as one nation.

Thank you - at last, someone "gets" it. :T

Those responses indeed yet again prove the deceit of a particular iScotland nature of the SNP and/or some iScotland supporters.
What is good for the goose is - in their eyes - most definitely NOT good for the gander.
The UK must heed Scotland or else Scotland will seek independence/EU membership blah blah blah BUT Scotland can ignore D&G's wishes because of the majority vote!
Shameful!

An SNP/ iScotland supporter's vision of democracy - and then some wonder why they are considered to be Scottish Nationalists of the worst sort; English-hating, anti-democratic and above all extremely bitter.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Well, I've just read a comment from Jock on DT ( Sturgeon blocks brexit nonsense thread ) which calls pro Indy posters loons. I'm assuming he's talking of the pro Indy posters on this thread. Am I wrong Jock?

AND now taking my post on that thread in DT back to context ................. are you suggesting that your views are those of a majority of Scots?
If so, evidence please?
Further, do you believe that repeatedly being deceitful; anti-English; anti-democratic; - any or all of these - is acceptable and normal behaviour to exhibit?

ash28

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The UK parliament kept a lot of powers reserved to Westminster when it devolved powers to Holyrood as well as NI and Wales. Unfortunately, the right to hold a referendum wasn't one of them.

For the independence referendum in 2014 the UK government maintained that the Scottish parliament did not have the legal powers to hold a referendum - the Scottish government disagreed. In any event the question was settled with the Scotland act amended to allow the Scottish government to hold a referendum before the end of 2014.

I would imagine there is little prospect of the UK government agreeing to another referendum on independence in such a short time period. And if the Scottish government were to go ahead regardless then there could be a legal challenge from the UK government (not saying there would be but saying there could be). IMHO, a referendum implemented by the Scottish government but not agreed to, or that is legally challenged by the UK government would put the frighteners on any EU accession hopes for Ms Sturgeon. I'm sure she is well aware of this and would want any future referendum mutually agreed with the UK government.

I would think the SNP will tread very carefully going forward. Polls indicate that the majority of people don't want another referendum and that the Brexit vote doesn't seem to have changed many voters intentions.

The last two referendums have made one thing perfectly clear and that is: referendums don't settle questions. The iScotland referendum polarised Scotland and the EU referendum has been equally as divisive throughout the UK. If people refuse to accept the result of a referendum (for whatever reason) then you have to call into question the usefulness of a referendum.

Of course Brexit has put the SNP in a difficult position regarding a second iScotland referendum. In 2014 a large part of the SNP campaign hinged on the White Paper that stated the economic consequences of leaving the UK would be positive and anyone disagreeing with that position was scaremongering. It was really a choice between hugely better off or just a bit better off.

In August 2016 another paper, 'Potential Implications of the UK Leaving the EU on Scotland’s Long Run Economic Performance', the Scottish government highlights the dire economic consequences to Scotland when the UK leaves the EU. So the economic consequences of leaving a union that accounts for 15% of Scottish exports will be pretty dire and the economic consequences of leaving a union that accounts for 64% of Scottish exports are not worth a mention.

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Economy/Publications/PotentialEU

As a result, Scotland’s exports to the EU are now worth more than £11.6 billion a year – 42% of the country’s international exports4. EU membership also helps to facilitate some of Scotland’s trade with the rest of the world through the trade agreements that the EU has secured.

What would be the economic consequences of a Scotland in the EU with loss of free trade with the rUK and along with the loss of fiscal transfers from the UK.

One the best articles I've read on Scotland's position is by Alex Neil (SNP MSP) in Holyrood Magazine. He talks a lot sense and he shows that not everyone in the SNP is a 'one trick pony'.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/idea-brexit-could-suddenly-push-scotland-towards-yes-vote-isn%E2%80%99t-supported-evidence

In the 2014 referendum 'our oil' was the driver for momentum and currently it's 'our place in Europe' being used to drive momentum for a second iScotland referendum. It isn't enough. The best outcome for the UK, as far as Scotland is concerned, will be a soft Brexit. A hard Brexit for Scotland will make independence that much more expensive....the loss of free market access to their biggest export market and that along with the loss of fiscal transfers from the UK would be one of the worst possible scenarios.

IMHO, now is the time to be working in the national interests (the whole of the UK) and not in the interests of nationalism.

OK, feel free I'm wearing my tinfoil hat!

TrickyTree83

ash28 wrote: »

For the independence referendum in 2014 the UK government maintained that the Scottish parliament did not have the legal powers to hold a referendum - the Scottish government disagreed. In any event the question was settled with the Scotland act amended to allow the Scottish government to hold a referendum before the end of 2014.

I would imagine there is little prospect of the UK government agreeing to another referendum on independence in such a short time period. And if the Scottish government were to go ahead regardless then there could be a legal challenge from the UK government (not saying there would be but saying there could be). IMHO, a referendum implemented by the Scottish government but not agreed to, or that is legally challenged by the UK government would put the frighteners on any EU accession hopes for Ms Sturgeon. I'm sure she is well aware of this and would want any future referendum mutually agreed with the UK government.

I would think the SNP will tread very carefully going forward. Polls indicate that the majority of people don't want another referendum and that the Brexit vote doesn't seem to have changed many voters intentions.

The last two referendums have made one thing perfectly clear and that is: referendums don't settle questions. The iScotland referendum polarised Scotland and the EU referendum has been equally as divisive throughout the UK. If people refuse to accept the result of a referendum (for whatever reason) then you have to call into question the usefulness of a referendum.

Of course Brexit has put the SNP in a difficult position regarding a second iScotland referendum. In 2014 a large part of the SNP campaign hinged on the White Paper that stated the economic consequences of leaving the UK would be positive and anyone disagreeing with that position was scaremongering. It was really a choice between hugely better off or just a bit better off.

In August 2016 another paper, 'Potential Implications of the UK Leaving the EU on Scotland’s Long Run Economic Performance', the Scottish government highlights the dire economic consequences to Scotland when the UK leaves the EU. So the economic consequences of leaving a union that accounts for 15% of Scottish exports will be pretty dire and the economic consequences of leaving a union that accounts for 64% of Scottish exports are not worth a mention.

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Economy/Publications/PotentialEU

What would be the economic consequences of a Scotland in the EU with loss of free trade with the rUK and along with the loss of fiscal transfers from the UK.

One the best articles I've read on Scotland's position is by Alex Neil (SNP MSP) in Holyrood Magazine. He talks a lot sense and he shows that not everyone in the SNP is a 'one trick pony'.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/idea-brexit-could-suddenly-push-scotland-towards-yes-vote-isn%E2%80%99t-supported-evidence

In the 2014 referendum 'our oil' was the driver for momentum and currently it's 'our place in Europe' being used to drive momentum for a second iScotland referendum. It isn't enough. The best outcome for the UK, as far as Scotland is concerned, will be a soft Brexit. A hard Brexit for Scotland will make independence that much more expensive....the loss of free market access to their biggest export market and that along with the loss of fiscal transfers from the UK would be one of the worst possible scenarios.

IMHO, now is the time to be working in the national interests (the whole of the UK) and not in the interests of nationalism.

OK, feel free I'm wearing my tinfoil hat!

Yep yep yep.

Now is not the time.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So if Dumfries and Galloway held a referendum on self-determination after a 'Yes' to Scottish independence to remain in the UK as you're hoping to do to remain in the EU you would respect that?

Sure, as long as all other regions get the same referendum no matter what any Scottish referendum result is. What if it's a No vote and Glasgow, Dundee and lots of other areas want to decide their own self-determination. I presume you'll be supporting such a move wholeheartedly will you ?

Honestly, I can't believe you're getting so worked up about something that's never likely to become any sort of vague reality in the next few decades. Is a complete waste of time discussing it, like it was on here for two or three years over Orkney and Shetland.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Scotland is a constituent region of a nation state. The nation being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore Scotland is currently in exactly the same position regarding the UK that Dumfries and Galloway would be in regarding Scotland if it were to become independent - a constituent region of a nation state.

Dancing on the head of a pin as Derek Bateman puts it. The UK is a very rare situation in terms of state v's nation. Which is why we all go round and round in circles over it.

Under UN self-determination it doesn't matter if they've ever been a country or not.

So ? (and I answered the rest several times above regarding D+G ).

So why is it OK for Scotland to break away from its nation but not Dumfries and Galloway in your eyes? Is it because you see Scotland/Alba as one nation?

No, Scotland is a nation which is part of a state made up of 4 different nations. Is also in a political union with them. It's the political union in question in my view. Holyrood v's Westminster and who would run Scotland better for future generations.

That's how unionists see the United Kingdom, as one nation.

That's nice and to be respected as an opinion. But that doesn't mean that Westminster governance is the best way forward for Scotland in future.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sure, as long as all other regions get the same referendum no matter what any Scottish referendum result is. What if it's a No vote and Glasgow, Dundee and lots of other areas want to decide their own self-determination. I presume you'll be supporting such a move wholeheartedly will you ?

Haha, no no, I'm not supporting this type of dismantling of a nation (re Scotland & UK / iScotland & D&G).

Honestly, I can't believe you're getting so worked up about something that's never likely to become any sort of vague reality in the next few decades. Is a complete waste of time discussing it, like it was on here for two or three years over Orkney and Shetland.

My reason for discussing it is because you appear to think it is ridiculous for Dumfries and Galloway to hold a referendum (advisory or no) on remaining part of the UK should Scotland vote for independence. Yet you think it quite acceptable to say that Scotland should have a vote to become independent from the UK because the UK is leaving the EU.

Can you not see the hypocrisy?

I'll break it down here:

Scotland votes to leave the UK because UK is leaving the EU = Good! Yes, absolutely fine. We won at the 2nd time of asking!

Dumfries and Galloway votes to leave Scotland because Scotland leaves the UK = Bad!! Absolutely not, will never happen. You're part of Scotland and that's that!

You fail to recognise that the UK is the nation state you wish to secede from and that if you pursue this agenda and achieve it, then surely the same courtesy should be extended to the people of Dumfries and Galloway to remain part of the UK, in much the same way you're using leaving the EU as a pretext for leaving the UK. The opposite must surely also apply to those regions of iScotland who do not wish to leave the UK and join the EU.

Shakethedisease

ash28 wrote: »

For the independence referendum in 2014 the UK government maintained that the Scottish parliament did not have the legal powers to hold a referendum - the Scottish government disagreed. In any event the question was settled with the Scotland act amended to allow the Scottish government to hold a referendum before the end of 2014.

A common misconception. The UK government made sure the result of the referendum would be legally binding. Not the referendum holding itself. Westminster has no reserved rights over Holyrood's rights to call a referendum and it is not listed in any list of currently reserved powers.

I would imagine there is little prospect of the UK government agreeing to another referendum on independence in such a short time period. And if the Scottish government were to go ahead regardless then there could be a legal challenge from the UK government (not saying there would be but saying there could be). IMHO, a referendum implemented by the Scottish government but not agreed to, or that is legally challenged by the UK government would put the frighteners on any EU accession hopes for Ms Sturgeon. I'm sure she is well aware of this and would want any future referendum mutually agreed with the UK government

I disagree. As above the calling of any referendum won't be challenged. The result may well be. But again as I've stated before there is very little point in any UK govt trying to cling on to Scotland should a majority of Scots vote to leave. As for putting the frighteners of EU accession hopes this is also unlikely. In fact there are some in the EU who seem to be positively encouraging Scotland to hold another referendum. For obvious reasons. ( Verhofstadt )

I would think the SNP will tread very carefully going forward. Polls indicate that the majority of people don't want another referendum and that the Brexit vote doesn't seem to have changed many voters intentions.

Taken as read. ****But there have actually been measurable changes in polling in terms of switchers and Don't knows. Timing will be everything. Some polls are also missing out key demographics.

The last two referendums have made one thing perfectly clear and that is: referendums don't settle questions. The iScotland referendum polarised Scotland and the EU referendum has been equally as divisive throughout the UK. If people refuse to accept the result of a referendum (for whatever reason) then you have to call into question the usefulness of a referendum.

Of course Brexit has put the SNP in a difficult position regarding a second iScotland referendum. In 2014 a large part of the SNP campaign hinged on the White Paper that stated the economic consequences of leaving the UK would be positive and anyone disagreeing with that position was scaremongering. It was really a choice between hugely better off or just a bit better off.

During Thatcher's era and Gordon Wilson's SNP leadership the only criteria for Scotland's independence would've been a majority of MP's from pro-independence parties. Should Scotland have stuck with that route she would've been independent in 2015. A referendum is the only free and fair route unless we go back to the majority of MP's who want to leave the UK old style way of doing things.

In August 2016 another paper, 'Potential Implications of the UK Leaving the EU on Scotland’s Long Run Economic Performance', the Scottish government highlights the dire economic consequences to Scotland when the UK leaves the EU. So the economic consequences of leaving a union that accounts for 15% of Scottish exports will be pretty dire and the economic consequences of leaving a union that accounts for 64% of Scottish exports are not worth a mention.

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Economy/Publications/PotentialEU

What would be the economic consequences of a Scotland in the EU with loss of free trade with the rUK and along with the loss of fiscal transfers from the UK.

One the best articles I've read on Scotland's position is by Alex Neil (SNP MSP) in Holyrood Magazine. He talks a lot sense and he shows that not everyone in the SNP is a 'one trick pony'.

Is a very broad church in the SNP. One common goal uniting it at the present time. I think Alex might have been a leave voter. His views are welcome, but not definitive by any means.

In the 2014 referendum 'our oil' was the driver for momentum and currently it's 'our place in Europe' being used to drive momentum for a second iScotland referendum. It isn't enough. The best outcome for the UK, as far as Scotland is concerned, will be a soft Brexit. A hard Brexit for Scotland will make independence that much more expensive....the loss of free market access to their biggest export market and that along with the loss of fiscal transfers from the UK would be one of the worst possible scenarios.

IMHO, now is the time to be working in the national interests (the whole of the UK) and not in the interests of nationalism.

OK, feel free I'm wearing my tinfoil hat!

Psychologically, nearly half of Scotland have already left the UK and no longer regard Westminster as anything other than a huge annoyance holding real change in Scotland back ( I'm paraphrasing this in very simple terms ). Recently with added Tories. It will be extremely difficult to reverse that current thinking going forward. No matter how many economic papers are presented as fact, the future is an unknown. As we've seen with Brexit sometimes it's just the prospect of change that's enough in the end.

**** Mark Diffley Ipsos Mori

Pros, cons and timing

But what makes this a difficult call for Sturgeon is that there is also a compelling case for holding a second referendum.

It’s true that post-Brexit opinion on independence has not shifted to the extent that she would have hoped, but support at around 45-48 per cent at the beginning of a campaign is hardly a disaster. Campaigns can change opinions, and the prize is tantalisingly close; certainly much closer than it was at the beginning of the first referendum campaign when support for "Yes" languished at around 30 per cent , only to finish at 45 per cent. The hurdle to get over this time is significantly lower...


...The advantages that the nationalists have on the ground should not be underestimated. The SNP has around 120,000 members, many of whom have joined since the first referendum, all of whom will be highly driven to hit the streets. This would give the new "Yes" campaign a distinct advantage in organisational terms, as well as significant opportunities in the data and intelligence that they can gather and use.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/09/how-nicola-sturgeon-could-win-second-independence-referendum

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, Scotland is a nation which is part of a state made up of 4 different nations. Is also in a political union with them. It's the political union in question in my view. Holyrood v's Westminster and who would run Scotland better for future generations.

That's nice and to be respected as an opinion. But that doesn't mean that Westminster governance is the best way forward for Scotland in future.

Right so if the council of Dumfries and Galloway have an issue being in political union with Holyrood why do they have to suck it up?