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

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Your first sentence - don't be supercilious, the times you have ignored points and questions made by others is legendary.

Of course I understood your previous post about an advisory referendum, although the way this referendum thing is being touted is not in advisory intent.

We will see how if May responds, she may wait until the SNP is fully committed by an SNP conference decision. But I still think it is likely that she will reply as I wrote by reminding Sturgeon that she must follow the law.

Does the SNP consider itself above the law?

Do its policies trump law?

It raises the prospect that if the SNP want to have a legal referendum they may have to do it twice , one advisory and one legal.

.... at least twice; maybe the rUK as well.

If Ma does block it, there's always the option of dissolving the current Holyrood parliament and making the subsequent election a de-facto independence referendum voted for with the explicit 'if elected we will negotiate independence terms with Westminster' in SNP and Green manifestos. . But May will have to (boost independence support by several points ) come right out and block a referendum first.

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Hamish is also very wrong about this:



The mechanism would be called law, voted for in Westminster. You leave, you lose the right to have a say in what Westminster decides to do about your British citizenship.

It's ridiculous that you think you can retain citizenship of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when the Great Britain part no longer exists because you chose to leave.

The name of country could well change to United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland, and these citizens will be British and Scottish people will simply be Scottish. You may be, I would say should be, asked to choose between the two, at which point Scottish people could become a minority in their own country if more people decide to retain their British citizenship. Off the back of that you may even have a backlash against the very idea of independence itself.

The arrogance of it all is astounding. To believe that you'll continue to be welcomed as citizens of a state you are spurning. I'd back the government all the way to force Scottish people to choose between their UK citizenship or Scottish citizenship if they vote for independence. That's not callous or hateful, you're choosing to leave. And there is a an underlying UK constitutional reason to make this distinction.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If Ma does block it, there's always the option of dissolving the current Holyrood parliament and making the subsequent election a de-facto independence referendum voted for with the explicit 'if elected we will negotiate independence terms with Westminster' in SNP and Green manifestos. . But May will have to (boost independence support by several points ) come right out and block a referendum first.

That, this, is all fantasizing, Shakey. In such things there are spins put on statements and counter statements. Your prediction on a Scottish Response is based on your own, the SNP, response to it. But statements can be designed to appeal to the people they are meant to influence, in that case those who are of a unionist inclination or concerned about separation, not the SNP. You assume far too much in trying to define what the response may be. "Come right out and block" is spin on an assumed statement which not be phrased so crudely.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

That, this, is all fantasizing, Shakey. In such things there are spins put on statements and counter statements. Your prediction on a Scottish Response is based on your own, the SNP, response to it. But statements can be designed to appeal to the people they are meant to influence, in that case those who are of a unionist inclination or concerned about separation, not the SNP. You assume far too much in trying to define what the response may be. "Come right out and block" is spin on an assumed statement which not be phrased so crudely.

May and Cameron before her were very careful to always say they would 'oppose', never that they would block a referendum. One thing about Sturgeon she comes out with what she's going to do and then does it. She's been saying all along since the EU referendum was even announced that it could trigger a referendum if the vote went the way it actually did. And has said since the 24th June if there's no way of keeping Scotland in the single market etc that she'd have legislation drafted for a second independence referendum to trigger if needed.

This isn't fantasising. It's just happened and Sturgeon has done exactly what she said she would from the start. May should follow her example as she's causing much uncertainty, especially where foreign investment is concerned.

The Independent ‏@Independent 56m56 minutes ago An expert warns of the dire consequences were Scotland to leave the United Kingdom

International investor Jim Rogers has warned that the value of the pound could go under one dollar within three to four years if Scotland was to leave the UK. His comments came on the day that Nicola Sturgeon said declaring independence could help Scotland escape the uncertainty triggered by UK’s vote to leave the EU.

Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros, said the UK is facing serious problems.

Speaking to the BBC, Rogers said: “If Scotland leaves they are going to take their oil with them and the pound could go down a great deal. It would certainly go down under one US dollar.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pound-value-brexit-dollar-euro-jim-rogers-prediction-currency-exchange-latest-a7362086.html


Interview in full here, and he keeps repeating 'If Scotland leaves...' both at the beginning and the end of the interview. If there's a time to be blocking a Scottish referendum, then it's probably time for May to do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNMUPIsQjf4&feature=youtu.be

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Hamish is also very wrong about this:



The mechanism would be called law, voted for in Westminster. You leave, you lose the right to have a say in what Westminster decides to do about your British citizenship.

It's ridiculous that you think you can retain citizenship of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when the Great Britain part no longer exists because you chose to leave.

The name of country could well change to United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland, and these citizens will be British and Scottish people will simply be Scottish. You may be, I would say should be, asked to choose between the two, at which point Scottish people could become a minority in their own country if more people decide to retain their British citizenship. Off the back of that you may even have a backlash against the very idea of independence itself.

The arrogance of it all is astounding. To believe that you'll continue to be welcomed as citizens of a state you are spurning. I'd back the government all the way to force Scottish people to choose between their UK citizenship or Scottish citizenship if they vote for independence. That's not callous or hateful, you're choosing to leave. And there is a an underlying UK constitutional reason to make this distinction.

This is all hypothetical but anyway ......I part company a bit with you on this one. Perhaps if there were a very high % of Scots upping two fingers to the UK my mood might change from my national self-interest not including Natland to include outright hostility but I don't expect such a situation.

As confirmed by our local expert, the SNP will gleefully accept a majority of one to change Scotland into Natland, but I refuse to stoop to taking revenge of those Scots loyal to the Union and would not divest them of earned pension rights nor not make them welcome anymore. As it happens I doubt that could be done legally without, as you say, action by Westminster.

So my starting point is in a different place. However there is a kick to that narrative. The funding provided by the UK to pay for those pensions comes from funds assigned for the whole of the UK which has always included Scotland and there will be an accounting methodolgy to determine the appropriate share that Scotland should pay which can then be deducted from any share of assets that might be agreed. As I mentioned before, further entitlement such as time spent working in Scotland (not the UK) and indexing should be carried directly by the Scottish Government.

I would expect that protection of those pensioners would by a principle point for negotiations by us in the UK, as for the SNP I expect nothing but habitual whingeing. But they will have to pay up in some shape or form IF they gain their Natland.

zagubov

The SNP can't push Scotland to vote for independence. Or motivate a majority to do so.

The Tories could do a brilliant job of that. And sooner or later, if they keep on trying to run Scotland without a local mandate, I wouldn't be surprised if they'll do exactly that.

TrickyTree83

.string. wrote: »

This is all hypothetical but anyway ......I part company a bit with you on this one. Perhaps if there were a very high % of Scots upping two fingers to the UK my mood might change from my national self-interest not including Natland to include outright hostility but I don't expect such a situation.

As confirmed by our local expert, the SNP will gleefully accept a majority of one to change Scotland into Natland, but I refuse to stoop to taking revenge of those Scots loyal to the Union and would not divest them of earned pension rights nor not make them welcome anymore. As it happens I doubt that could be done legally without, as you say, action by Westminster.

So my starting point is in a different place. However there is a kick to that narrative. The funding provided by the UK to pay for those pensions comes from funds assigned for the whole of the UK which has always included Scotland and there will be an accounting methodolgy to determine the appropriate share that Scotland should pay which can then be deducted from any share of assets that might be agreed. As I mentioned before, further entitlement such as time spent working in Scotland (not the UK) and indexing should be carried directly by the Scottish Government.

I would expect that protection of those pensioners would by a principle point for negotiations by us in the UK, as for the SNP I expect nothing but habitual whingeing. But they will have to pay up in some shape or form IF they gain their Natland.

Perhaps I was unclear, give them the choice. British citizens or Scottish, not both. Perhaps British citizens in Scotland will be considered expats and qualify for a UK pension that way?

Whatever happens the indy lot won't have their cake and eat it.

I cannot get on board with dual citizenship for a section of Scotland that clearly hates the union and for some, the people in it. I don't think Westminster or others in the UK will either.

I sincerely wish the idea of Scottish independence didn't exist and that we all considered ourselves British, but that's not reality.

mollycat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I sincerely wish the idea of Scottish independence didn't exist and that we all considered ourselves British, but that's not reality.

Tricky, a huge proportion of Scots regard ourselves as British and have no truck with the Indy movement.

I know it's probably difficulty for you to get a proper perspective not living here, but please remember that neither Sturgeon nor the 3 or 4 clowns who post here regularly speak for Scotland.

I don't post on the the thread anymore but have dipped back in this once to support the likes of yourself and .string...keep up the good work .

posh*spice

Brilliant idea Scotland. In the EU you will face tarriffs on everything you sell into the independent UK - more tax for us!

Knock yourself out :T

posh*spice

mollycat wrote: »

Tricky, a huge proportion of Scots regard ourselves as British and have no truck with the Indy movement.

I know it's probably difficulty for you to get a proper perspective not living here, but please remember that neither Sturgeon nor the 3 or 4 clowns who post here regularly speak for Scotland.

I don't post on the the thread anymore but have dipped back in this once to support the likes of yourself and .string...keep up the good work .

You have my deepest sympathy - Scottish people need to stop voting SNP - otherwise they will be doing a referendum annually!

Thrugelmir

zagubov wrote: »

The SNP can't push Scotland to vote for independence. Or motivate a majority to do so.

The Tories could do a brilliant job of that. And sooner or later, if they keep on trying to run Scotland without a local mandate, I wouldn't be surprised if they'll do exactly that.

The SNP haven't shown any great aptitude in running the Scottish economy. Sometimes it's easiest just to let someone have a shovel, stand back, and let them dig their own hole.