Scottish nationalists set for record majority, boosting independence push

[Sujo]

38 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

So referendums on Scottish independence should be held as often as Holyrood deems necessary without any input from Westminster? There should be no consideration of the effect that the process and (possible) divorce has on the rest of the UK? And what happens if unionists become the majority again in subsequent years? The UK simply welcomes back Scotland until it decides it wants to leave again?

It should be held as many times as the scottish representatives want. Thats up to them to decide. No country should be told it cannot leave by others.

 

No, westminster should have no say, just as eu had no say about uk leaving.

 

No one has suggested scotland can rejoin uk, that would be up to the members of the uk, not scotland.

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Honestly? I'd say it speaks volumes about many Scots intense dislike of The English, sorry I mean Westminster, and their gullibility in following a shyster like Sturgeon.

 

I really pity the Scottish Unionists who are going to watch their once proud nation disintegrate if the puppet master Sturgeon gets her way. I really do.

I suspect that any identifiable Scottish Unionists will find the political and social climate in an independent Scotland so hostile that they will move south of the border.

[transam]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The only thing I know about Queen Anne is that she was buried sitting upright. Oh, and she was a queen, not a king. And she was English, not Scottish. So I know 3 things about her. 

 

But regardless, what happened 300 years ago bears no relevance on today. 

Doesn't it, well Queen Victoria's reign wasn't that long ago, was it, the UK was still doing its thing.

You should be proud of our 300 year union, made us one of the most respected nations on earth, they even use our lingo..????

 

Off topic...This will cheer you up, take a look at this photo, it "was" a near dustbin job, a friends Grandfather, I said give it to me, I will work on it. Not only did I work on it, I colourised it..He tells me pop was in the Black Watch, I have tried to confirm it with not much luck. I got to Boer War, Lance Corporal and Marksman...Can you verify ..????

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

I suspect that any identifiable Scottish Unionists will find the political and social climate in an independent Scotland so hostile that they will move south of the border.

 

What gives you that impression? Have you seen any indication of widespread animosity towards unionists? What have you seen that make you think things are going to be hostile? 

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

No its more basic then that IMO. The English have still idea's of grandeur and a longing for past time when the UK counted for something with a big empire. The Scots and Irish were never that proud of it actually being conquered too by the English in the past. So they don't suffer from the same problems.

 

The English were easily convinced by liar BJ and now project fear is project reality with all the things coming true. Empty shelves bad economy and so on and so on. Fishing sector that is suffering not flourishing (how ironic). The Scots and Irish were less convinced by BJ and his nationalistic talk. They were more realists while Brexiteers were more dreamers. 

That is my opinion not fact but that is the way i see it. 

You "see it" utterly, comprehensively wrongly. You appear to have a fantastic fixation that somehow the English still mourn the passing of the British Empire - an organisation which ceased to exist over fifty years ago for goodness sake!

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Doesn't it, well Queen Victoria's reign wasn't that long ago, was it, the UK was still doing its thing.

You should be proud of our 300 year union, made us one of the most respected nations on earth, they even use our lingo..????

 

Off topic...This will cheer you up, take a look at this photo, it "was" a near dustbin job, a friends Grandfather, I said give it to me, I will work on it. Not only did I work on it, I colourised it..He tells me pop was in the Black Watch, I have tried to confirm it with not much luck. I got to Boer War, Lance Corporal and Marksman...Can you verify ..????

Its nice to see people living in centuries gone by.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, herfiehandbag said:

You "see it" utterly, comprehensively wrongly. You appear to have a fantastic fixation that somehow the English still mourn the passing of the British Empire - an organisation which ceased to exist over fifty years ago for goodness sake!

Perhaps you should look at a poster before you that regales the british empire.

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, transam said:

Doesn't it, well Queen Victoria's reign wasn't that long ago, was it, the UK was still doing its thing.

You should be proud of our 300 year union, made us one of the most respected nations on earth, they even use our lingo..????

 

Off topic...This will cheer you up, take a look at this photo, it "was" a near dustbin job, a friends Grandfather, I said give it to me, I will work on it. Not only did I work on it, I colourised it..He tells me pop was in the Black Watch, I have tried to confirm it with not much luck. I got to Boer War, Lance Corporal and Marksman...Can you verify ..????

 

He's a handsome chap indeed. I don't come from a military family so I know very little about military history, I am afraid. I hope he managed to survive whatever hellish conflict he found himself in and had a peaceful life afterwards.

 

Good job on the colouring, but the way - its remarkable just how relatable the addition of colour makes old photographs. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by RuamRudy

[transam]

Just now, Sujo said:

Its nice to see people living in centuries gone by.

It's called history, librarys are full of books on it, and guess what, folk go there to read it.....

[transam]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

He's a handsome chap indeed. I don't come from a military family so I know very little about military history, I am afraid. I hope he managed to survive whatever hellish conflict he found himself in and had a peaceful life afterwards. 

Yes he did.....

[herfiehandbag]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

What gives you that impression? Have you seen any indication of widespread animosity towards unionists? What have you seen that make you think things are going to be hostile? 

It is a suspicion, no more. I would love to proved wrong, however  marked antipathy to opponents of independence is something of a feature of nationalist movements.

[herfiehandbag]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

He's a handsome chap indeed. I don't come from a military family so I know very little about military history, I am afraid. I hope he managed to survive whatever hellish conflict he found himself in and had a peaceful life afterwards.

 

Good job on the colouring, but the way - its remarkable just how relatable the addition of colour makes old photographs. 

Black Watch I think - tropical "walking  out dress". 

 

As a regular soldier at the turn of the century he would almost certainly have been recalled to service in 1914, I hope he survived - not many did!

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, herfiehandbag said:

It is a suspicion, no more. I would love to proved wrong, however  marked antipathy to opponents of independence is something of a feature of nationalist movements.

 

Because of covid, I spent the majority of the past 12 months in Scotland catching up with family and friends (in socially distant environments and within the prevailing guidelines, of course). 

 

I mixed with people of all persuasion - the "I" word rarely came up, and when it did there were a mix of views, but I have never seen anything to suggest that there was a simmering threat of violence. People argue, of course, but as they argue about left or right politics, celtic or rangers, sauce or vinegar on your chips. There is no great fomenting of anger or recrimination. 

 

I really think you are falling for a line here. 

[herfiehandbag]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Because of covid, I spent the majority of the past 12 months in Scotland catching up with family and friends (in socially distant environments and within the prevailing guidelines, of course). 

 

I mixed with people of all persuasion - the "I" word rarely came up, and when it did there were a mix of views, but I have never seen anything to suggest that there was a simmering threat of violence. People argue, of course, but as they argue about left or right politics, celtic or rangers, sauce or vinegar on your chips. There is no great fomenting of anger or recrimination. 

 

I really think you are falling for a line here. 

I hope so - we can only wait and see, should independence come to pass.

Edited February 2, 2021 by herfiehandbag

[sharksy]

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Why would the islanders want to? Where would they go? With international maritime law clearly defined, the islanders would have a very small patch of sea from which to build an economy. 

 

I presume that if such an occurrence was raised, all our brexiteer friends would ask which currency they would use. 

Oil & Gas.   And Fishing.

Would make a small number of people rather wealthy.

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/266329/shetland-oil-and-revenues-self-determination-bid/

Edited February 2, 2021 by sharksy

[bkkcanuck8]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Because of covid, I spent the majority of the past 12 months in Scotland catching up with family and friends (in socially distant environments and within the prevailing guidelines, of course). 

 

I mixed with people of all persuasion - the "I" word rarely came up, and when it did there were a mix of views, but I have never seen anything to suggest that there was a simmering threat of violence. People argue, of course, but as they argue about left or right politics, celtic or rangers, sauce or vinegar on your chips. There is no great fomenting of anger or recrimination. 

 

I really think you are falling for a line here. 

There is no debate.... chips require vinegar... "I have spoken"...

[RayC]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

On your last point, if the 60 odd countries that have slipped the yoke of the empire, not a single one has looked back with regret. I very much doubt Scotland will buck that trend. 

 

Perhaps not, but on the other hand a major difference between Scotland and those 60 odd countries is that 70+% of the latter nations' populations were in favour of independence, not split down the middle as in the case in Scotland.

 

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

As for the rest of it, the people of Scotland will decide what is best for them. It's as simple as that. 

 

Which rather proves my point. You believe Scotland can hold referendums on independence as frequently as it likes - presumably because referendum results have no time validity? -  and the only 'role' that the UK gets to play in this process is to drop all other business to deal with the 'divorce' settlement.

 

You continue to use the word 'simple' in your posts without acknowledging that there are numerous problems to dealt with, both in the process itself and the effects of the result (whatever it may be). I raised some of these in a previous post, but received no reply.

 

Incidentally and purely out of curiosity on my part. If Scotland does become independent but was unable to rejoin the EU (for whatever reason), do you believe that a referendum should then be held on the possibility of rejoining the UK?

[RayC]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

It should be held as many times as the scottish representatives want. Thats up to them to decide. No country should be told it cannot leave by others.

(See also my reply to@ruamrudy)

 

 It is possible that the SNP will be elected with an overall majority this year, and will form the Scottish government until 2025.  You would see no problem in them calling an independence referendum as often as they want until then? Strikes me as a 'beat them into submission' policy (no pun intended).

 

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

 

No, westminster should have no say, just as eu had no say about uk leaving

 

The comparison is completely misplaced. Until Scotland cedes from the UK, Westminster remains the sovereign body. Whether that it is right or wrong; good or bad is irrelevant. That is the legal position, and therefore Westminster will have a role to play in Scotland's affairs.

 

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

 

No one has suggested scotland can rejoin uk, that would be up to the members of the uk, not scotland.

 

And therein lies a problem and (another) reason why referendums must have some time validity.

 

Moreover, polls suggest that currently 45% of Scots wish to remain in the UK. The UK has a moral - and probably legal? - duty of care to these individuals which is another reason why Westminster must be involved in this process. Likewise, if the majority of the population of a future independent Scotland wanted to rejoin the UK, I'd suggest that the same moral obligation would exist.

 

The bottom line is the issue of Scottish independence is not simple, and the UK's role cannot be limited to that of passive observer as you suggest.

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

There is no debate.... chips require vinegar... "I have spoken"...

 

Fully agree - this is more of an east coast /west coast thing, a bit like the hip hop battles in the US in the 90s, except more serious! 

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, sharksy said:

Oil & Gas.   And Fishing.

Would make a small number of people rather wealthy.

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/266329/shetland-oil-and-revenues-self-determination-bid/

I appreciate that this is the concept being floated, but coastal states extend 12 nautical miles from their coast. After that, the mass of the neighbouring states come into play. Scotland is not massive by any means, but it is significantly larger than the shetland. 

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, transam said:

It's called history, librarys are full of books on it, and guess what, folk go there to read it.....

That is so last century.

 

btw, one doesnt just read history books, one is taught to comprehend the issues. Someone that just reads is not educated.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Sujo

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Perhaps not, but on the other hand a major difference between Scotland and those 60 odd countries is that 70+% of the latter nations' populations were in favour of independence, not split down the middle as in the case in Scotland.

 

 

Which rather proves my point. You believe Scotland can hold referendums on independence as frequently as it likes - presumably because referendum results have no time validity? -  and the only 'role' that the UK gets to play in this process is to drop all other business to deal with the 'divorce' settlement.

 

You continue to use the word 'simple' in your posts without acknowledging that there are numerous problems to dealt with, both in the process itself and the effects of the result (whatever it may be). I raised some of these in a previous post, but received no reply.

 

Incidentally and purely out of curiosity on my part. If Scotland does become independent but was unable to rejoin the EU (for whatever reason), do you believe that a referendum should then be held on the possibility of rejoining the UK?

 

I have stated repeatedly since I joined TVF in the run up to the first indyref that I was under no illusions that separation would bring challenges and difficulties. I have also stated repeatedly that challenges and difficulties are no justification for doing nothing.

 

Scotland does not clamour for referenda willy nilly. We have had a total of 2 for solely Scottish matters since 1979. If 2014 has been concluded as promised by Brown and Cameron, and if the material changes had not occurred, the liklihood is that we would not be having this debate now. 

 

As for your final question, I believe in democracy. I cannot call for it to be respected now if I would not be prepared to respect it in the future, even if it went against what I felt was right. 

[youreavinalaff]

27 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I believe in democracy

Excellent. So you will also believe that those eligible to vote in the 2014 referendum voted "NO". 

 

You also believe that "UK", not England or Scotland, Wales or N Ireland, voted "Leave" in the 2016 referendum.

[RayC]

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I have stated repeatedly since I joined TVF in the run up to the first indyref that I was under no illusions that separation would bring challenges and difficulties. I have also stated repeatedly that challenges and difficulties are no justification for doing nothing.

 

Scotland does not clamour for referenda willy nilly. We have had a total of 2 for solely Scottish matters since 1979. If 2014 has been concluded as promised by Brown and Cameron, and if the material changes had not occurred, the liklihood is that we would not be having this debate now. 

 

As for your final question, I believe in democracy. I cannot call for it to be respected now if I would not be prepared to respect it in the future, even if it went against what I felt was right. 

 

That is all rather evasive.

 

You still refuse to acknowledge that the referendum process impacts the rest of the UK, that Westminster must play a part in the process or that the result of a referendum should be valid for a certain period of time.

 

You often accuse Westminster of displaying an arrogant attitude towards Scotland, but you seem content to see the roles reversed here.

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Excellent. So you will also believe that those eligible to vote in the 2014 referendum voted "NO". 

 

 

Some did, some didn't. Every vote was valid. 

 

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You also believe that "UK", not England or Scotland, Wales or N Ireland, voted "Leave" in the 2016 referendum.

 

Of course, and if the results were equally spread across the Scotland as they were in England and Wales then it might be irrelevant. But there was a clear difference and unmistakable difference in what is wanted by Scots and English voters. Couple that to membership of the EU being a key plank of the better together campaign of 2014 and it all seems a tad unfair from where I am / we are sitting. 

[youreavinalaff]

24 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Some did, some didn't. Every vote was valid. 

 

 

Of course, and if the results were equally spread across the Scotland as they were in England and Wales then it might be irrelevant. But there was a clear difference and unmistakable difference in what is wanted by Scots and English voters. Couple that to membership of the EU being a key plank of the better together campaign of 2014 and it all seems a tad unfair from where I am / we are sitting. 

The results were equally spread across the UK. Neither Scotland or England had a vote. The vote was by UK voters.

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

That is all rather evasive.

 

You still refuse to acknowledge that the referendum process impacts the rest of the UK, that Westminster must play a part in the process or that the result of a referendum should be valid for a certain period of time.

 

You often accuse Westminster of displaying an arrogant attitude towards Scotland, but you seem content to see the roles reversed here.

 

Its not evasive at all. If you want me to spell out every nuance of every facet of a referendum, sorry but maybe it's so obvious that I expect you to be able to fill in the blanks yourself. 

 

But just how much consideration should we give the rest of the UK? Should we drop the idea entirely because it has consequences elsewhere? In that case, independence would be impossible. 

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

The results were equally spread across the UK. Neither Scotland or England had a vote. The vote was by UK voters.

Who live in different countries. Let scotland self determine.

[Sujo]

6 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Excellent. So you will also believe that those eligible to vote in the 2014 referendum voted "NO". 

 

You also believe that "UK", not England or Scotland, Wales or N Ireland, voted "Leave" in the 2016 referendum.

Where in the agreement does it state there can only ever be one vote for independence.

[youreavinalaff]

38 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Where in the agreement does it state there can only ever be one vote for independence.

Where in my post did I say it does?