Sturgeon says Scottish parliament will not consent to UK PM May's Brexit bill

[Khun Han]

17 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Well history is a guide. Before 1914 there was a movement to enact Home Rule in Scotland, similar to what was being proposed for Ireland to try to blunt the growing movement for Independence, which had been growing since the 1850’s with the formation o the ‘Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights’. In point of fact Asquith believed, and I believe rightly, that Federalism was the only way to hold the UK together, and to quote him it was, “the true basis of Union"

 

In many ways there are serious parallels between the national ethnic tensions in both Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empires, all clamoring for autonomy.

 

The first world war did it’s job is fracturing those empires into their ethnic constituent parts, whereas the in the UK the imperial dream papered over the cracks for the next century.

 

It’s an interesting side note, that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was actually proposing a similar federal model for Austria-Hungary. It’s one of the ‘what if’s’ what would have happened, had he not been assassinated and had ascended the throne.

 

Pre-1914 and Archduke Ferdinand eh? So what's your point? How do events of more than a hundred years ago which the masses of the time didn't comprehend and the masses of the current time are largely unaware of relate to modern Britain? 

[GinBoy2]

10 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Pre-1914 and Archduke Ferdinand eh? So what's your point? How do events of more than a hundred years ago which the masses of the time didn't comprehend and the masses of the current time are largely unaware of relate to modern Britain? 

You are clearly unaware of your own history and the movement for Scottish independence prior to WW1.

 

The first world war did exactly the opposite to the UK than it did for the other European empires, it at least temporarily papered over the divisions and allowed the UK union to continue.

 

Tha being said I recommend you start reading some history, the arguments that you hear from the SNP are eerily similar to those being mooted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

You may not think history has much relevance, but it has a terrible way of repeating itself if you don’t learn from it

[Sir Dude]

Edit by me...probably best.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Sir Dude

[StreetCowboy]

16 hours ago, Khun Han said:

... I've never met anybody who shares that concept.

I do.  We can share it together.  You are not alone.

[RuamRudy]

On 3/25/2018 at 9:33 PM, sirineou said:

 Thank you for that very informative reply.

A couple observations  that might or might not be correct. 

If what you say about the level of independence between members of EU and members of the UK   is true, and I belive it is, then there is a better case to be made for UKexit than it is for Brexit among those who desire more independence.

    And this really more of a question than a observation but. since the last Scottish independence referendum lost by only  about 10% points and a small 6% swing  would put the leave function in the majority , and since brexit lost by 24 percentage points in Scotland  , would a Brexit have a better chance to straighten  the Scottish independence  movement or weakening it? and if it straightened would it be a stretch to think it would be by 6%?

    If Brexit can occur by a small   majority, then why not a Scottish UKexit ?

And finally if a Scottish separation occurs and Scotland remains or re-enters the EU  as  an independent nation,  and does well, would that foster a strong , independence movement in other UK members?

   I know, I know , so many ifs.But with so many ifs, is it prudent for Brexit to proceed with such a narrow consensus.

  

The overlap between those seeking to remain in the EU and those seeking an independent Scotland is not total, and the current Catalan crisis and the apparent hardball approach from the EU towards the UK over Brexit has possibly turned a few independence minded voters away from the EU. Then again, the ongoing train-wreck that is Labour, with their total inability to make political capital out of the worst PM and most incompetent government in memory must make more than a few Scots fear that the Tories will never be ousted from Downing St.

 

Re: the Brexit effect. As these boards testify, there is no consensus as to how we will be impacted, however the government's leaked forecasts indicate that Scotland will be among the worst affected regions, assuming, of course, that the Brexiteers' expectations of manna falling from heaven doesn't happen. Therefore, I see that being a major concern amongst voters, and certainly one that the pro-EU parties will exploit to the max. 

 

At the last referendum, a majority of Scottish-born voters chose independence but only around 27% of voters who were born elsewhere backed it. I expect that to be significantly different next time round. Since the indyref, the support for independence has held up pretty well,  most recently at 48%  on polling, and this is from a supposedly weary electorate - and without any new campaigning. Next time round I would be surprised if there was a landslide either way, but a slight Brexit style win for the Independence movement will be sufficient for me. 

 

I am not sure how much appetite there genuinely is elsewhere in the UK for separation. From a practical perspective, the feasibility of an independent Wales or Cornwall doesn't seem there. 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

48 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I gather you support Scottish independence, i.e. you want Scotland to break away from a union of nations and find it's own way in the world, no matter what the financial consequences may be.

And yet you want the UK to stay under the rule of Brussels - right?

 

I'm genuinely interested to know why this view is shared by a lot of Scots - it seems contradictory to me.

 

So - the above post copied from the Brexit Has Created Chaos thread.

 

It would be untrue of me to claim that all Scottish Nationalists are also pro-EU. I think I read that around 30% are actually pro-Brexit, no doubt for many of the same reasons given by the wider Brexiteer population. Another point worth acknowledging is that Scotland has not experienced anything like the levels of non-EU immigration seen south of the border; that said, we do have significant populations of eastern Europeans and the same pluses and minuses they present elsewhere. Also, bear in mind that the Scottish population in general is not expanding at the rate needed to sustain future generations of pensioners. I don't have the figures to hand, but without immigration, I believe it is expected that our numbers will decline gradually over the next 30 years.

 

So to the EU...

 

It is not correct, I believe, to equate the EU organisational structure with that of the UK. With 28 member states in the EU, each with a relatively equal say in things, consensus and horse trading is the only way to make positive changes that will be accepted by the bulk of member states. In Westminster, Scotland has 59 votes out of 650. No matter how Scottish MPs vote, at best they bolsters the wishes of the majority MPs.

 

Similarly, at UK general elections, from what I can recall, there has not been a single case where Scottish votes have tilted the results one way or the other - when the majority of Scottish MPs were in the winning side, the numbers were such that they provided an additional cushion to the government, but were not critical to the victory.

 

Both these facts make it clear (and this is not a rant or a spiteful comment, just a fact) that the direction of the UK is decided predominantly by English voters and their MPs. Now if the UK was a single country, that would be fine - that is how countries should work. But the UK is union of countries, and one of those countries dominates the others by sheer virtue of its size.

 

Within the EU, an independent Scotland will have an equal seat at the table, have the same weight in discussions as the other member states, and play an equal part in the development of the EU and our place within it.

 

 

[transam]

33 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So - the above post copied from the Brexit Has Created Chaos thread.

 

It would be untrue of me to claim that all Scottish Nationalists are also pro-EU. I think I read that around 30% are actually pro-Brexit, no doubt for many of the same reasons given by the wider Brexiteer population. Another point worth acknowledging is that Scotland has not experienced anything like the levels of non-EU immigration seen south of the border; that said, we do have significant populations of eastern Europeans and the same pluses and minuses they present elsewhere. Also, bear in mind that the Scottish population in general is not expanding at the rate needed to sustain future generations of pensioners. I don't have the figures to hand, but without immigration, I believe it is expected that our numbers will decline gradually over the next 30 years.

 

So to the EU...

 

It is not correct, I believe, to equate the EU organisational structure with that of the UK. With 28 member states in the EU, each with a relatively equal say in things, consensus and horse trading is the only way to make positive changes that will be accepted by the bulk of member states. In Westminster, Scotland has 59 votes out of 650. No matter how Scottish MPs vote, at best they bolsters the wishes of the majority MPs.

 

Similarly, at UK general elections, from what I can recall, there has not been a single case where Scottish votes have tilted the results one way or the other - when the majority of Scottish MPs were in the winning side, the numbers were such that they provided an additional cushion to the government, but were not critical to the victory.

 

Both these facts make it clear (and this is not a rant or a spiteful comment, just a fact) that the direction of the UK is decided predominantly by English voters and their MPs. Now if the UK was a single country, that would be fine - that is how countries should work. But the UK is union of countries, and one of those countries dominates the others by sheer virtue of its size.

 

Within the EU, an independent Scotland will have an equal seat at the table, have the same weight in discussions as the other member states, and play an equal part in the development of the EU and our place within it.

 

 

And get nowhere..... But look cool....

[nontabury]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So - the above post copied from the Brexit Has Created Chaos thread.

 

It would be untrue of me to claim that all Scottish Nationalists are also pro-EU. I think I read that around 30% are actually pro-Brexit, no doubt for many of the same reasons given by the wider Brexiteer population. Another point worth acknowledging is that Scotland has not experienced anything like the levels of non-EU immigration seen south of the border; that said, we do have significant populations of eastern Europeans and the same pluses and minuses they present elsewhere. Also, bear in mind that the Scottish population in general is not expanding at the rate needed to sustain future generations of pensioners. I don't have the figures to hand, but without immigration, I believe it is expected that our numbers will decline gradually over the next 30 years.

 

So to the EU...

 

It is not correct, I believe, to equate the EU organisational structure with that of the UK. With 28 member states in the EU, each with a relatively equal say in things, consensus and horse trading is the only way to make positive changes that will be accepted by the bulk of member states. In Westminster, Scotland has 59 votes out of 650. No matter how Scottish MPs vote, at best they bolsters the wishes of the majority MPs.

 

Similarly, at UK general elections, from what I can recall, there has not been a single case where Scottish votes have tilted the results one way or the other - when the majority of Scottish MPs were in the winning side, the numbers were such that they provided an additional cushion to the government, but were not critical to the victory.

 

Both these facts make it clear (and this is not a rant or a spiteful comment, just a fact) that the direction of the UK is decided predominantly by English voters and their MPs. Now if the UK was a single country, that would be fine - that is how countries should work. But the UK is union of countries, and one of those countries dominates the others by sheer virtue of its size.

 

Within the EU, an independent Scotland will have an equal seat at the table, have the same weight in discussions as the other member states, and play an equal part in the development of the EU and our place within it.

 

 

Agree with much of what you say, especially your acknowledgement that Scotland has not been effected by E.U immigration as to the extent of many areas of England.

However you omit to mention that Scotland sends more M.P, s to Westminster than England, based on population. Likewise those M.P do vote on issues,that only pertain to England, while the English M.P’s do not vote on solely Scottish matters, that being the prerogative of holyrood. We could also discuss the financial support that Scotland has received throughout the centuries from England, the exception of course, would be those 40yrs when Oil from the coast of Scotland helped the British government to squander large amounts of money,rather than investing in the future like the Norwegians. Of course this had nothing to do with those two Scottish P.M’s  Tony WMD Blair and Gordon Bigot Brown. You also forgot to mention how the Scottish electorate has managed to be over representation in the Cabinet, throughout the centuries. In one cabinet there were 16 Scotsmen, 1 Welshman and Two Englishmen. Population at that time 42 million English,5 million Scots. Do you honestly think the Europeans will bend over backwards to treat you the same as your fellow British citizens in the other parts of the U.K.

Be very,very careful of what you wish for.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by nontabury

[RuamRudy]

30 minutes ago, nontabury said:

However you omit to mention that Scotland sends more M.P, s to Westminster than England, based on population

I think the additional number is about 2.5. If indyref 2 fails, I am sure that TM will resolve it.

 

31 minutes ago, nontabury said:

those M.P do vote on issues,that only pertain to England, while the English M.P’s do not vote on solely Scottish matters, that being the prerogative of holyrood.

We have discussed EVEL previously - Scottish MPs may vote on English only matters if they choose to do so, but their votes are not counted. See the recent furore in Scotland when our 13 Tory MPs who voted with the government to remove free school meals from primary children in England and Wales. Their votes were not counted in the end; all they did was generate a lot of negative press for the Tories north of the border.

 

Of course, there are very few issues that pertain solely to England - because there is no English parliament, and bill through Westminster which has a financial implication will have an effect on the other home nations through the Barnett consequentials, which would be the main reason that Scottish, Welsh or NI members may vote on issues that, at face value, appear not to have any impact upon them.

 

38 minutes ago, nontabury said:

We could also discuss the financial support that Scotland has received throughout the centuries from England, the exception of course, would be those 40yrs when Oil from the coast of Scotland helped the British government to squander large amounts of money,rather than investing in the future like the Norwegians. 

Can you put some figures on that financial support top which you are referencing? I have found data from 1900 to 1922 which shows that, in money of the day, Scotland contributed a total of 562 million GBP more to London than it received in the same period. In today's numbers that equals about 2.5 billion a year lost to the country. Data from the National Library of Scotland.

I don't have any details post that date - but as you acknowledge, Westminster wasted most of the North Sea revenues.

 

55 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Of course this had nothing to do with those two Scottish P.M’s  Tony WMD Blair and Gordon Bigot Brown.

I think you need to hold the good people of Sedgefield accountable for electing Blair. As for Gordon, not my doing either.

 

57 minutes ago, nontabury said:

You also forgot to mention how the Scottish electorate has managed to be over representation in the Cabinet, throughout the centuries. In one cabinet there were 16 Scotsmen, 1 Welshman and Two Englishmen.

And for that we should be shackled to the union forever? I am not sure I see the logic, unless you think that we are now serving some sort of pennance.

 

57 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Do you honestly think the Europeans will bend over backwards to treat you the same as your fellow British citizens in the other parts of the U.K.

Be very,very careful of what you wish for.

I honestly have no idea what you mean here.

 

[CG1 Blue]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So - the above post copied from the Brexit Has Created Chaos thread.

 

It would be untrue of me to claim that all Scottish Nationalists are also pro-EU. I think I read that around 30% are actually pro-Brexit, no doubt for many of the same reasons given by the wider Brexiteer population. Another point worth acknowledging is that Scotland has not experienced anything like the levels of non-EU immigration seen south of the border; that said, we do have significant populations of eastern Europeans and the same pluses and minuses they present elsewhere. Also, bear in mind that the Scottish population in general is not expanding at the rate needed to sustain future generations of pensioners. I don't have the figures to hand, but without immigration, I believe it is expected that our numbers will decline gradually over the next 30 years.

 

So to the EU...

 

It is not correct, I believe, to equate the EU organisational structure with that of the UK. With 28 member states in the EU, each with a relatively equal say in things, consensus and horse trading is the only way to make positive changes that will be accepted by the bulk of member states. In Westminster, Scotland has 59 votes out of 650. No matter how Scottish MPs vote, at best they bolsters the wishes of the majority MPs.

 

Similarly, at UK general elections, from what I can recall, there has not been a single case where Scottish votes have tilted the results one way or the other - when the majority of Scottish MPs were in the winning side, the numbers were such that they provided an additional cushion to the government, but were not critical to the victory.

 

Both these facts make it clear (and this is not a rant or a spiteful comment, just a fact) that the direction of the UK is decided predominantly by English voters and their MPs. Now if the UK was a single country, that would be fine - that is how countries should work. But the UK is union of countries, and one of those countries dominates the others by sheer virtue of its size.

 

Within the EU, an independent Scotland will have an equal seat at the table, have the same weight in discussions as the other member states, and play an equal part in the development of the EU and our place within it.

 

 

Thanks, this does go some way to explaining. 

 

The only trouble with the maths though is that currently you say the Scots have almost 10% of the voting power in the UK parliament (59/650), whereas in the EU an independent Scotland would have ~3.5% (1/28) of the voting power.

 

So I'm not sure the 59/650 number is so relevant to the UK vs EU debate, but is perhaps one of several causes of  Scottish antagonism towards the English.

[RuamRudy]

13 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Thanks, this does go some way to explaining. 

 

The only trouble with the maths though is that currently you say the Scots have almost 10% of the voting power in the UK parliament (59/650), whereas in the EU an independent Scotland would have ~3.5% (1/28) of the voting power.

 

So I'm not sure the 59/650 number is so relevant to the UK vs EU debate, but is perhaps one of several causes of  Scottish antagonism towards the English.

But of course, Westminster has a different system - blocs of parties voting for their own interests, with those dominating the show making all the decisions. In the EU, all member states have an equal say - that is why I mentioned horse trading and compromise. A Westminster government with a strong majority needs to engage in neither to force their will. And then there is the veto - another powerful tool that ensures consensus long before a vote gets to the parliament. The equitable structure of the EU means that a country such as Belgium has more say in the Brexit negotiations than Scotland's elected First Minister has.

 

I must correct you on your final statement - there is no antagonism towards the English. There is frustration and bewilderment amongst many as to why the English electorate continues to return the Tories to power, but that is your democratic right to do so, and we do not need to understand the logic. But I repeat, self determination for Scotland should not be seen as a rejection of the English.  With all due respect, that is a somewhat adolescent take on things.

[RuamRudy]

14 hours ago, nontabury said:

Agree with much of what you say, especially your acknowledgement that Scotland has not been effected by E.U immigration as to the extent of many areas of England.

However you omit to mention that Scotland sends more M.P, s to Westminster than England, based on population. Likewise those M.P do vote on issues,that only pertain to England, while the English M.P’s do not vote on solely Scottish matters, that being the prerogative of holyrood. We could also discuss the financial support that Scotland has received throughout the centuries from England, the exception of course, would be those 40yrs when Oil from the coast of Scotland helped the British government to squander large amounts of money,rather than investing in the future like the Norwegians. Of course this had nothing to do with those two Scottish P.M’s  Tony WMD Blair and Gordon Bigot Brown. You also forgot to mention how the Scottish electorate has managed to be over representation in the Cabinet, throughout the centuries. In one cabinet there were 16 Scotsmen, 1 Welshman and Two Englishmen. Population at that time 42 million English,5 million Scots. Do you honestly think the Europeans will bend over backwards to treat you the same as your fellow British citizens in the other parts of the U.K.

Be very,very careful of what you wish for.

 

 

I presume you are still researching the parlous state of Scottish finances beween 1921 and 1969 - I am also finding scant data available. I did, however, come across this article in the Times:

 

Union 'has cost Scotland GBP64bn over 30 years'

 

The article may be pay-walled so here is a screenshot of the first page, although it is not the best quality  - apologies:

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

But of course, Westminster has a different system - blocs of parties voting for their own interests, with those dominating the show making all the decisions. In the EU, all member states have an equal say - that is why I mentioned horse trading and compromise. A Westminster government with a strong majority needs to engage in neither to force their will. And then there is the veto - another powerful tool that ensures consensus long before a vote gets to the parliament. The equitable structure of the EU means that a country such as Belgium has more say in the Brexit negotiations than Scotland's elected First Minister has.

 

I must correct you on your final statement - there is no antagonism towards the English. There is frustration and bewilderment amongst many as to why the English electorate continues to return the Tories to power, but that is your democratic right to do so, and we do not need to understand the logic. But I repeat, self determination for Scotland should not be seen as a rejection of the English.  With all due respect, that is a somewhat adolescent take on things.

Understood - makes sense.

 

And on the English bashing - this is not an adolescent thing. I have worked among Scots for decades and many (not all) held a grudge.

Admittedly a lot of it is banter. For example, I was up in Edinburgh with the family the day before my brother was going to marry. It was 2006 and we all went into a bar to watch England play Trinidad & Tobago. Predictably the locals were cheering for Trinidad, and one or two of them were even wearing Trinidad shirts.

England won 2-0 with two late goals.  As soon as the final whistle went, one of the locals pulled off his Trinidad shirt to reveal a Sweden shirt underneath...Sweden being England's next opponents. Brilliant!  

 

 

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

Understood - makes sense.

 

And on the English bashing - this is not an adolescent thing. I have worked among Scots for decades and many (not all) held a grudge.

Admittedly a lot of it is banter. For example, I was up in Edinburgh with the family the day before my brother was going to marry. It was 2006 and we all went into a bar to watch England play Trinidad & Tobago. Predictably the locals were cheering for Trinidad, and one or two of them were even wearing Trinidad shirts.

England won 2-0 with two late goals.  As soon as the final whistle went, one of the locals pulled off his Trinidad shirt to reveal a Sweden shirt underneath...Sweden being England's next opponents. Brilliant!  

 

 

I was in the Volunteer Arms in Fort William to watch the Euro 96 game where England beat Scotland 2-0 (the one where Gazza did that flick that almost defies description and left everyone watching in a state of awe). A packed bar, filled with drunken Scots and two young backpackers wearing England tops. Everyone was singing along throughout the match without a hint of trouble, the English lads seated amongst the rabble and enjoying the atmosphere. As soon as the final whistle blew, however, someone stood up and pointed at them and called them something that they would probably be arrested for now. The pub fell silent, the boys' faces turned as pale as their shirts... and then everyone burst into laughter and the drinking continued, with the two lads fully part of it.

 

I am not going to say that there are no ar#^holes in Scotland, but the football thing is not the vicious, vindictive thing that many feel it is. I understand that the Welsh are also of similar mind when it comes to England's sporting endeavours. But in the main, it is a good natured thing where real offence is not intended.

 

[CG1 Blue]

30 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I was in the Volunteer Arms in Fort William to watch the Euro 96 game where England beat Scotland 2-0 (the one where Gazza did that flick that almost defies description and left everyone watching in a state of awe). A packed bar, filled with drunken Scots and two young backpackers wearing England tops. Everyone was singing along throughout the match without a hint of trouble, the English lads seated amongst the rabble and enjoying the atmosphere. As soon as the final whistle blew, however, someone stood up and pointed at them and called them something that they would probably be arrested for now. The pub fell silent, the boys' faces turned as pale as their shirts... and then everyone burst into laughter and the drinking continued, with the two lads fully part of it.

 

I am not going to say that there are no ar#^holes in Scotland, but the football thing is not the vicious, vindictive thing that many feel it is. I understand that the Welsh are also of similar mind when it comes to England's sporting endeavours. But in the main, it is a good natured thing where real offence is not intended.

 

I do agree.  Generally the Scots and the Welsh love England to fail at anything, especially in sport.  Weirdly the majority of English tend to support the other home nations in sporting events (if they're playing a non-UK team).

Or at least it used to be the majority. I think the English have started to wise up in recent years

 

[nontabury]

13 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I presume you are still researching the parlous state of Scottish finances beween 1921 and 1969 - I am also finding scant data available. I did, however, come across this article in the Times:

 

Union 'has cost Scotland GBP64bn over 30 years'

 

 

 

 

 

So a pro separate economist agrees with my figure, for the 30yrs that oil from the Scottish North Sea made a + contribution to the UK economy. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by nontabury

[nontabury]

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

I am not going to say that there are no ar#^holes in Scotland, but the football thing is not the vicious, vindictive thing that many feel it is. I understand that the Welsh are also of similar mind when it comes to England's sporting endeavours. But in the main, it is a good natured thing where real offence is not intended.

 

Not all SNP supporters are anti English, but all anti English Scots are SNP supporters.

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, nontabury said:

So a pro separate economist agrees with my figure, for the 30yrs that oil from the Scottish North Sea made a + contribution to the UK economy. 

Without a doubt - since the advent of North Sea Oil in the late 60s, Scotland has been putting vastly more into the UK economy that it was receiving in return.

 

I further showed you data from 1900 to 1922 which proved that, in today's terms, Scotland was sending to Westminster an average of 2.5 billion per year more than it was receiving. As the chart I linked to showed, their was a net loss to London every single year of that period, and that loss was growing each year as the century rolled on. I don't believe that there was anything significant in the commercial and manufacturing bases of Scotland between 1922 and 1969 which would suggest that this trend had reversed - so I think it is fair to state that the union has been a financial disaster for Scotland since the turn of the 20th Century.

 

Prior to that - I have not been able to unearth much, but will keep looking in the faint hope that something turns up.

 

But the big question is - where has all the money gone? If it has flowed south to London and not been returned at anything like the same level, it has to have gone somewhere else? What have the Scots been funding to their own detriment for the last 120 years at least?

Edited May 10, 2018 by RuamRudy

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, nontabury said:

Not all SNP supporters are anti English, but all anti English Scots are SNP supporters.

 

 

 

I see no reference to England there. If there was a St George's Cross you would be correct, but the Union Flag is not the flag of England.

I appreciate that there are some people who frequently conflate England and the UK, to all extents and purposes believing that England IS the UK - are you one of thse misguided people who forgets you are only one constituent part of the UK?

 

[RuamRudy]

Most Scots watching World Cup will cheer on England, poll finds