2nd Indy Referendum?

[Anchorman]

Does that mean that Westminster will happilly withdraw weapons of mass destruction from Scotland? After all, Scotland's parliament has three times voted to remove them....firstly in 2004, then 2010, and finally 2016. Waiting.......

[jeremyp]

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

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

So they are using a loophole to stay out. Do you think Scotland will be afforded the same? And what currency will they use if they don't use the Euro?

[jeremyp]

Does that mean that Westminster will happilly withdraw weapons of mass destruction from Scotland? After all, Scotland's parliament has three times voted to remove them....firstly in 2004, then 2010, and finally 2016. Waiting.......

That's a non sequitur. Nobody denies that Scotland doesn't control everything. However, the only way in which Trident affects Scots on a day to day basis is in providing jobs for a lot of them. Frankly, I think the people of Plymouth or Portsmouth would be delighted with the extra work that would probably come their way.

Also, let's not pretend that Scotland would have any kind of shipbuilding industry without the Royal Navy.

[Nearly Sane]

So they are using a loophole to stay out. Do you think Scotland will be afforded the same? And what currency will they use if they don't use the Euro?

Not sure how they can be forced given the loophole but as i have said I'm not opposed to the Euro.

[Nearly Sane]

That's a non sequitur. Nobody denies that Scotland doesn't control everything. However, the only way in which Trident affects Scots on a day to day basis is in providing jobs for a lot of them. Frankly, I think the people of Plymouth or Portsmouth would be delighted with the extra work that would probably come their way.

Also, let's not pretend that Scotland would have any kind of shipbuilding industry without the Royal Navy.

Mmmm
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13078740.Labour_and_Tories_under_fire_for_inflating_Trident_job_losses/

[wigginhall]

Some strange reporting going on, with stories that May has blocked Indyref2, but in fact, she said that she didn't want it now.  To which SNP has replied that they never suggested having it now.   I'm just confused now.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/how-soon-isnt-now/

[Gordon]

Her interview is a hoot: she says we can't have indyref2 until after Brexit so we know what we're voting for - the irony of this is just wonderful!

Still - it will reinforce resentment of the Tories here (including our hopeless home-grown ones), which is no bad thing.

[wigginhall]

It's possible that it's guaranteed Yes2. 

[Nearly Sane]

And given the timescales outlined by Nicola, it seems to imply we won't know what the Brexit deal is by spring 2019!!!!

[wigginhall]

I think what was confusing me, is that Sturgeon did not suggest Indyref2 now, but after Brexit.   So why is May saying 'not now', since nobody is suggesting that?   

Yes, 'after Brexit' recedes into the future.   Ten years?

[jakswan]

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'.

Scotland needs to be part of the EU single market and out of the UK single market. Have to walk me through that one.

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.

Not sure that follows... the EU countries followed different legislative agendas for centuries but are predicted to grow closer. Maybe it will go the other way the SNP harping on about "Tory austerity" but their failure to increase taxes make it "SNP austerity".

Anyway why are saying things like "over the years" you can win in 2018!

[Anchorman]

Her interview is a hoot: she says we can't have indyref2 until after Brexit so we know what we're voting for - the irony of this is just wonderful!

Still - it will reinforce resentment of the Tories here (including our hopeless home-grown ones), which is no bad thing.

-
Yep. You can guarantee that we will treat the words of a woman we did not vote for, leade of a party we couldn't care less about, with the contempt and disdain they deserve!

[Bubbles]

I think what was confusing me, is that Sturgeon did not suggest Indyref2 now, but after Brexit.   So why is May saying 'not now', since nobody is suggesting that?   

Yes, 'after Brexit' recedes into the future.   Ten years?

It will take two years to complete Brexit, Nicola Sturgeon wanted a referendum in 2018.

By not now, I presume she means not in 2018 but once the two years is up and the dust starts settling, perhaps they will consider.

Obviously they are looking for a positive outcome to Brexit, which may influence the Scots. 💐🍹🙂

[Nearly Sane]

It will take two years to complete Brexit, Nicola Sturgeon wanted a referendum in 2018.

By not now, I presume she means not in 2018 but once the two years is up and the dust starts settling, perhaps they will consider.

Obviously they are looking for a positive outcome to Brexit, which may influence the Scots. 💐🍹🙂

What Nicola said was when details of Brexit became clear either late 2018 or early 2019. If details aren't clear in two years from now, this whole negotiation is a nonsense but then that was obvious from David Davis' performance

[Bubbles]

What Nicola said was when details of Brexit became clear either late 2018 or early 2019. If details aren't clear in two years from now, this whole negotiation is a nonsense but then that was obvious from David Davis' performance

I think Theresa May is saying no, give it a chance to work first, not just when plans are revealed.

[Gordon]

I think Theresa May is saying no, give it a chance to work first, not just when plans are revealed.

Give what a chance to work?

If you mean Brexit then a) Scotland rejected 'it' by a substantial margin - so remember we don't want Brexit, and b) nobody yet knows what Brexit entails, including the party that were stupid enough to let it happen without the electorate or the politicians having any discernible knowledge of what was involved.

The sight of this hopeless and unappealing PM saying she wants us Scots to make an informed choice regarding independence while she's proceeding with an uninformed Brexit decision would be funny if it weren't so ironically pathetic.

We, and Northern Ireland, have been shafted by the voters of England and Wales so, as you can imagine, some of us have no time for a Tory party that does this - btw you guys in England and Wales are being shafted too but you just don't know it yet, but I suppose at least you did vote these Tory clowns in: so thanks for that!

     

[Anchorman]

Cannae argue wi the Dug here! https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/getting-the-last-word/

[Aruntraveller]

It will take two years to complete Brexit,

Oh Rose - it won't - we might have 'left' the EU but Brexit will not be complete. The reverberations will rattle on down the years and the negotiations with all and sundry will drag on till you and I are just memories to those that once loved us. That's how long it will take.

[Nearly Sane]

I think Theresa May is saying no, give it a chance to work first, not just when plans are revealed.

Except she precisely didn't say that, and if you think something's ngnis the wrong idea, why allow it to happen? And 'now' means none of that? Are we supposed to cast runes to find out that 'now' means in six years times?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh Rose - it won't - we might have 'left' the EU but Brexit will not be complete. The reverberations will rattle on down the years and the negotiations with all and sundry will drag on till you and I are just memories to those that once loved us. That's how long it will take.

Which apparently is 'now'

[jakswan]

Give what a chance to work?

If you mean Brexit then a) Scotland rejected 'it' by a substantial margin - so remember we don't want Brexit,

Actually a majority of Scots voted no or abstained.

b) nobody yet knows what Brexit entails, including the party that were stupid enough to let it happen without the electorate or the politicians having any discernible knowledge of what was involved.

a) it means leaving the EU and b) most political parties voted for the vote.

We, and Northern Ireland, have been shafted by the voters of England and Wales so, as you can imagine, some of us have no time for a Tory party that does this - btw you guys in England and Wales are being shafted too but you just don't know it yet, but I suppose at least you did vote these Tory clowns in: so thanks for that!

Ahh rhetoric, good init.

     
[/quote]

[Nearly Sane]

Actually a majority of Scots voted no or abstained.

a) it means leaving the EU and b) most political parties voted for the vote.

Ahh rhetoric, good init.

   

So on the first point that means Brexit is wrong for the same reason?

[Gordon]

Actually a majority of Scots voted no or abstained.

a) it means leaving the EU and b) most political parties voted for the vote.

Ahh rhetoric, good init.

   

If we are to include those who didn't vote as being equivalent to voting against Brexit there goes the argument that Brexit is the much vaunted 'will of the British people'.

[jakswan]

So on the first point that means Brexit is wrong for the same reason?

No it means that 'Scotland rejected 'it' by a substantial margin' isn't technically correct.

[jakswan]

If we are to include those who didn't vote as being equivalent to voting against Brexit there goes the argument that Brexit is the much vaunted 'will of the British people'.

Yes I guess it does, be sure to remind those that make that argument.

If you are to win the next vote petty point scoring, the vilification of the Tory party and a focus on the process isn't going to work. You need a calm coherent argument with a clear plan for the future.