2nd Indy Referendum?

[Nearly Sane]

That makes you pro Brexit!!!

You missed the word appropriate. So you pool certain decisions bit not others. What appropriate is, is a harder question and yes, there are legitimate concerns aboùt Europe as indeed about the UK or a federal state.

[Nearly Sane]

So now you understand us Brexiteers.  We voted UKIP and got Brussels election after election. Ruled by those we didn't want!

what did you get that you didn't want? Numbers needed to understand your point.

[Jack Knave]

Just to pick up on Gonzo's point about plans, there is an element of chicken and egg here. To have a detailed plan, you have to have had the negotiations, to have the negotiations you have to have had the vote, hence why the Lib Dem policy of a second referendum on Brexit is a perfectly rational one. Problem with that, of course, is that it's politically unfeasible because what happens if the second referendum rejects the plan. Plus in the present 'will of the people' frenzy anyone who suggests such will be vilified by one side or another. I note that the Telegraph ran an op ed piece from Allison Pearson calling Nicola a liar and a traitor and calling for her head to be chopped off. Hyperbole, yes, but in the current climate badly advised I would suggest. We got through the last referendum with only the one murdered MP, but that is surely not a record to be proud of.

The added complexity here is Ireland, because many if the issues that might arise for an independent Scotland in the EU will be played out on the border between the Republic and North. Worse this could be against a back drop of direct rule, if the parties fail to get to an agreement, and that will fuel unification sentiment.

The people doing best here are the political pundits who are in demand to write pieces from all quarters.

If we do have a second referendum and the people reject the plan then we go to WTO rules.

[Nearly Sane]

If we do have a second referendum and the people reject the plan then we go to WTO rules.

is that two falls and a submission?

[Jack Knave]

Which means that joining the EU doesn't necessitate joining the Euro, not that I'm opposed to that. It's all in the post you replied to.

For new members it does, after reaching some criteria.

[Jack Knave]

that would be Gordon Wilson from thirty plus years ago. The SNP have campaigned on membership in Europe for thirty years.

Well, he's changed his mind now.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, he's changed his mind now.

Oh no Gordon hasn't he's always had an issue with the EU and gay people as well. That's why he was leader pre the change on position.

[Jack Knave]

You missed the word appropriate. So you pool certain decisions bit not others. What appropriate is, is a harder question and yes, there are legitimate concerns aboùt Europe as indeed about the UK or a federal state.

I wouldn't say that an institution like the EU was not necessary at all just that its present format is grossly imbalanced about the powers it has and what it is trying to do. A vast amount of its duties should be returned to the nation states.

[Jack Knave]

what did you get that you didn't want? Numbers needed to understand your point.

Numbers? What numbers?

We got directives we didn't like etc. Just as the Scots were and are ruled by the Tories that they don't like. What's hard to understand?

[Nearly Sane]

I wouldn't say that an institution like the EU was not necessary at all just that its present format is grossly imbalanced about the powers it has and what it is trying to do. A vast amount of its duties should be returned to the nation states.

while we might disagree on what powers (or maybe not)  I agree the principle. Plus it would need to be hugely reformed in its own institutional structure given the change in size and make up.

[Nearly Sane]

Numbers? What numbers?

We got directives we didn't like etc. Just as the Scots were and are ruled by the Tories that they don't like. What's hard to understand?

that 'we don't like' is a random post assertion about things not about actually voting against a govt.

[Anchorman]

Oh no Gordon hasn't he's always had an issue with the EU and gay people as well. That's why he was leader pre the change on position.

=-
I knew Gordon yonks ago.He was National convenor - that's SNP speak for leader - long before Salmond, and when the 'Bannockburners' - the right wing of the party - were still quite a substantial voice.
Gordon is a very principled man - I don't a gree with a lot of his stance - and his somewhat conservative - with a small 'c' evangelical approach to certain issues.
However yesterday he confirmed that he will campaign for a YES in the next referendum - a sign that SNP, despite the many factions which make up the party, still shows a remarkable degree of unity.

[Nearly Sane]

=-
I knew Gordon yonks ago.He was National convenor - that's SNP speak for leader - long before Salmond, and when the 'Bannockburners' - the right wing of the party - were still quite a substantial voice.
Gordon is a very principled man - I don't a gree with a lot of his stance - and his somewhat conservative - with a small 'c' evangelical approach to certain issues.
However yesterday he confirmed that he will campaign for a YES in the next referendum - a sign that SNP, despite the many factions which make up the party, still shows a remarkable degree of unity.

Not surprisingly I agree with Gordon on almost nothing and calling the EU, the Fourth Reich as he did last night is problematic.

That said, the win in any Indyref2 will be only done the basis of non SNP supporters and there are numbers of voters who support independence who won't vote for this because they ate anti EU. Only the yesterday I talked to someone who voted No in Indyref1 because there was no commitment to get rid of the monarchy. There is an element of herding cats (and Jim Sillars) here.

[jakswan]

In terms of how it plays out at the ballot box currently, factually correct. In terms of actual differences, nothing that might not change. But in terms of marrying responsibility and power, certainly.

Rationality only plays when you decide what you want. The idea that any vote can be based on rationality alone is deeply irrational.

I referred to the political compass.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

So I thought the argument goes that Scotland wouldn't vote in a centre-right wing party yet has to endure centre-right wing policies. Perfectly fine argument I just don't think the Scots are politically different from rUK. In fact the SNP's tax policy is more right wing than both LibDems & Labour.

Accept its a valid argument that Scotland wants to take back control, where have I heard that before!

Assuming that Scotland voted for a socialist nirvana and raised taxes on the rich how long will it be before highly paid Scots flooded to rUK. Imagine all those heavily paid footballers leaving the mighty Celtic & Rangers, ohh wait they don't have highly paid footballers because Scottish football is shit.

[Nearly Sane]

I referred to the political compass.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

So I thought the argument goes that Scotland wouldn't vote in a centre-right wing party yet has to endure centre-right wing policies. Perfectly fine argument I just don't think the Scots are politically different from rUK. In fact the SNP's tax policy is more right wing than both LibDems & Labour.

Accept its a valid argument that Scotland wants to take back control, where have I heard that before!

Assuming that Scotland voted for a socialist nirvana and raised taxes on the rich how long will it be before highly paid Scots flooded to rUK. Imagine all those heavily paid footballers leaving the mighty Celtic & Rangers, ohh wait they don't have highly paid footballers because Scottish football is shit.

Woo it's like Vlad has returned with all his straw. Can I suggest you deal with what I actually say rather than make stuff up? For a start, I'm about to pay 150 quid a month more in different taxes than I would in England, now that position was voted against in England by Labour, would seem to tell me you are a tad confused?

As for the very strange football thing??! Not a clue what you were on about. 

[jakswan]

Woo it's like Vlad has returned with all his straw. Can I suggest you deal with what I actually say rather than make stuff up? For a start, I'm about to pay 150 quid a month more in different taxes than I would in England, now that position was voted against in England by Labour, would seem to tell me you are a tad confused?

As for the very strange football thing??! Not a clue what you were on about.

Insults and obfuscation nice, lets try to avoid that please.If I haven't articulated something well please just say so.

I started contributing to this discussion with what I think is one argument for independence. Now I could be wrong but AMs & Gonzos position seems to be, in part, to be that Scotland has a different political compass to rUK.

Get rid of the rhetoric it a perfectly valid position, is this yours?

I would argue that actually Scotland isn't that different, then anecdotally referencing one policy and you refuted it be referencing another.

I enter:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2015/mar/26/three-things-the-latest-british-social-attitudes-survey-tells-us-about-scotland

You will have to concede surely that Scotland will have to have either austerity or higher taxes come independence?

Other arguments I can think of, "take back control", Scottish nationalism, Scotland has a different culture to rUK are all valid I think, just attempting to explore them in order to better understand them.

I support Scottish independence, the SNP are divisive and they have played the divide and rule game well, they will be better held to account if you vote yes, and rUK will better for it.

As to if it will happen, I'm not so sure, despite Gonzo's claim that Scots don't care about money I rather suspect they do. Sturgeon has to go now, when the UK leaves the EU Scotland will be locked in to UK.

[Anchorman]

My arguments are partly economic - Scotland needs to be part of the single market, whilst not necessarily a full EU member - yet - the 'Norway approach'. But my argument goes deeper than that. Were the UK federal, that might solve most of the problem; but that's a non-starter despite SLAB's ideas. Yet as devolution gives Scotland control of legal, educational, social, cultural, and some albeit limited welfare policies, the divergance from Westminster will naturally increase over the years, as both parliaments pursue separate legislative agendas. As differences increase, the chance of acrimony - resentment - on both sides will grow. There have been minor niggles already with both the LAB/LIB and SNP administrations and Westminster. Are the next twenty, thirty or whatever years to be plagued with similar disputes regardless of which parties are in power? The fact is that with every legislation passed in one parliament rather than both, we drift further apart. It's a gradual divorce, and will lead to estrangement in the long run anyway.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jakswan,

That is a very good question, do we Scots have a different political compass?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/14/scottish-independence-referendum-snp-vote-brexit

The above is good article posted by Sane, and it might go some way to answer your question.

My political leanings haven’t changed, I’m still pro-independence. I still believe in the earnest arguments for a better future – but to give this another go, it needs to be different because I’m fresh out of positivity. This campaign can’t afford to run on big dreams – the context has changed. This vote is no longer about going it alone, but about hanging on to what the rest of the UK rejected. It’s not a hearts and minds job – facts and figures must peal loudly above the rhetoric.

Please note the part I have highlighted in bold, one example ( in my humble opinion ) is immigration, which played a very big part in Brexit, I honestly don't think the vast majority of Scots see immigration as a big issue, in fact I will go further and say that immigration is a non issue, the big issue is how the Tories have treated your ordinary British citizen ( whatever that is ) or rather the way the Tories ignored them in their push for austerity, for me that is where all this resentment springs from, immigration is not the issue, Tory failure is the issue.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Insults and obfuscation nice, lets try to avoid that please.If I haven't articulated something well please just say so.

You're right I was bring a grump, sorry. Will pick up rest of post when I have time.

[jeremyp]

As has been pointed out, although the EU is a vital issue, Rose, it isn't the main one. That Scotland faces at least a further decade of Tory rule

This is nonsense: most decisions that affect Scots are now taken in Holyrood.

[Anchorman]

This is nonsense: most decisions that affect Scots are now taken in Holyrood.

-
Wot;
Like Trident
PIP
Eu membership
Foriegn trade agreements
Whether to go to war
Elected/unelected head of state....etc, etc...etc?

[jeremyp]

Which means that joining the EU doesn't necessitate joining the Euro, not that I'm opposed to that. It's all in the post you replied to.

This is not correct. One of the entry criteria for the EU is that your country commits to joining the Euro. There are, admittedly, no time scales attached but I think eyebrows would be raised if you didn't make some effort to fulfilling the Euro criteria.

Sweden joined the EU before the Euro was a thing. I wouldn't be surprised if they have an opt out deal like the UK.

[jeremyp]

So now you understand us Brexiteers.  We voted UKIP and got Brussels election after election. Ruled by those we didn't want!

There are more UKIP MEPs that MPs. How ironic.

[Nearly Sane]

This is not correct. One of the entry criteria for the EU is that your country commits to joining the Euro. There are, admittedly, no time scales attached but I think eyebrows would be raised if you didn't make some effort to fulfilling the Euro criteria.

Sweden joined the EU before the Euro was a thing. I wouldn't be surprised if they have an opt out deal like the UK.

No, they don't. They just maintain they do unilaterally

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro

[jeremyp]

-
Wot;
Like Trident
PIP
Eu membership
Foriegn trade agreements
Whether to go to war
Elected/unelected head of state....etc, etc...etc?

You have listed six things. Of those, Scots had exactly the same say as everybody else on the EU membership. You have the same say on foreign trade agreements, whether to go to war and who is the head of state that I have, which is to say we both have no input at all.

Almost all the decisions that really affect you e.g. healthcare, education, infrastructure are made in Scotland.