Scotland must be given new independence vote - Sturgeon

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, teatree said:

Care to explain rather than just post an assertion and run away?

See the link.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, teatree said:

<snip>

One thing you should consider about the EU is that had the UK government refused to grant a referendum (as Spain did with Catalonia) then the EU would have backed it to the hilt (as it did when Spain refused to grant Catalania a referendum).  Seems the EU isnt as much of a believer in democracy as the UK...hmmmm who would have guessed?

 Such affairs are a matter for the sovereign governments of EU members.

 

The EU neither backed nor opposed the UK granting Scotland an independence referendum in 2014 because it was nothing to do with the EU.

 

The EU did not back the Spanish government 'to the hilt' in 2017 for the same reason; it was nothing to do with them!

 

Hmmm, a Brexiteer who knows virtually nothing about how EU membership effects a member's sovereignty, who would have guessed?

Edited July 30, 2020 by 7by7
typos

[welovesundaysatspace]

6 minutes ago, teatree said:

I think you need to distinguish between two different definitions of what country means.

 

The UK is a country.  Technically speaking.  It has a capital (London) and its goverenment is elected by the constituants of whole of the UK and represented at Westminster.  THIS IS THE SOVEREIGN STATE.  

 

England, NI, Scotland and Wales are also countries individually but not in the same sense.  It is more of a culural and ethnic sense of the word.

That’s your very own definition. No, I don’t need to distinguish that way if I don’t agree to your definition.

 

6 minutes ago, teatree said:

  Individually these countries may have some devolution but they are still underneath the UK. So no, individually they are not sovereign states.  The sovereign state is the UK.

Scotland used to be a sovereign state until it entered into a political union with the Kingdom of England. It now has lost its sovereignty, and cannot decide its fate on its own. That’s fundamentally different from being a member of the EU. 

 

Of course, you can keep telling the UK’s member states that they are actually not real countries, and therefore they must obey to be ruled by the real country which is the UK. Just imagine the EU had told the UK that it’s actually not a real country, or at least “not in the same sense. It is more of a culural and ethnic sense of the word.” and, therefore, it is up to the EU to decide whether and how the UK may leave the union or not. (And maybe someone would have pointed towards the 1975 referendum and told the UK that it had its vote already which is to be respected.) 

 

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, laosnative said:

Did the Scottish people say no to this already?

It all depends upon how you define 'Scottish people'. But that is history - now new Scots and old Scots alike are in majority support of independence. 

 

[KarenBravo]

If they did the referendum in England only, Scotland would be independent and the government would save a shed-load of money with Scotland gone.

 

PS. Why are all Scots leaders named after fish?

Edited July 30, 2020 by KarenBravo

[teatree]

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Totally wrong. Scotland is a country with it's own parliament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom

England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are not themselves listed in the International Organization for Standardization(ISO) list of countries. However the ISO list of the subdivisions of the UK, compiled by British Standards and the UK's Office for National Statistics, uses "country" to describe England, Scotland, and Wales.^[

 

^{(from the link you posted)}

^{Hmmmm almost as if there is more than one definition of what country means.}

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, teatree said:

England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are not themselves listed in the International Organization for Standardization(ISO) list of countries. However the ISO list of the subdivisions of the UK, compiled by British Standards and the UK's Office for National Statistics, uses "country" to describe England, Scotland, and Wales.^[

 

^{(from the link you posted)}

^{Hmmmm almost as if there is more than one definition of what country means.}

Your entire line of argument seems to be Scotland should not be given another referendum because Scotland is not a country right?

You then seem to be putting remarkable effort into redefining what a country is.

Do you honestly believe this is ever going to convince the people of Scotland and turn them away from seeking independence?

[teatree]

18 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Such affairs are a matter for the sovereign governments of EU members.

 

The EU neither backed nor opposed the UK granting Scotland an independence referendum in 2014 because it was nothing to do with the EU.

 

The EU did not back the Spanish government 'to the hilt' in 2017 for the same reason; it was nothing to do with them!

 

Hmmm, a Brexiteer who knows virtually nothing about how EU membership effects a member's sovereignty, who would have guessed?

Did you hear a peep out of the EU over the terriblely violent crackdown of the Catalonia referendum?  Nope.  The EU is not interested allowimg regions within a state gaining independence.

 

[Rookiescot]

6 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

If they did the referendum in England only, Scotland would be independent and the government would save a shed-load of money with Scotland gone.

 

PS. Why are all Scots leaders named after fish?

My how the long winter nights must just fly by in your house.

What wit. What satire. The cutting edge of modern comedy.

You are Stephen Fry and I claim my 5 pounds.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, teatree said:

England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are not themselves listed in the International Organization for Standardization(ISO) list of countries. However the ISO list of the subdivisions of the UK, compiled by British Standards and the UK's Office for National Statistics, uses "country" to describe England, Scotland, and Wales.^[

 

^{(from the link you posted)}

^{Hmmmm almost as if there is more than one definition of what country means.}

If you redifine it, sure, there will be multiple definitions. But the principle is really easy, and that principle says that Scotland is a country.

 

Even if it wouldn't be a country, comparing it to London is ludicrous.

[teatree]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Your entire line of argument seems to be Scotland should not be given another referendum because Scotland is not a country right?

You then seem to be putting remarkable effort into redefining what a country is.

Do you honestly believe this is ever going to convince the people of Scotland and turn them away from seeking independence?

What?  You need to go and read previous replies to other posters.

 

Someone called the UK the UKSSR.  I pointed out that this was absurd as a democratic referendum was given amd the UK was not behaving like some Sovoet dictatorship.  

 

They then said Scotland was being oppressed because the big bad UK had to grant them permission and that the fact that they could not do it unilaterally was a sign of this oppression.

 

To this I replied that under the current arrangement Westminster held the key tk a referendum and so legally any vote had to be appproaved by them. 

 

 

These are all matter of fact.  Good luck on the Scots if they vote for true indepemdence and leave the UK AND dont join the EU.  But I think leaving to then join the EU would be a mistake.

[teatree]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

If you redifine it, sure, there will be multiple definitions. But the principle is really easy, and that principle says that Scotland is a country.

 

Even if it wouldn't be a country, comparing it to London is ludicrous.

But technically speaking it is similar.  They are both constituants of the UK with devolved powers.

 

Of course I understand Scotland as an ancient country...but that is a separate definotion as laid out in the link you yoirself sent.

[KarenBravo]

14 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

My how the long winter nights must just fly by in your house.

What wit. What satire. The cutting edge of modern comedy.

You are Stephen Fry and I claim my 5 pounds.

Winter? What's that?

 

PS. Many thanks. You're more than welcome.

[Rookiescot]

8 minutes ago, teatree said:

What?  You need to go and read previous replies to other posters.

 

Someone called the UK the UKSSR.  I pointed out that this was absurd as a democratic referendum was given amd the UK was not behaving like some Sovoet dictatorship.  

 

They then said Scotland was being oppressed because the big bad UK had to grant them permission and that the fact that they could not do it unilaterally was a sign of this oppression.

 

To this I replied that under the current arrangement Westminster held the key tk a referendum and so legally any vote had to be appproaved by them. 

 

 

These are all matter of fact.  Good luck on the Scots if they vote for true indepemdence and leave the UK AND dont join the EU.  But I think leaving to then join the EU would be a mistake.

But there lies the nub. As a member of the EU you dont need the EU's permission to hold a referendum on leaving. Any country can do it any time it wants.

Leaving the UK requires the permission of Westminster.

You see the difference?

Ergo the EU is far more democratic than the authoritarian UK which treats countries like Scotland as a colony. 

This is why many of us want out of the UK and back into the EU.  

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, teatree said:

Did you hear a peep out of the EU over the terriblely violent crackdown of the Catalonia referendum?  Nope.  The EU is not interested allowimg regions within a state gaining independence.

 

The EU's response to and lack of condemnation of that violence was appalling.

 

But at the end of the day it was a matter of Spanish sovereignty and nothing to do with the EU. They could have condemned the violence, but that's all.

 

You claim that Scotland is a region of the UK; so if your absurd claim that "The EU is not interested allowing regions within a state gaining independence" then how come they 'allowed' the 2014 referendum to tale place?

 

I'll answer for you; they have no power to stop such referenda. They also have no power to stop the results of such referenda being implemented, nor, as Catalonia showed, the opposite.

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, teatree said:

But technically speaking it is similar.  They are both constituants of the UK with devolved powers.

 

Of course I understand Scotland as an ancient country...but that is a separate definotion as laid out in the link you yoirself sent.

Technically speaking, no. Scotland is technically speaking a country.

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, teatree said:

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

<snip>

Even if it wouldn't be a country, comparing it to London is ludicrous.

<snip>

But technically speaking it is similar.  They are both constituants of the UK with devolved powers.

Like all large UK cities, even counties, London has devolved powers; but to compare those equally to the powers of the Scottish Parliament, even the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. is ludicrous desperation.

[laosnative]

49 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

If they did the referendum in England only, Scotland would be independent and the government would save a shed-load of money with Scotland gone.

 

PS. Why are all Scots leaders named after fish?

Good point......I remember that Scottish tennis player who liked to win English tounaments, but hated the English.....

Andy Dory..........

 

[evadgib]

Of interest to the allegedly oppressed and their sympathizers:

New release shows the value of the Union to the nations of the UK

Quote

The UK Government has today published the latest detailed breakdown of the funding it has provided to the devolved administrations over the last five financial years.

The Block Grant Transparency Report confirms that as of Main Estimates this year, the devolved administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales had received £9.5 billion more new funding in 2020-21 through the Barnett formula since the previous report in December 2018. Of this, £6.0 billion was allocated at Main Estimates to tackle Coronavirus.

This means the devolved administrations have received an additional:

• £5.0 billion for the Scottish Government
• £2.9 billion for the Welsh Government
• £1.7 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive

In addition to this extra funding through the Barnett formula, the devolved administrations are also receiving over £950 million in 2020-21 to maintain direct payments to farmers....

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by evadgib

[Rookiescot]

5 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Of interest to the allegedly oppressed and their sympathizers:

New release shows the value of the Union to the nations of the UK

 

We dont want your money. You dont have any. Its all borrowed money.

We want independence so we can spend our money on what we want to.

[RuamRudy]

22 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Of interest to the allegedly oppressed and their sympathizers:

New release shows the value of the Union to the nations of the UK

 

Of course, this money will be borrowed and required to be paid back - there is nothing magical about UK treasury borrowing compared to any other country on earth. It is the money that flows FROM Scotland that is a big concern. 

 

Is this not the same announcement that was debunked by the SG's finance secretary as amounting to only £21 million? Even the Tories were forced to admit she was correct. 

[jak2002003]

5 hours ago, vogie said:

Because the UK had a democratic (damn, the D word again) vote in 2016 and decided to leave the EU, likewise the Scots had a democratic vote in 2014 to remain within the United Kingdom, the problems start to arise when democratic votes are ignored by the losing side.

I am not sure that is the problem.

 

Seems to me the problem is that there is no clear winning or losing side...because the margin is so small and the tip of the balance is down to media and the ignorant population being mislead with false info.

 

 

[Kadilo]

Jackson Carlaw quits as Scottish Conservative leader https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53601518
 

Cant blame him, the beatings he has been getting lately from Sturgeon. 

[Rookiescot]

4 hours ago, Kadilo said:

Jackson Carlaw quits as Scottish Conservative leader https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53601518
 

Cant blame him, the beatings he has been getting lately from Sturgeon. 

Who is going to replace him? Whoever it is will do no better.

Imagine having to stand up in a parliament and defend Johnsons policies and incompetence every week?

 

Not a job many people in Scotland would want. 

[crobe]

The main argument against a new Scottish referendum is the quote from Alex Salmond - leader of the SNP at the time of the last referendum in 2014 that it would be a "once in a generation opportunity"

This is cited by many of the people against a new referendum - and they also point to the fact that it was over 40 years between the two referenda on Europe (joining the European Common Market in 1974 and leaving the EU in 2016).

The arguments for a new referendum in 2016 were the many changes in the structure and the relationship with the EU over the previous years which had changed the balance of sovereignty between the parties.

The Scottish argument is also that Brexit is a similar constitutional change made after the Scottish referendum.

 

In the speech from Alex Salmond where the quote of generational opportunity is cited,  he refers to the "eighteen-year gap between the devolution referenda held in 1979 and in 1997 as an example of the generational opportunity." 

18 years is also the voting age in the UK, so it could be argued that every 18 years there is a whole "generation" which has yet to vote on that specific issue.

 

It is therefore not a question of "if" Scotland should be allowed a new referendum, but only of "when" - 40 years, 18 years or less.

 

My own personal view is that at least 10 years should be the minimum time between such similar referenda - and so a vote in 2024 could be a compromise, once the Scottish people have seen the effects of Brexit play out and a new UK general election has been held.

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

14 minutes ago, crobe said:

The main argument against a new Scottish referendum is the quote from Alex Salmond - leader of the SNP at the time of the last referendum in 2014 that it would be a "once in a generation opportunity"

This is cited by many of the people against a new referendum - and they also point to the fact that it was over 40 years between the two referenda on Europe (joining the European Common Market in 1974 and leaving the EU in 2016).

The arguments for a new referendum in 2016 were the many changes in the structure and the relationship with the EU over the previous years which had changed the balance of sovereignty between the parties.

The Scottish argument is also that Brexit is a similar constitutional change made after the Scottish referendum.

 

In the speech from Alex Salmond where the quote of generational opportunity is cited,  he refers to the "eighteen-year gap between the devolution referenda held in 1979 and in 1997 as an example of the generational opportunity." 

18 years is also the voting age in the UK, so it could be argued that every 18 years there is a whole "generation" which has yet to vote on that specific issue.

 

It is therefore not a question of "if" Scotland should be allowed a new referendum, but only of "when" - 40 years, 18 years or less.

 

My own personal view is that at least 10 years should be the minimum time between such similar referenda - and so a vote in 2024 could be a compromise, once the Scottish people have seen the effects of Brexit play out and a new UK general election has been held.

 

 

I can see your 10 years minimum view

but

where does seen Brexit effects

and new UK GE come into it?

 

[JonnyF]

11 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

We want independence so we can spend our money on what we want to.

No you don't. Your country voted to remain in the UK. You want your country to subjugate itself to the EU because you dislike the French/Germans less than you dislike the English.

 

PS you haven't got any money to spend. Your budget deficit is so high the EU won't even take you.

 

 

That's before you even look at the long term decline in the price of oil.

[Rookiescot]

26 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No you don't. Your country voted to remain in the UK. You want your country to subjugate itself to the EU because you dislike the French/Germans less than you dislike the English.

 

PS you haven't got any money to spend. Your budget deficit is so high the EU won't even take you.

 

 

That's before you even look at the long term decline in the price of oil.

Oh please. Those GERS figures have been debunked so many times its not even funny any more.

Please explain why Denmark, a country of similar size and population manages to have a tiny deficit compared to Scotlands? And they have almost no oil.

We all know the GERS figures are complete fabrications. They are lies.

If Scotland was such a drain on the UK do you think for a second Westminster would want to keep us? You think a far right conservative government would rather be subsidising Scotland or giving out tax cuts to the rich?

Please. Join the dots.

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, transam said:

I think you maybe a little confused, but then I expect that.

Great news about the UK and Japan getting things together eh....

We all know where the confusion lies 5555.

The England - Japan deal is hardly done and dusted, Bojo desperate to mislead people, again.

 

"On rules of origin, the UK wants “extended cumulation”, meaning goods would count as British under any deal - even if a lot of components come from Europe - but Japan has so far refused to move on this issue."

 

"The major sticking points come as a major blow for Britain, which is under pressure to strike a historic agreement and show it can make its own deals outside the EU."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1316244/brexit-news-uk-eu-trade-deal-david-frost-michel-barnier-japan-trade-deal-no-deal-brexit

[RuamRudy]

50 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No you don't. Your country voted to remain in the UK. You want your country to subjugate itself to the EU because you dislike the French/Germans less than you dislike the English.

 

PS you haven't got any money to spend. Your budget deficit is so high the EU won't even take you.

 

 

That's before you even look at the long term decline in the price of oil.

I love it when economically illiterate people from another country try to explain the finances of my own. Scotland has no deficit. None whatsoever. It is a total impossibility for it to have one. Your statement of the contrary indicates just how little you understand about what you post. 

 

Our desire to remain in the EU was greater than our desire to remain in the UK. That was 2014 - the desire former has remained strong, the appeal of latter is crumbling by the day.