3 minutes ago, Bangyai said:

 

So, if there is another vote and Scotland votes to leave the union it is not binding in any way because we can keep having referendums until they change their mind again.

 

Yea.....sounds about right.

After the UK voted for Brexit, Brexiters argued that it was binding. Doublethink much?

I wish wee Krankie and the SNP would just disappear, they are an embarrassment to Scotland!!

I am all for the Scots going. If you promise to take Blackford away. You can have him to yourselves.

24 minutes ago, placeholder said:

After the UK voted for Brexit, Brexiters argued that it was binding. Doublethink much?

 

Well, you tell me. Should referendums be binding in any way or are they just opinion polls ?

 

The poster I quoted suggested there is nothing wrong with repeated opinion polls since they are part of democracy.

13 hours ago, Psimbo said:

Well they can get their MPs out of Westminster while they are at it. Now they have their own Parliament <deleted> are they still doing in Westminster anyway? Talk about having your cake and eating it.

 

'We want independence but want back in the EU where we will do what we are told'. Anybody else spot that oxymoron?

 

They HAD a referendum and it was defeated. Are we now in a world where we keep having referenda until the 'right' result is achieved? 

Completely different circumstances now. Also, they should be able to decide to go with whatever they think is best for their country and that’s obviously staying in the EU! It’s their nation and therefore their decision. They don’t have to stay on the sinking ship! 

10 minutes ago, Bangyai said:

 

Well, you tell me. Should referendums be binding in any way or are they just opinion polls ?

 

The poster I quoted suggested there is nothing wrong with repeated opinion polls since they are part of democracy.

Well, according to Brexiters the UK situation is now changed hugely because of Brexit. So given that huge change, the Scots should be allowed another vote since the UK they voted to remain in was part of the EU.

7 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Completely different circumstances now. Also, they should be able to decide to go with whatever they think is best for their country and that’s obviously staying in the EU! It’s their nation and therefore their decision. They don’t have to stay on the sinking ship! 

Scotland was never in the EU, it was the UK that was in the EU, so Scotland could't re-join the EU because they were never in it. And they have about as much chance of joining the EU as me joining The Parachute Regt.

 

15 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, according to Brexiters the UK situation is now changed hugely because of Brexit. So given that huge change, the Scots should be allowed another vote since the UK they voted to remain in was part of the EU.

 

Personally , I think that since the issue affects all members of the union any new referendum should involve English and Welsh voters too. The new referendum should be on devolution of the union and independence for all its member states.

 The states that then leave can re apply to join Europe as independent countries , create their own currencies etc etc.

 

There would have to be a certain transition period whilst hard borders are erected to control the flow of goods and people and then that would be the end of it.

 

Again , personally I am a remainer and pro Scottish and Welsh independence but not rabidly so since i have lived in Thailand most of my life and local politics are more relevant to me that those of the United Kingdom.

9 minutes ago, Bangyai said:

The states that then leave can re apply to join Europe as independent countries , create their own currencies etc etc.

And there is the elephant in the corner of the debating chamber; currency. True independence as a country requires one's own currency. If you don't have one you are not independent - it is that fundemental; if you do not control your own currency you do not control your economic or fiscal policies.  The Scottish Nationalists will not declare a policy on the currency an independent Scotland will use. Without such a policy it is pure "pie in the sky politicking" - Brigadoon on steroids!

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

True independence as a country requires one's own currency.

 

Well....in the end, after much haggling they would end up with the Euro.

2 hours ago, LennyW said:

I wish wee Krankie and the SNP would just disappear, they are an embarrassment to Scotland!!

 

You seem to be very much in the minority with that view. 

1 hour ago, Bangyai said:

 

Personally , I think that since the issue affects all members of the union any new referendum should involve English and Welsh voters too. The new referendum should be on devolution of the union and independence for all its member states.

 The states that then leave can re apply to join Europe as independent countries , create their own currencies etc etc.

 

So if 100% of Scottish voters chose to leave, but English, Welsh and NI voters preferred the status quo, that's fine with you? Don't you think that this would further foster upset? 

 

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

And there is the elephant in the corner of the debating chamber; currency. True independence as a country requires one's own currency. If you don't have one you are not independent - it is that fundemental; if you do not control your own currency you do not control your economic or fiscal policies.  The Scottish Nationalists will not declare a policy on the currency an independent Scotland will use. Without such a policy it is pure "pie in the sky politicking" - Brigadoon on steroids!

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no policy statement because there is no independence campaign underway. There are proposals being worked which will, I assume, be settled upon then incorporated into some policy document. 

 

What does 'Brigadoon on steroids" actually mean? I think Gorgeous George has said it on a few occasions but is there actually anything remotely meaningful in it, or is it just a pathetic attempt to paint independence as simply a foible of the less sophisticated Highlander? 

If the farce that was Brexit can teach us anything, it must be that dissolving a union is not simple, and that the relationship post dissolution needs to be carefully considered and defined.

 

I am not in favour of referendums, but if there is a Scottish referendum and if there is a vote for independence, then imo there should also be a subsequent referendum on the nature of the separation.

 

As an Englishman with no direct connections with Scotland, I don't expect a say in whether Scotland should adopt a completely independent national identity. However, I do expect a say in the terms of any separation as these terms will likely affect me. Normally I would expect the elected (Westminster) government to represent the views of the English/ Welsh and NI electorate, however the Brexit process clearly showed that separation means an almost incalculable amount of different things to different people. Hence, imo there would be a need to have a second referendum in England/ Wales and NI on the terms of any separation. Not so much 'two wrongs make a right' as 'two wrongs (referendums) make a less wrong'. Scotland would, of course, be free to organise a separate referendum on the terms.

 

Might this give die-hard unionists in England, Wales and NI an opportunity to scupper the implementation of a Scottish 'Leave' vote? Yes, it might. What happens if Scotland votes in favour of the terms and England/ Wales and NI do not? I don't know but it would be problematic.

 

As I suggested at the start, if Brexit has highlighted one thing, it's that dissolving an economic and/or political union is not easy.

15 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So if 100% of Scottish voters chose to leave, but English, Welsh and NI voters preferred the status quo, that's fine with you? Don't you think that this would further foster upset? 

 

 

But that definitely wont happen will it.  ( For the SDP this is their main problem . Getting as many Scotts to support independence as possible )

 

For starters many Welsh also want devolution so they will vote the same way as the Scottish voters who want independence. As for the Scotts , you are never ever going to get 100% of them voting for it. As with the Welsh, there will also be those who prefer the union. That is why the votes of the English are so important. The only sure fire way of getting devolution is to involve the ordinary English voter. There is a strange misguided belief that the average English person wants to prevent Scottish independence. This is wrong. I have never met an ordinary English person who thinks this way. Politicians and gutter tabloids do...yes. It keeps them in the public eye and makes them look erudite and important  , but the ordinary English voter likely has no objection to it. At least, I have never met any English person myself who is against Scottish independence. Certainly, if this forum is anything to go by , I don't see anyone English people crying into their beers at the thought of devolution.

 

I would also like to see the Catalans and Basques have independence but the European union would not support it.

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

And there is the elephant in the corner of the debating chamber; currency. True independence as a country requires one's own currency. If you don't have one you are not independent - it is that fundemental; if you do not control your own currency you do not control your economic or fiscal policies.  The Scottish Nationalists will not declare a policy on the currency an independent Scotland will use. Without such a policy it is pure "pie in the sky politicking" - Brigadoon on steroids!

 

 

 

 

 

 

More than half (57%) of No voters said the pound was one of the most important factors in their decision

Finally, for how long do Scottish voters think the question of independence will remain settled? A majority of those who voted No said they thought the issue was now resolved for at least a generation (28%) or forever (25%).

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/09/scotland-voted/

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

If the farce that was Brexit can teach us anything, it must be that dissolving a union is not simple, and that the relationship post dissolution needs to be carefully considered and defined.

 

I am not in favour of referendums, but if there is a Scottish referendum and if there is a vote for independence, then imo there should also be a subsequent referendum on the nature of the separation.

 

As an Englishman with no direct connections with Scotland, I don't expect a say in whether Scotland should adopt a completely independent national identity. However, I do expect a say in the terms of any separation as these terms will likely affect me. Normally I would expect the elected (Westminster) government to represent the views of the English/ Welsh and NI electorate, however the Brexit process clearly showed that separation means an almost incalculable amount of different things to different people. Hence, imo there would be a need to have a second referendum in England/ Wales and NI on the terms of any separation. Not so much 'two wrongs make a right' as 'two wrongs (referendums) make a less wrong'. Scotland would, of course, be free to organise a separate referendum on the terms.

 

Might this give die-hard unionists in England, Wales and NI an opportunity to scupper the implementation of a Scottish 'Leave' vote? Yes, it might. What happens if Scotland votes in favour of the terms and England/ Wales and NI do not? I don't know but it would be problematic.

 

As I suggested at the start, if Brexit has highlighted one thing, it's that dissolving an economic and/or political union is not easy.

 

If Brexit taught us anything, it is that complex negotiations are difficult enough for a small group of people - throwing that open to a plebiscite is surely a recipe for disaster? Because let's face it, as Brexit or the PR referendum have shown us, the British electorate cannot be trusted to comprehend the full implications of what is presented to it, and vote rationally. 

 

But in regards to your last sentence, the difficulty of a task should not be overlooked, but if the end goal is worth it, it should be no more than a factor for consideration. 

"The Nationalists have no justification asking for another referendum"!

6 minutes ago, Bangyai said:

 

But that definitely wont happen will it.  ( For the SDP this is their main problem . Getting as many Scotts to support independence as possible )

 

For starters many Welsh also want devolution so they will vote the same way as the Scottish voters who want independence. As for the Scotts , you are never ever going to get 100% of them voting for it. As with the Welsh, there will also be those who prefer the union. That is why the votes of the English are so important. The only sure fire way of getting devolution is to involve the ordinary English voter. There is a strange misguided belief that the average English person wants to prevent Scottish independence. This is wrong. I have never met an ordinary English person who thinks this way. Politicians and gutter tabloids do...yes. It keeps them in the public eye and makes them look erudite and important  , but the ordinary English voter likely has no objection to it. At least, I have never met any English person myself who is against Scottish independence. Certainly, if this forum is anything to go by , I don't see anyone English people crying into their beers at the thought of devolution.

 

I would also like to see the Catalans and Basques have independence but the European union would not support it.

 

I wasn't being literal, more an appeal to extremes. I was suggesting that there could be a case where there is an overwhelming appetite in Scotland to secede, while the rest of the UK is nonplussed or against it, and the result is that Scottish votes are simply nullified by those from elsewhere in the UK. That would create a very difficult situation for the whole of the UK.

 

There are some on this forum who have circulated a petition to abolish devolution and close the Scottish parliament; mostly English people as far as I can tell, but nonetheless, they exist. 

 

Equating Scotland to the Catalan or Basque situations is not particularly correct. Both these regions were subsumed into a larger country. Scotland remains a country in a union with other countries. 

1 hour ago, Bangyai said:

 

Well....in the end, after much haggling they would end up with the Euro.

Yes, but before they can join the Euro, wouldn't they have to show that they can manage their economy and fiscal policies, within the required parameters using their own currency.

 

A bit of a Caledonian catch 22!

2 hours ago, vogie said:

Scotland was never in the EU, it was the UK that was in the EU, so Scotland could't re-join the EU because they were never in it. And they have about as much chance of joining the EU as me joining The Parachute Regt.

 

0700 outside the gym tomorrow, trousers LW, boots DMS, red PT vest.

CEFO with full water bottles.

P Coy starts then...

1 minute ago, herfiehandbag said:

0700 outside the gym tomorrow, trousers LW, boots DMS, red PT vest.

CEFO with full water bottles.

P Coy starts then...

The nearest I'll ever get to the Paras is The Globe in Aldershot.

4 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Yes, but before they can join the Euro, wouldn't they have to show that they can manage their economy and fiscal policies, within the required parameters using their own currency.

 

A bit of a Caledonian catch 22!

 

Why would it be challenging? Scotland generates around £60 billion per year in taxation etc. The SG receives £30 billion for managing its remit. The rest of this notional deficit is run up by Westminster. On day 1 we will have transferred all spending decisions to Edinburgh, with the intention of making better choices as to where our resources are directed.

32 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

There is no policy statement because there is no independence campaign underway. There are proposals being worked which will, I assume, be settled upon then incorporated into some policy document. 

What!!!???

I have no strong thoughts either way, if Scotland wants independence, then they should have it, but surely before any vote / referendum can be conducted, surely their must be a policy in place and one which details all aspects of how seperation will be made. Have we learned nothing from the fiasco of Brexit ?

16 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If Brexit taught us anything, it is that complex negotiations are difficult enough for a small group of people - throwing that open to a plebiscite is surely a recipe for disaster? Because let's face it, as Brexit or the PR referendum have shown us, the British electorate cannot be trusted to comprehend the full implications of what is presented to it, and vote rationally. 

 

I am confused. I thought that you favoured a referendum on independence? The sentiments here suggest otherwise.

 

16 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

But in regards to your last sentence, the difficulty of a task should not be overlooked, but if the end goal is worth it, it should be no more than a factor for consideration. 

 

I doubt many people would disagree with your sentiment, but it doesn't offer any solutions to the issues I raised.

Just now, sidgy said:

What!!!???

I have no strong thoughts either way, if Scotland wants independence, then they should have it, but surely before any vote / referendum can be conducted, surely their must be a policy in place and one which details all aspects of how seperation will be made. Have we learned nothing from the fiasco of Brexit ?

 

You are 100% correct - but as there is no referendum proposed, there is no campaign underway for winning it. Once a referendum is slated, then the policy papers will be issued. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not downplaying the importance of crystal clear proposals being made available to the electorate, but at this point it would simply be an aspirational document.

35 minutes ago, RayC said:

If the farce that was Brexit can teach us anything, it must be that dissolving a union is not simple, and that the relationship post dissolution needs to be carefully considered and defined.

 

I am not in favour of referendums, but if there is a Scottish referendum and if there is a vote for independence, then imo there should also be a subsequent referendum on the nature of the separation.

 

As an Englishman with no direct connections with Scotland, I don't expect a say in whether Scotland should adopt a completely independent national identity. However, I do expect a say in the terms of any separation as these terms will likely affect me. Normally I would expect the elected (Westminster) government to represent the views of the English/ Welsh and NI electorate, however the Brexit process clearly showed that separation means an almost incalculable amount of different things to different people. Hence, imo there would be a need to have a second referendum in England/ Wales and NI on the terms of any separation. Not so much 'two wrongs make a right' as 'two wrongs (referendums) make a less wrong'. Scotland would, of course, be free to organise a separate referendum on the terms.

 

Might this give die-hard unionists in England, Wales and NI an opportunity to scupper the implementation of a Scottish 'Leave' vote? Yes, it might. What happens if Scotland votes in favour of the terms and England/ Wales and NI do not? I don't know but it would be problematic.

 

As I suggested at the start, if Brexit has highlighted one thing, it's that dissolving an economic and/or political union is not easy.

I hope the Scots get a chance to finally regain their freedom from English rule. It will be a great day if this happens and will decimate the UK even more. 

 

It would be the ultimate slap in the face of the Brexiteers. It would certainly make me smile a lot. 

 

But I do agree that unlike that stupid Brexit there need to be two votes and a lot less lies. The UK would never have left the EU if there were votes about how to leave because then all the lies could not have swayed the voters.

Anyway Brexit has changed things now the Scots should have the chance to change too. But with a referendum about the nature of the separation and not as many lies as Brexiteers told. 

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I am confused. I thought that you favoured a referendum on independence? The sentiments here suggest otherwise.

 

 

Referenda are problematic - I think we can all agree on that, but a binary choice is much easier to present to the electorate than a complex, multi-layered package of options about the terms of a separation, which most of the electorate will likely not read, let alone understand. 

 

But don''t forget, not every country which seceded from the UK have used referenda to do so. 

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You are 100% correct - but as there is no referendum proposed, there is no campaign underway for winning it. Once a referendum is slated, then the policy papers will be issued. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not downplaying the importance of crystal clear proposals being made available to the electorate, but at this point it would simply be an aspirational document.

Yes I agree things should be clear and without lies. Not a repeat of Brexit. If the Scots want to go they need to be swayed by real facts not lies and false promises. It needs to be realistic.

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Referenda are problematic - I think we can all agree on that, but a binary choice is much easier to present to the electorate than a complex, multi-layered package of options about the terms of a separation, which most of the electorate will likely not read, let alone understand. 

 

But don''t forget, not every country which seceded from the UK have used referenda to do so. 

But dont you think things should be super clear what they are voting for. I mean not make false promises just to get them to leave or stay. I mean why sink to the level of BJ and his ilk.