Forum Home» Debate House Prices & the Economy

The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread. - Page 738

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

Debate House Prices


We’re struggling at the moment with the huge volumes of messages we’re getting from Forumites about coronavirus and the impact it’s having on their finances. We’re a small team and we’re doing our best to manage this spike in demand. As a result, we’ve reluctantly decided to temporarily close the Debate House Prices & the Economy Board so that we can redirect our limited resources to those who need us most at this time.

Please do not post content intended for this board elsewhere in the forum – we appreciate your help and understanding during this exceptionally difficult time. It goes without saying, we hope to get back to full business as soon as possible!

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

15.4K replies 159.1K views
17357367387407411544

Replies

  • kabayirikabayiri Forumite
    22.7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Moby wrote: »
    Anyone know the constitutional position....can Sturgeon go ahead with a referendum even if the UK Govmt opposes it?

    Sturgeon/SNP could pay for their own referendum which essentially says "If I can persuade the EU to take Scotland in directly, would you support Scottish independence?"

    If the Scottish voters buy in to this argument big time, then that gives Sturgeon ammunition to go to Juncker+Co and define the terms of entry.

    If the EU says no, then any referendum based on EU membership is sunk anyway.

    If the EU says Yes but with draconian terms, then that would require a 3rd referendum !

    (Let's hope Nicola has shares in polling/referendum companies)
  • RinoaRinoa Forumite
    2.7K posts
    Indy:
    The EU has said an independent Scotland would have to join a queue of nations seeking membership of the bloc, after Nicola Sturgeon announced plans for a second independence referendum.
    Wading into the debate on the Scottish Government’s plans for a second vote, a spokesman for the European Commission said Scotland would not be granted automatic access to the EU.
    At a briefing in Brussels, Margaritis Schinas said: "The commission does not comment on issues that pertain to the internal legal and constitutional order of our member states."
    But he added: "The Barroso doctrine, would that apply? Yes that would apply, obviously."
    ​Former commission president Jose Manuel Barroso set out the legal view that if one part of an EU country became an independent state it would have to apply for EU membership.
    In a letter sent in 2012, Mr Barroso spelled out EC doctrine that “the separation of one part of a Member State or the creation of a new state would not be neutral as regards the EU Treaties”.
    He continued: “A new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory.”
    Were Scotland to hold a second independence vote and then back splitting from the UK, the Government in Holyrood would have to apply for EU membership under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-eu-independence-referendum-scotland-join-queue-membership-apply-a7627201.html
    If I don't reply to your post,
    you're probably on my ignore list.
  • kabayirikabayiri Forumite
    22.7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Rinoa wrote: »

    So using the same logic, Sturgeon should be urging England to leave the United Kingdom?

    That way, Scotland and NI would remain in the EU as per their voting interpretation, and England could then choose to reapply for EU membership (or not).

    [Wales...can choose as they see fit, might as well make use of their assembly]
  • MobyMoby Forumite
    3.9K posts
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Sinn Fein are clearly on a roll in Northern Ireland and are using Brexit as another reason to unify Ireland; a second referendum looks possible soon in Scotland..........doesn't anyone care about the union........and has the wave of nationalism that Brexit has unleashed had repercussions far beyond those intended? The Brexit vote has clearly exposed the fault lines running through the union.... that vote was so wrong on so many levels!
    Brexit: Voting to take back what we had never lost in order to lose everything we had.
    Madness!
  • Cash-CowsCash-Cows Forumite
    344 posts
    Sixth Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    We don't need another Scottish independence referendum, we need a second Brexit vote.
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • edited 13 March 2017 at 4:58PM
    TrickyTree83TrickyTree83
    3.9K posts
    edited 13 March 2017 at 4:58PM
    Filo25 wrote: »
    To put it in a context that maybe might appeal to more of the users on here, how would you feel if the UK had voted to remain in the EU, and a few years later the UK government decided it wanted to have a second referendum but the EU said we couldn't. ;)

    Its difficult to say that Scotland is a valued partner in the UK if you choose to ignore the wishes of its parliament when you don't agree with them.

    If the SNP want a referendum and they can get it through the Scottish parliament then let them have it, although it should be paid for out of the Scottish budget.

    There will come a point where the Scottish electorate are going to start punishing the SNP if they think they are taking the proverbial with endless demands for referenda.

    To put it into the relevant context, how I would feel about that doesn't matter.

    It's how the political battles that the UK is currently fighting sit in terms of priority. Brexit affects more of the UK and therefore should take priority, if that means Scots need to wait and are therefore told no, I don't see that as an issue. It's not a never, but it's not on SNP terms.

    Edit: And actually, if we had remained and we wanted a 2nd referendum later on and the EU said no, there wouldn't be anything we could do if we were not in control of the treaties we had signed. When the treaty of union was signed the nation state of Scotland ceased to exist, as did England. Those powers are now tied up in the union, so it's not really comparable. If I wanted to leave and I was denied the opportunity of a 2nd vote, I'd be angry about it but there wouldn't be anything I could do about it. If I wanted to remain then I wouldn't care. Do you see the problem of saying it would push up independence support? You have to be courting the idea in the first place for Westminster saying no to have any affect at all. In which case you're already voting for independence, so it doesn't matter to the end result. So why would it push up support? It's not logical.
  • edited 13 March 2017 at 4:34PM
    MobyMoby Forumite
    3.9K posts
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 13 March 2017 at 4:34PM
    I don't understand this argument that saying no will increase support for independence.

    Please explain it in detail.

    As far as I can tell the issue has been on the agenda of Scottish minds for 4 years or more, there will be little movement if any.

    Also if they're told no, then there's no consequence from any possible uptick in support for it. Once the terms of Brexit are understood and the deal is actually in place it would be a more open and honest debate anyway rather than the faux outrage debate Sturgeon wants to have. A little bit of research and reading shows them up as the liars they are. I know all politicians lie, but these build a completely alternate reality.
    Taken from the Guardian. Think I've explained this to you before:-
    And there’s the rub: if saving the union rested upon a straightforward cost-benefit analysis of Scotland’s place in the UK, then the no camp would win easily. But then remainers followed the same rationale in the Brexit referendum of June 2016 – when a majority of Britons (although not Scots) voted to leave the European Union. And in the United States, Democrats believed voters would see through Donald Trump’s simplistic economics and install Hillary Clinton in the White House.
    It’s no longer just the economy, stupid; narrative now trumps conventional expectations of voter self-interest. Like it or not, identity is important. And if anyone is perceived as guardians of 21st century Scottish identity, it’s the SNP. So, whenever unionists make perfectly reasonable points about oil, the deficit or currency, nationalists accuse them of ‘talking Scotland down’. As Europhiles across the continent will well understand, defending a multi-national union that often appears harsh and remote is challenging, and becoming more so.

    Brexit: Voting to take back what we had never lost in order to lose everything we had.
    Madness!
  • The talk of capital flight in the event of Scotland becoming independent has started already.
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5617283

    But don't worry, I'm sure Sturgeon has planned for this.
    Like she has a currency planned.
    And a balanced budget.
  • mayonnaisemayonnaise Forumite
    3.7K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    We also export more than 4 times as much to the rest of the UK than we do to the EU so it would be madness to leave our biggest market for such an insignificant one (in relative terms).

    I know, it's madness leaving your biggest market. ;)
    Don't blame me, I voted Remain.
  • ShakethediseaseShakethedisease Forumite
    7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    Any announcement on a second ref will come from Bute House.

    I was right about that at least.

    I see the same old 2014 arguments making an appearance again. Capital flight, Spain, EU queues etc etc. The fact is that Sturgeon caught the Tories well on the hop today. Journos and other political commentators were all expecting Article 50 to be triggered today, ( so did Sturgeon going by her speech ) but it seems it's been cancelled for some reason.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-wont-be-triggered-this-week-theresa-may-eu-referendum-latest-news-rome-treaty-a7627676.html

    Two points of note for me today and for those going on about EU queues.
    Lesley Riddoch‏ @LesleyRiddoch 5h5 hours ago
    Listen carefully to FM's answer on full EU m'ship. "That's been SNP policy but times are changing." EEA m'ship is an option methinks
    Also the FM has deliberately chosen the window when the Brexit deal is all but done and known, but is about to pass through the EU parliament for ratification. So no one in Scotland will be voting blind. No reason to wait until afterwards or accusations of disrupting talks as they will be finished by then.
    It all seems so stupid it makes me want to give up.
    But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid ?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support