2nd Indy Referendum?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

But the whole notion of a second referendum is an approach to take steps in one part of the UK to remove itself from UK-wide applied brexit by leaving the UK. That being the case then by exactly the same argument parts of Scotland (e.g. Shetland, Dumfries & Galloway) should equally be allowed to remove themselves from Scotland-wide independence through democratic means that allows them to remain in the UK.

And by the way both Shetland and Dumfries & Galloway have defined boundaries too - indeed in the case of Shetland rather for overtly defined by geography than for Scotland, where the boundary with England is arbitrary and has shifted over the years.

[jakswan]

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.

Wow so how is centre-right different if its from..... oh wait I see its because they are English. Oh dear, thought that might be it, I often thought that Westminster\Tories are SNP code words for English.

By the way who is the opposition in Holyrood, clue: it ain't labour.

[Sriram]

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

Thought not.

But JP has a point. If Scots insist that Scotland overwhelmingly voted against Brexit...and because of that they should now have the option to  move out of the UK, then those areas in Scotland that vote overwhelmingly to stay with UK should also have the option to do so.    Yes..indeed!   

There must be some psychological explanation for the way people are behaving.  Maybe it is some 'break away from family syndrome' or something like that...which is making people so insecure they are unable to take the breakaway from the EU. Some people in the US are also behaving similarly after the reverse in globalization.

[wigginhall]

The question of a centre-right government, or  a government one does't like, goes to the heart of statehood, doesn't it?  I mean that those seeking self-determination must be prepared to accept unpleasant governments.   In the early history of Irish independence,  there was much conflict over the Free State, rejected by some Republicans.  But you could say that Ireland became a stable state, when left-wing Republicans accepted a Fine Gael government, which descended from the pro-Treaty forces at the time of the Free State.

Thus an independent Scotland might see right-wing governments.

[jakswan]

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?

Coolio, it was on the cards in 2014.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-9217514.html

[Gordon]

Wow so how is centre-right different if its from..... oh wait I see its because they are English. Oh dear, thought that might be it, I often thought that Westminster\Tories are SNP code words for English.

Nope -I don't have a problem with England: did part of my schooling there.

By the way who is the opposition in Holyrood, clue: it ain't labour.

True - but Labour are a shambles here too, so the Tories here have picked up Holyrood support from ex-Labour voters who can no longer support Labour but don't support independence.

[Nearly Sane]

Coolio, it was on the cards in 2014.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-9217514.html

As already covered I am friends with one of the organisers of this, and i know even they would say it wasn't and isn't 'on the cards' .


I'm not really sure of the significance of this though, or the posts from Prof D and JP on this. Unless you are against the principle of self determination, the only possible use would be if someone said  no to one of these suggestions, in which case so what it woukd be a use of the tu quoque fallacy. Worse unless you think i can set up NearlySaneLand in my house it's not even worth that.

[wigginhall]

As already covered I am friends with one of the organisers of this, and i know even they would say it wasn't and isn't 'on the cards' .


I'm not really sure of the significance of this though, or the posts from Prof D and JP on this. Unless you are against the principle of self determination, the only possible use would be if someone said  no to one of these suggestions, in which case so what it woukd be a use of the tu quoque fallacy. Worse unless you think i can set up NearlySaneLand in my house it's not even worth that.

I thought that it's an attempt at a reductio.   "This is how ridiculous self-determination is, that London could arguably be independent.  Or Barnsley.   Therefore national self-determination is also ridiculous."   Sorry Ireland.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought that it's an attempt at a reductio.   "This is how ridiculous self-determination is, that London could arguably be independent.  Or Barnsley.   Therefore national self-determination is also ridiculous."   Sorry Ireland.

As an argument that would be absurd!

[wigginhall]

But JP has a point. If Scots insist that Scotland overwhelmingly voted against Brexit...and because of that they should now have the option to  move out of the UK, then those areas in Scotland that vote overwhelmingly to stay with UK should also have the option to do so.    Yes..indeed!   

There must be some psychological explanation for the way people are behaving.  Maybe it is some 'break away from family syndrome' or something like that...which is making people so insecure they are unable to take the breakaway from the EU. Some people in the US are also behaving similarly after the reverse in globalization.

I'm not sure about 'psychological explanation', but I thought that national self-determination has been a driving force in political life for a long time.   Many countries became independent of Westminster in the past, e.g. Ireland, and it is still going on in Europe today, e.g. Slovakia.   I suppose some people might argue that Scotland is not a nation, or that the UK is not imperial, or some such thing.   But if it is a union, don't the parties to a union have the right to separate?   Rather similar to a Brexit argument.

[Nearly Sane]

Just leave this here for the 'too small' argument.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39325206

[JP]

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

Thought not.

I am not planning anything. If people do not wish to accept the result of a national referendum or election that is their choice. What I find most amusing is the self centred hypocrisy that usually accompanies it.

[jakswan]

I'm not really sure of the significance of this though,

Just thought it was interesting.

[Nearly Sane]

Just thought it was interesting.

OK, I await JP and Prof D (coming soon to a screen near you, the Indy stoppers extraordinaire!) clarifying any significance.

[jakswan]

Nope -I don't have a problem with England: did part of my schooling there.

True - but Labour are a shambles here too, so the Tories here have picked up Holyrood support from ex-Labour voters who can no longer support Labour but don't support independence.

I'm baffled, you want Scotland to leave because you don't like a party, not the ethos of the party but the personalities or policies, not sure which.

I'm not sure that is coherent, to say the political compass is different in Scotland compared to UK is coherent, to be fair to Sturgeon that is one of her arguments. Although she likes to spin things to be tory e.g. "tory hard brexit", "tory austerity", somewhat odd as she was against raising taxes so is actually for austerity.

Another of hers is the single market which I don't understand since you can't be in two single markets can you?

[wigginhall]

OK, I await JP and Prof D (coming soon to a screen near you, the Indy stoppers extraordinaire!) clarifying any significance.

I meant in a previous post, that comparing national self-determination with territorial self-determination is plausible, but has been seen negatively by many states, as destructive of their physical integrity.   It does happen, as with N. Ireland and Crimea, but historically seems to give rise to further conflict, particularly if one territory is absorbed into another, e.g. Calais.

In fact, territorial integrity used to be part of international law, but I don't know the current standing. 

[ProfessorDavey]

OK, I await JP and Prof D (coming soon to a screen near you, the Indy stoppers extraordinaire!) clarifying any significance.

I think you need to consider self determination not just in terms of breaking away from someone (e.g. independence) but chosing to remain part of something.

And both elements are relevant to the discussion. The current trigger for a 2nd indy referendum is to allow Scotland not just to be independent (breaking away) but to remain part of the EU (the remaining part).

So in the context of Shetland and Dumfries/Galloway I don't think we'd necessarily see them wanting (via self determination) to become independent, rather that, under the concept of self determination, that they should be allowed to remain part of the UK, rather than be required to follow the overall Scottish vote, were that to be for independence. The argument is pretty well entirely analogous to that of Scotland wanting a route to exercise its self determination when it voted counter to the UK-wide result on brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you need to consider self determination not just in terms of breaking away from someone (e.g. independence) but chosing to remain part of something.

And both elements are relevant to the discussion. The current trigger for a 2nd indy referendum is to allow Scotland not just to be independent (breaking away) but to remain part of the EU (the remaining part).

So in the context of Shetland and Dumfries/Galloway I don't think we'd necessarily see them wanting (via self determination) to become independent, rather that, under the concept of self determination, that they should be allowed to remain part of the UK, rather than be required to follow the overall Scottish vote, were that to be for independence. The argument is pretty well entirely analogous to that of Scotland wanting a route to exercise its self determination when it voted counter to the UK-wide result on brexit.

And? I still don't see any significant point here.  So what if they did want self detemination?


Just to note you answered a later post than whete i tried to lay out my confusiib as to the three peopke making this point. Jajswan then confirmed it had no real significance from his persoective but here is the expansion



"I'm not really sure of the significance of this though, or the posts from Prof D and JP on this. Unless you are against the principle of self determination, the only possible use would be if someone said  no to one of these suggestions, in which case so what it woukd be a use of the tu quoque fallacy. Worse unless you think i can set up NearlySaneLand in my house it's not even worth that.'


Can you lay put what the sigificance of your point is given the expansion because your answer seems to have no relevance to it?

[wigginhall]

I think you need to consider self determination not just in terms of breaking away from someone (e.g. independence) but chosing to remain part of something.

And both elements are relevant to the discussion. The current trigger for a 2nd indy referendum is to allow Scotland not just to be independent (breaking away) but to remain part of the EU (the remaining part).

So in the context of Shetland and Dumfries/Galloway I don't think we'd necessarily see them wanting (via self determination) to become independent, rather that, under the concept of self determination, that they should be allowed to remain part of the UK, rather than be required to follow the overall Scottish vote, were that to be for independence. The argument is pretty well entirely analogous to that of Scotland wanting a route to exercise its self determination when it voted counter to the UK-wide result on brexit.

I'm not sure that that's 'entirely analogous'.   Presumably, a Scottish government upon independence would claim the physical (territorial) integrity of the state, as described in international law.   Of course, parts of one state can move to another - as has just happened  with Crimea, or can remain with one state, as with N. Ireland.   But territorial integrity is pretty important in the definition of states.   Otherwise, you start to get patchwork effects - e.g. what if a part of Shetland wanted to join an independent Scotland?  In theory, this could happen, but it tends not to.  I don't see it as an argument against national self-determination.   

[Nearly Sane]

Is that what Prof D is on about, wigginhall? If so thanks for at least making something clear even if it makes the case entirely confuse.

Is the idea that Scotlabf by wantind self determination cannot want to be a member of the EU? Because that would mean that France doesn't exist as a nation?


Or that because Scotland was self determining but wanted to be part of the EU that would justify Dumfries and/or Galloway being able to self determine and remain in the UK? Because surely that would be justified by Latvia, amongst many others in the EU.

[wigginhall]

I don't know, NS.  That's just one interpretation, but I find this 'hypocrisy' argument confusing.   

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know, NS.  That's just one interpretation, but I find this 'hypocrisy' argument confusing.

I am glad you can give it a title because I can't see it as making enough sense to be called an argument, never mind the 'hypocrisy' one.

[Aruntraveller]

Interesting article by Paul Mason in The Guardian today:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/can-england-avoid-a-meltdown-of-national-identity

Whilst not agreeing entirely with his proposals at least he is showing more thought in his one mind that the entire cabinet appear capable of in their collective hive mind.

And his comments about English identity are in my opinion spot on.

[Harrowby Hall]

Interesting article by Paul Mason in The Guardian today:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/can-england-avoid-a-meltdown-of-national-identity

Whilst not agreeing entirely with his proposals at least he is showing more thought in his one mind that the entire cabinet appear capable of in their collective hive mind.

And his comments about English identity are in my opinion spot on.

One of the consequences of Indy Ref 1 should have been the establishment of a Commission to examine the effectiveness of existing constitutional arrangements and to suggest plans for modernisation. Cameron reject the idea - clearly putting party interests before national interests. A grateful Conservative Party booted him in the bollocks for shooting himself in the foot ...

I don't think that Mrs May really has a clue. She appears to be following what she perceives as the national will in the total absence of any strategy. She has no idea of what will result from "Brexit". Who knows, future generations of English children may have to cope with a culture of exclusion and failure. England may have to adopt to the role of being Europe's "Argentina".

[Nearly Sane]

Richard Murphy on the issue of the GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) figures


http://www.thenational.scot/politics/15169186.Professor_Richard_Murphy__Why_you_can_t_rely_on_GERS_figures_to_judge_Scotland_s_financial_state/?ref=twtrec