JonnyF

11 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Scotland decides if it wants to join, of course. The EU would not refuse entry.

It would have to  break a lot of its membership rules to allow scotland to join. 

It would also cause issues with Spain and the Catalan separation issues.

Why would the EU do that for another net recipient?

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Quite fortunate you were allowed to leave without asking them if you can.

Nothing fortunate about it. It was built into the terms. It wasnt luck. It was law.

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Actually its up to scotland. If they decide not to, up to them. If they decide to, up to them.

whether accepted or not is a separate issue. 

Scotland doesn't decide if it joins the EU. 

It might decide to apply. The EU will decide if it joins  and on what terms. Here's a hint, in the unlikely event they accepted your application the terms would be brutal for Scotland because scotland would have no choice but to accept.

The EU would use that to screw you against the wall and you'd be begging for the type of deal you have in the UK.

3 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

...and yet the UK was so big.....it had everything going for it....and was calling many of the shots.......to what? .......join up with some serious heavyweights 12,000 miles away......pfft!

We weren't calling any shots. France and Germany do that.

Cameron tried to even things up and they refused. So we left. 

Just now, Sujo said:

To join or not to join. Up to them.

Actually it's up to the EU. I wouldn't bet on the EU saying yes, there are more reasons to refuse Scotland than allow them.

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

For me, you are correct - I have always recognised that Scotland receives a poor deal in the UK. For others, however, Brexit has woken them up to the lack of fairness within the union, and how Scottish opinions mean nothing at all. Whether Brexit confounds the world and is actually not the unmitigated disaster predicted then and is still predicted now, the fundamental problem remains unresolved  - that is how Scotland must fall in line with whatever the English electorate decides.

And if you were to join the EU you would have to fall in line with what Brussels decides, which will basically be whatever Germany and France wants.

You're never going to be the country calling the shots in any major union because you are so small.

Maybe better accept it than destroy your country by seeking the unobtainable.

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Sorry - I have no desire to hang around to continue to suffer the negative effects of the decisions of another country, just on the off chance that the red faced angry white men and hedge fund crooks who facilitated that decision were right and that the vast majority of economics experts were wrong. 

Looks like you're SOL then, doesn't it?

Let's face it, if Brexit proved to be an undisputed massive success you'd still claim it was a disaster and want to leave. Brexit is just a convenient excuse to try again.

9 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I dislike being called a sweaty sock and I can't stand the typical English man like will carling. I also hate that song about chariots and Mr kiplings cakes. Actually, quite a few other things. 

555 great post. I love the honesty.

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

When is long enough to assess whether there are actually any tangible upsides to Brexit? We have seen precious few so far, and even the Nasty Party admit that the benefits are not for the likes of us.

Young people aren't 'reaping the benefits' of Brexit, admits Tory MP

 

A Conservative MP has warned people under 30 they will not “reap the benefits” of Brexit.

"...am I going to sit here and say Brexit is perfect, and that your generation is going to reap the benefits?

“No, I’m not, because you’re not, frankly, at the minute. And I can see that we’ve got work to do.”

When pressed how long it will be before people “reap the benefits”, Bowie refused to offer a time frame.

5 years would be enough.

55 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

How about we just put it on the ballot paper?

Scottish election: SNP apply to get indyref2 on the ballot paper | The National

Seems like a sly way to turn this vote into indyref2. Still, you have to expect dirty tricks when the scottish nasty party are involved.

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Because of Brexit, the UK Scotland voted to remain a part of in 2014 no longer exists. 

If that poll is an accurate expression of the opinion of the majority of Scotland's population, then you have nothing to fear from IndyRef 2.

So let's have it and get the issue done and dusted.

However, as I said to @vogie on Sunday: as I always say, the only poll which counts is the one at the ballot box.

If the parties supporting independence win a majority in the forthcoming election, will you finally agree that the Scottish people deserve another chance to decide whether or not to remain a part of the UK?

Vogie has so far declined to answer; will you do so?

If the SNP make it clear in their manifesto that a vote for them means support for Indyref2 and over 50% of voters vote for the SNP then I would say that is a mandate for a second referendum.

However, I do not believe it should be held until we have had enough to get some clear indications regarding the impact of Brexit and Covid19.

The way the EU is going with Covid,  there are likely to be long terms impacts for them. Similarly, once the teething issues have been resolved Brexit Britain will go from strength to strength. Sturgeon trying to rush the vote through now indicates to me that she knows this. It would not be reasonable to expect people to vote when 2 such significant issues are so unclear and unresolved. 

1 hour ago, MasterBaker said:

more men die from Viagra side effects and nobody cares

But men are evil and need to be locked up after 6pm.

Seriously though, this blood clot issue is a total non event. It's about the same amount as the normal population. It's really as if these European countries have lost their minds. As if their vaccine rollout wasn't going badly enough...

17 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Or maybe they should have one whenever they want. Their country, up to them.

Parliament will decide.

Besides, it's clear that they don't want one for around 5 years. Perhaps they are smarter than I had given them credit for.

1 hour ago, loong said:

The fact that a woman was killed is terrible but the fact that the suspect is a police officer is also irrelevant.

Really? Was it also irrelevant that George Floyd murder suspect was a cop? Of course not.

The fact that the suspect is a member of the police is hugely significant. It's always worse when the institution that are supposed to be protecting people are the ones (allegedly) doing the killing. And then when the women hold a vigil and protest about male violence the women are assaulted by male cops. The Met couldn't have got it any more wrong. Especially after pathetically taking the knee in a similar protest a few months back.

Why no such showing of solidarity for these women (allegedly) killed by one of their own? Why the huge disparity between the 2 protests? Just a coincidence?

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

It will be up to the Scottish government to decide that.

No, it will be up to the UK Parliament, in which Scotland is represented.

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So even though Cameron won by promising an EU referendum there should not have been one?

That was up to Parliament. 

Parliament is sovereign.

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

If people vote for one in May will they go against the wishes of the Scottish people? That doesnt seem very fair.

The vote in May isn't a vote to have a referendum this year. 

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

If we vote for one in May then parliament has nothing to consider. The people of Scotland will have spoken. 

You are not voting for a referendum. You are voting on a whole host of issues, of which the referendum is one.

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

In Scotland the people are Sovereign. The laws regarding sovereignty in a foreign country do not matter.

The UK Parliament will decide if and when you get your referendum. 

Why should they go against the wishes of the Scottish people and hold it now? That doesn't seem very fair.

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Did you read past the headline?

The Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times found 25% supported holding a referendum in the next 12 months.

Some 30% said they would support a referendum in the next two to five years while 45% agreed with the statement “there should not be another Scottish independence referendum in the next few years”.

So 55% want a referendum within 5 years.

Only 45% do not want another referendum.

What was it you were saying about vocal minorities?

Yes I read it. So let's forget about it for a few years as per the wishes of the Scottish people.

If they still want one in a few years I am sure that Parliament will consider it.

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

We will find out in May what Scotland wants and we will act upon that. What the hard right English nationalist Brexiteer fanatical UK government wants is asinine. 

A country should never be dictated to by another foreign nation.

Parliament is sovereign. They will decide, not some amnesiac tinpot wannabe dictator like sturgeon.

8 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Or the standard could be 7 years as it is in Northern Ireland... but then it should not be up go non-Scottish what the standard is -- it should be up to Scotland...  As far as silent majority/vocal minority - a referendum quashes that by requiring a majority to win.

Yes it should be up to Scotland. And they don't want one right now. They want to leave it a few years and who are we to argue with the Scots?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19159508.scottish-independence-quarter-scots-support-indyref2-next-year-poll-suggests/

18 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

In 1975 we had a referendum on remaining in the EU. 67% voted to remain and 33% voted to leave.

Why was that referendum not respected?

But do please carry on telling the Scots what they want and if they can have it. I'm sure the views of English right wing Brexiteer nationalists will register deeply with them.

It was respected for 41 years. Some might say, 'a generation'. Some might say even longer than that.

Maybe Scotland should follow the same precedent and have Indyref2 in 2055? Sounds fair. 

Maybe there would be an appetite for it from the Scottish people by then, because there certainly isn't now as recent polls have shown. Only the hard left Scottish nationalist SNP diehard fanatics seem to want one now and they are the minority. So the Scots don't want it, the UK government doesn't want it. So why should it happen?

The silent majority should never pander to a vocal minority.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You might want to check the fact that the Home Secretary was in constant contact with the Commissioner of Police, before and during this incident. She refuses to release minutes of meetings or provide any detail of he discussions with the police over this time.

Well if you don't know what was said there isn't much to check, is there? I suspect she would have been roundly condemning the police's overly violent response.

However, as nice a deflection as it was, your point is irrelevant to the London mayor's role in policing and his personal political views which appear to be perfectly aligned with the police's response to the various disparate groups of protesters.