2nd Indy Referendum?

[Rhiannon]

It's interesting how little room for manouver Cameron had.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38402140

[jakswan]

The Tories need not have agreed a referendum in the first place: and they did for party reasons, and they did so without seemingly examining what a Leave result implied. That some wanted a Remain outcome doesn't excuse them having the referendum in the first place.

The Labour and Libdems also agreed to a referendum for their own reasons. If you can't consider a referendum without knowing what the result implies then I think the SNP will currently fall foul of that rule.

No idea - the details have yet to be agreed.

You seemed to have evaded, you know want the Tories to back down on Brexit. If Scotland votes Yes but the unionist parties carry a majority in Holyrood will you be happy that they say it was advisory. 

In 2014 it wasn't known if there would even be a EU referendum since, iirc, it was a consequence of the result of the 2015 GE. In 2014 the pressing EU issue was 'leave the UK and you leave the EU'.Had the 2015 GE produced another Tory/Lib Dem coalition I doubt the EU referendum would have occurred.

So you didn't know the implications in 2014 of voting yes or no, according to you then you should have opposed the vote.
 

In terms of Brexit the EU one, and should Scotland become independent then both would be subject to negotiation.

Hang on if access to a single market is a concern then the biggest one for Scotland is the rUK market, why do want to leave it?

Again, subject to negotiation.

So you are withdrawing that then?

The decision on variable rates and sources of taxation is part of the political governance process and involves an assessment of the balance between revenue requirements and preparedness to pay and what expenditure will be allowed, refused or constrained - these details in respect of an independent Scotland are no more clear now than are the details of the intended negotiations surrounding Brexit.

The government has a rolling plan for how much it is going to spend, what its deficit is. You can find out what the deficit for Scotland would be, so your planning to vote Yes and 'hope' that you will be able to raise taxes, based on a 'sound case' but when asked to provide the case come up with nothing.

In both cases flesh on bones is needed: Brexit first.

So agree with May 'not now', obs when she says 'not now' she means lets not set a date now.

[Nearly Sane]

It's interesting how little room for manouver Cameron had.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38402140

I think we generally overestimate the room for manoeuvre that politicians have. And even how much of what happens is a confluence of circumstances. Bercow's decision could not have been planned for.


I think the same happened to the SNP to an extent in that they had to put something in the manifesto given the huge increase in membership following on first Indyref, and then the vote on Brexit meant they had to make houses about what happened next. Hence the first statements were about looking to work in a possible deal thast would look like a good compromise, such as the highly unlikely Scotland somehow remaining in Europe with UK out, or some form of deal on the single market. And similarly May was in a position where that wouldn't play well with her Brediteers so the conflict is in a sense inevitable.

I think that both are playing to different audiences so both will be relatively pleased where they are after what has happened this week. That said I think that Nicola has a slight advantage in that she can afford to piss off the rest of the UK in a way that is counter productive for May in pissing off voters in Scotland.

[Gordon]

The Labour and Libdems also agreed to a referendum for their own reasons. If you can't consider a referendum without knowing what the result implies then I think the SNP will currently fall foul of that rule.

Nope - as far as I can see the SNP intend to present their 'changing the status quo case' prior to indyref2: iirc correctly there was no case presented prior to the EU referendum result if it was Leave (changing the status quo).

You seemed to have evaded, you know want the Tories to back down on Brexit. If Scotland votes Yes but the unionist parties carry a majority in Holyrood will you be happy that they say it was advisory.

The unionist parties don't have a majority in Holyrood, as will become apparent this week, and I think the outcome of indyref2 should be mandatory. 

So you didn't know the implications in 2014 of voting yes or no, according to you then you should have opposed the vote.

The SNP presented their case for exiting the UK before the 2014 vote, the non-status quo outcome, whereas for the EU referendum it seems nobody envisioned the result they got!
 

Hang on if access to a single market is a concern then the biggest one for Scotland is the rUK market, why do want to leave it?

Because as things stand, given the implosion of Labour, the option of a UK under a long-term Tory majority is unacceptable given the different voting patterns here in Scotland.

So you are withdrawing that then?

Nope - I want Scotland to leave the UK.

The government has a rolling plan for how much it is going to spend, what its deficit is. You can find out what the deficit for Scotland would be, so your planning to vote Yes and 'hope' that you will be able to raise taxes, based on a 'sound case' but when asked to provide the case come up with nothing.

I'm not a politician or an economist, and the detailed circumstances of an independent Scotland will require these skills and I do think that it isn't unreasonable to conclude an independent Scotland would sort out its budgetary plans in much the same way that the UK does currently (even though we've just seen the nonsense of a Tory chancellor having to back-track his Budget within a couple of days of announcing it).

So agree with May 'not now', obs when she says 'not now' she means lets not set a date now.

Nobody has suggested now anyway, but 2018/19 - I'd have thought this was sensible since more will be known about Brexit by then (hopefully) and presumably if it is known whether or not Scotland will be leaving the UK at the point the UK formally leaves the EU this would be important in terms of planning. For example - if Scotland leaves the UK then fisheries policy agreed in any Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU would be superseded at the point Scotland left the UK for those waters that would no longer be under UK control.

[jakswan]

Nope - as far as I can see the SNP intend to present their 'changing the status quo case' prior to indyref2: iirc correctly there was no case presented prior to the EU referendum result if it was Leave (changing the status quo).

So vote leave should have got the crystal balls out and known how the negotiations would pan out?  In 2014 the SNP couldn't tell what your currency would be and what control they would have over it. Sorry Gordon this is double standards.

The unionist parties don't have a majority in Holyrood, as will become apparent this week, and I think the outcome of indyref2 should be mandatory. 

If the unionist parties had a majority, a vote could take place after 2020. I think indyref2 will be advisory, could be wrong.

The SNP presented their case for exiting the UK before the 2014 vote, the non-status quo outcome, whereas for the EU referendum it seems nobody envisioned the result they got!

Vote leave had a case, vote remain had a case. They can't tell you everything that will happen because there are known unknowns.
 

Because as things stand, given the implosion of Labour, the option of a UK under a long-term Tory majority is unacceptable given the different voting patterns here in Scotland.

So you want remain in the EU market but leave the UK market because you don't like the government. You like the French / German ones then?

Nope - I want Scotland to leave the UK.

And end freedom of movement between rUK and Scotland?

I'm not a politician or an economist, and the detailed circumstances of an independent Scotland will require these skills and I do think that it isn't unreasonable to conclude an independent Scotland would sort out its budgetary plans in much the same way that the UK does currently (even though we've just seen the nonsense of a Tory chancellor having to back-track his Budget within a couple of days of announcing it).

So you will want to raise taxes presenting a good case for doing so, but will leave that to someone else.

How do you know the Scottish people won't vote in a centre-right austerity party, like the SNP?

Nobody has suggested now anyway, but 2018/19 - I'd have thought this was sensible since more will be known about Brexit by then (hopefully) and presumably if it is known whether or not Scotland will be leaving the UK at the point the UK formally leaves the EU this would be important in terms of planning. For example - if Scotland leaves the UK then fisheries policy agreed in any Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU would be superseded at the point Scotland left the UK for those waters that would no longer be under UK control.

The 'now' refers to setting a date now.

[Gordon]

So vote leave should have got the crystal balls out and known how the negotiations would pan out?  In 2014 the SNP couldn't tell what your currency would be and what control they would have over it. Sorry Gordon this is double standards.

To a degree I'll concede that, but I'd mention the Brexit nonsense: the trumpeted £350,000,000 a week for the NHS (not sure if this includes here since the NHS here is separate from that in E&W), the xenophobia surrounding immigration that didn't play out here in Scotland and, of course, that UKIP aren't an issue here either.

If the unionist parties had a majority, a vote could take place after 2020. I think indyref2 will be advisory, could be wrong.

In Holyrood? Seems unlikely as things stand.

Vote leave had a case, vote remain had a case. They can't tell you everything that will happen because there are known unknowns.

I don't recall a Leave case that didn't involve lies or unappealing politicians talking about issues that were germane to Scotland.
 

So you want remain in the EU market but leave the UK market because you don't like the government. You like the French / German ones then?

Why would we need to leave any markets if staying involved in them would be mutually beneficial.

And end freedom of movement between rUK and Scotland?

Why would that be a result beyond the same basic checks that apply when going to France? Presumably this would be part of any agreement between Scotland and the UK, and no doubt the forthcoming arrangement in Ireland will give clues.

So you will want to raise taxes presenting a good case for doing so, but will leave that to someone else.

As is the case now in the UK: we elect politicians to do this stuff and if we don't like what they do we can vote to remove them.

How do you know the Scottish people won't vote in a centre-right austerity party, like the SNP?

I don't, but then I suspect internal Scottish politics would shift post-independence, especially for the SNP - but that would be an internal choice for the people of Scotland whereas the shift away from the traditional unionist parties here means we have a Westminster government UK government that doesn't reflect the political climate here in Scotland.

The 'now' refers to setting a date now.

Nicola Sturgeon has already suggested a window for this.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note that any referendum is likely to be advisory. Also Nicola's original speech flagged tgat any date set was flexible dependent on events and ongoing discussions. So May is getting that wrong and so by following on from that is jakswan

[Quizzimodo]

Just to note that any referendum is likely to be advisory. Also Nicola's original speech flagged tgat any date set was flexible dependent on events and ongoing discussions. So May is getting that wrong and so by following on from that is jakswan

The problem with that is that legally the Brexit referendum was advisory but is being treated as legally binding.

Can you really see anyone getting away with trying to use that for Indyref2 if the vote is to leave the UK?

[Nearly Sane]

The problem with that is that legally the Brexit referendum was advisory but is being treated as legally binding.

Can you really see anyone getting away with trying to use that for Indyref2 if the vote is to leave the UK?

Not really especially if the UK govt is still filled with the will of the people guys. However, that doesn't stop the likelihood that it will be advisory.

[jakswan]

To a degree I'll concede that, but I'd mention the Brexit nonsense: the trumpeted £350,000,000 a week for the NHS (not sure if this includes here since the NHS here is separate from that in E&W), the xenophobia surrounding immigration that didn't play out here in Scotland and, of course, that UKIP aren't an issue here either.

So you will concede double standards, wow. The Brexit "nonsense" is irrelevant its your spin on vote leave.

In Holyrood? Seems unlikely as things stand.

You can't see either Labour\LibDems\Tories picking up 3 seats in the next Holyrood elections, wow again!

I don't recall a Leave case that didn't involve lies or unappealing politicians talking about issues that were germane to Scotland.

So Jim Sillars is a liar or unappealing, good to know the SNP are not perfect. 
 

Why would we need to leave any markets if staying involved in them would be mutually beneficial.

The Uk is leaving the EU single market, so there will be a UK single market and EU single market. You won't be able to be in both.

Why would that be a result beyond the same basic checks that apply when going to France? Presumably this would be part of any agreement between Scotland and the UK, and no doubt the forthcoming arrangement in Ireland will give clues.

So if the UK does a deal on freedom of movement of labour with EU then it won't be an issue for you, good, glad we cleared that up.

As is the case now in the UK: we elect politicians to do this stuff and if we don't like what they do we can vote to remove them.

Yes and Tories won.

I don't, but then I suspect internal Scottish politics would shift post-independence, especially for the SNP - but that would be an internal choice for the people of Scotland whereas the shift away from the traditional unionist parties here means we have a Westminster government UK government that doesn't reflect the political climate here in Scotland.

So you want independence because you know the political ethos is different in Scotland but don't know it is? I'm confused.

Nicola Sturgeon has already suggested a window for this.

When is she talking about the window..... now.... now is not the time.

[Sriram]

On a second independence referendum...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/13/news/economy/scotland-independence-brexit/index.html

*************

Here's another thing for investors to worry about: The very real chance of a new independence referendum in Scotland.

1. Currency question: An independent Scotland would have to decide which currency to use. Those campaigning for independence in 2014 suggested it should continue to use the pound in a currency union with England. But U.K. lawmakers said they were not ready to share.

2. Finance: It's unclear what would happen to Scotland's finance industry if it decided to fly solo.
Edinburgh is the U.K.'s second largest financial center after London and home to a cluster of asset management companies. The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is headquartered there.

Many of the biggest banks threatened to leave the country if Scotland voted for independence back in 2014, but the tide has shifted since then.

3. Oil: The U.K. is the largest oil producer in the EU, and about 90% comes from areas that are likely to be claimed by an independent Scotland.

4. Debt: Scotland runs a major budget deficit at almost 10% of GDP, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Facing low oil prices and without the support of the rest of the U.K., an independent Scotland would have to look for revenues elsewhere or cut back on spending.
The question of how to manage Scotland's share of U.K. debt would also need to be addressed. If there was a split, an independent Scotland could owe Britain as much as £150 billion -- its share of the debt based on population.

**************

[Gordon]

So you will concede double standards, wow. The Brexit "nonsense" is irrelevant its your spin on vote leave.

Nope - I'm conceding that the cases being made by political agencies (inc. the SNP) may be incomplete or inaccurate in some ways: in other words I don't regard the SNP as being incapable of error, but what is the case is that the Tories initiated Brexit without assessing the risks or having a plan for a Leave outcome.

You can't see either Labour\LibDems\Tories picking up 3 seats in the next Holyrood elections, wow again!

Which are in 2021, and I don't have a crystal ball: hence my point there will be no change in the near future.

So Jim Sillars is a liar or unappealing, good to know the SNP are not perfect.

Never said they were, hence the first point in this reply. 
 

The Uk is leaving the EU single market, so there will be a UK single market and EU single market. You won't be able to be in both.

Possibly, but not certainly, but subject to negotiations.

So if the UK does a deal on freedom of movement of labour with EU then it won't be an issue for you, good, glad we cleared that up.

You means like now: that it may change is part of the problem with Brexit.

Yes and Tories won.

Unfortunately, but then you guys voted for them in enough numbers - we didn't.

So you want independence because you know the political ethos is different in Scotland but don't know it is? I'm confused.

You misunderstand - my point is that post-independence the internal politics of Scotland may change. Whether the SNP remain dominant is an unknown, as is what the voting system would be (Holyrood currently involves a mix of FPP and 'list').

When is she talking about the window..... now.... now is not the time.

So it seems 'now' extends to 2019?

[jakswan]

Nope - I'm conceding that the cases being made by political agencies (inc. the SNP) may be incomplete or inaccurate in some ways: in other words I don't regard the SNP as being incapable of error, but what is the case is that the Tories initiated Brexit without assessing the risks or having a plan for a Leave outcome.

They initiated a vote on Brexit, the electorate voted for it. I think the Government made the case for remain since that was their position, will the SNP be making a case for remain UK, no they will be making a case leave (remain / leave relative to Scexit).

Which are in 2021, and I don't have a crystal ball: hence my point there will be no change in the near future.

To recap you seemed to be advocating that the UK government should not proceed with Brexit since it will be damaging and it was advisory. You have to be consistent; so if indyref2 gets voted for comes before Holyrood in 2021 for approval if there is a unionist majority at that time you will be comfortable with them voting it down.

Never said they were, hence the first point in this reply. 

You said "don't recall a Leave case that didn't involve lies or unappealing politicians" so is Jim Sillars a liar or unappealing?
 

Possibly, but not certainly, but subject to negotiations.

Almost certainly, so to recap you do not want to leave the EU single market because that will be economically damaging but to do so prepared to risk leaving a more important single market that will be more damaging.

Whilst I want Scotland to leave I don't think the economic case is a good one unless you go down the Irish route of cutting taxes to big business.

Unfortunately, but then you guys voted for them in enough numbers - we didn't.

I didn't vote Tory and I'm Welsh, we are all British and Scotland voted to remain to remain British.

You misunderstand - my point is that post-independence the internal politics of Scotland may change. Whether the SNP remain dominant is an unknown, as is what the voting system would be (Holyrood currently involves a mix of FPP and 'list').

No I do understand and its your best argument which I support but it has to be coherent. If want to leave because you do not like being governed by a centre-right party then you have to prove a case that Scotland will never elect a centre-right party.

So it seems 'now' extends to 2019?

No setting the date now extends to now. You set a date for 2019 NOW but in 2018/9 the EU could say 'this is a minefield lets have a 10 year transitional arrangement' so you have set a date NOW but along the road find that 2019 is not the right time. So NOW is not the time to set a date.

[Gordon]

To recap you seemed to be advocating that the UK government should not proceed with Brexit since it will be damaging and it was advisory. You have to be consistent; so if indyref2 gets voted for comes before Holyrood in 2021 for approval if there is a unionist majority at that time you will be comfortable with them voting it down.

I'd have thought indyref2 should occur within the lifetime of the current Scottish Parliament - that we voted for.
 

Almost certainly, so to recap you do not want to leave the EU single market because that will be economically damaging but to do so prepared to risk leaving a more important single market that will be more damaging.

Staying in the UK implies that the politics of rUK prevail. In times gone by it was the case that Scottish politics, in terms of elections, returned unionist parties - that has changed.

No I do understand and its your best argument which I support but it has to be coherent. If want to leave because you do not like being governed by a centre-right party then you have to prove a case that Scotland will never elect a centre-right party.

You're not getting it: currently one option for Scottish centre-right voters would be the Tories, but they are a UK unionist party and have just one Westminster seat. In an independent Scotland there might be alternatives to the Tories.   

No setting the date now extends to now. You set a date for 2019 NOW but in 2018/9 the EU could say 'this is a minefield lets have a 10 year transitional arrangement' so you have set a date NOW but along the road find that 2019 is not the right time. So NOW is not the time to set a date.

Now would be time to agree the Scottish Government should arrange the details of indyref2, since the Scottish Parliament require this.

[JP]

If, in indyref2, there are regions that vote quite heavily to remain in the UK, do you think there should be special arrangements for these regions following Scotland becoming independent?

[JP]

I expect some of you may have seen this.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/180642

[Gordon]

If, in indyref2, there are regions that vote quite heavily to remain in the UK, do you think there should be special arrangements for these regions following Scotland becoming independent?

No - Scotland, just like the current UK, has defined boundaries: the scope of the Scottish Parliament being the obvious one for indyref2. If 'we' are all currently UK citizens, and this is sufficient to make Brexit applicable in areas that rejected it in the referendum, then the same principle would apply to indyref2.

[JP]

No - Scotland, just like the current UK, has defined boundaries: the scope of the Scottish Parliament being the obvious one for indyref2. If 'we' are all currently UK citizens, and this is sufficient to make Brexit applicable in areas that rejected it in the referendum, then the same principle would apply to indyref2.

Thought not.

[Gordon]

Thought not.

So, are you planning to allow Scotland (or London) to opt-out of Brexit?

Thought not.

[jakswan]

I'd have thought indyref2 should occur within the lifetime of the current Scottish Parliament - that we voted for.

It was hypothetical are you evading... again

If indyref2 gets voted for and it comes before Holyrood in 2021 for approval, if there is a unionist majority at that time you will be comfortable with them voting it down?
 

Staying in the UK implies that the politics of rUK prevail. In times gone by it was the case that Scottish politics, in terms of elections, returned unionist parties - that has changed.

This with regard to the UK single market, don't see how it is relevant.

You're not getting it: currently one option for Scottish centre-right voters would be the Tories, but they are a UK unionist party and have just one Westminster seat. In an independent Scotland there might be alternatives to the Tories.   

I'm getting it but I don't think the penny dropped with you quite yet. You want to leave UK because you don't want a government which has centre-right policies but actually you seem willing to concede that Scotland could actually elect a centre-right government. That completely undermines your position.

Now would be time to agree the Scottish Government should arrange the details of indyref2, since the Scottish Parliament require this.

Good glad to see you understand the context of now, I agree now is the time, in fact its last chance.

[jakswan]

No - Scotland, just like the current UK, has defined boundaries: the scope of the Scottish Parliament being the obvious one for indyref2. If 'we' are all currently UK citizens, and this is sufficient to make Brexit applicable in areas that rejected it in the referendum, then the same principle would apply to indyref2.

The Shetlands if it rejects indyref2 has the right to self-determination though yeah?

[Nearly Sane]

The Shetlands if it rejects indyref2 has the right to self-determination though yeah?

Yes. I am friends with someone campaigning for Orcadian statehood, and there is nothing in principle against it. Svotland just has ceraun advantages in being recognised in many ways as a nation and in having has separate legal, educational and clerical structures some of the accoutrements of states.

Obviously there are some practical restrictions to statehood, e.g.  I can't just declare my house NearlySaneLand but other than those the principle applies.

[Gordon]

I'm getting it but I don't think the penny dropped with you quite yet. You want to leave UK because you don't want a government which has centre-right policies but actually you seem willing to concede that Scotland could actually elect a centre-right government. That completely undermines your position.

No - the issue for my perspective isn't with centre-right politics per se but specifically with the Tory party: I can't see how the Tory party will ever represent Scotland by us voting for them is at least reasonable numbers (sufficient, say. for them to have more than one Westminster seat) and since it seems Labour have imploded then the prospect of a perpetual Tory dominated Westminster isn't appealing.

We'll see which way the wind is blowing soon enough - when, during Brexit, EU powers are repatriated then we'll see just how committed the Tories are to Scotland.

[Gordon]

The Shetlands if it rejects indyref2 has the right to self-determination though yeah?

In principle, yes: then it becomes a matter of amending current state boundaries and making workable arrangements.

However, you could end up with a reductio here - do we envisage the independent republic of Yorkshire, or London or Cornwall?

[Nearly Sane]

In principle, yes: then it becomes a matter of amending current state boundaries and making workable arrangements.

However, you could end up with a reductio here - do we envisage the independent republic of Yorkshire, or London or Cornwall?

There is a Cornish independence movement. And the idea of London as a city state has been floated hypothetically by i think all of its last three mayors to different degrees.