45 minutes ago, Sujo said:

 

it should not be for anyone else to decide what that country wants to do and when it wants to do it.

Exactly right. It should be up to everyone within that country to decide when, where, who, how, etc. 

 

So let's do it. Everyone within the country, the UK in this case, get together and decide how to move forward with the idea of independence for anyone who wants it.

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Exactly right. It should be up to everyone within that country to decide when, where, who, how, etc. 

 

So let's do it. Everyone within the country, the UK in this case, get together and decide how to move forward with the idea of independence for anyone who wants it.

Scotland is a country. Uk is a union of countries, like the ussr was. Surprised you dont know that. 

 

I can understand individual countries deciding as a whole who can join. But never understand a country being told by others that it cannot leave.

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Exactly right. It should be up to everyone within that country to decide when, where, who, how, etc. 

 

So let's do it. Everyone within the country, the UK in this case, get together and decide how to move forward with the idea of independence for anyone who wants it.

Did everyone in the EU get a vote on Brexit?

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Scotland is a country. Uk is a union of countries, like the ussr was. Surprised you dont know that. 

 

I can understand individual countries deciding as a whole who can join. But never understand a country being told by others that it cannot leave.

Incorrect. In order to be an independent country one has to have an independent government. Therefore, UK is an independent country. If one entity of that country would wish to become independent then all parties must be involved in negotiations.

 

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Did everyone in the EU get a vote on Brexit?

I did not mention anything about a vote. I said everyone should have a part in deciding the way forward. It is my understanding that, following the referendum in which the UK (the independent nation that was seeking to withdraw from the EU) decided they wanted to leave, there were quite lengthy talks and negotiations with regards to when and how. and the EU were involved.

 

So, it would be fair to suggest that if Scotland gets indyref2, something I believe they have the right to and have never suggested otherwise, and the vote leave, it would then require negotiations with all parties in UK taking part.

 

 

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

Incorrect. In order to be an independent country one has to have an independent government. Therefore, UK is an independent country. If one entity of that country would wish to become independent then all parties must be involved in negotiations.

 

I did not mention anything about a vote. I said everyone should have a part in deciding the way forward. It is my understanding that, following the referendum in which the UK (the independent nation that was seeking to withdraw from the EU) decided they wanted to leave, there were quite lengthy talks and negotiations with regards to when and how. and the EU were involved.

 

So, it would be fair to suggest that if Scotland gets indyref2, something I believe they have the right to and have never suggested otherwise, and the vote leave, it would then require negotiations with all parties in UK taking part.

 

 

 

All parties will have a role in the negotiations after independence. No-one has ever disputed that.

What is a bone of contention is a country being held in a union against its will.

Do you want to see Scotland held in the UK against its will? 

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

All parties will have a role in the negotiations after independence. No-one has ever disputed that.

What is a bone of contention is a country being held in a union against its will.

Do you want to see Scotland held in the UK against its will? 

If you read the post I quoted from another poster who wrote "Scotland should decide what and when", that is what I was referring to. Many of his posts suggest that the whole process of Scottish independence is up to them and them alone.

 

You @Rookiescothave replied to many of my posts, many of which have shown that I have no dispute with indyref2.

 

What I do dispute is when people appear in denial that a referendum has already taken place, when they blame England and England alone for being in the union and when they suggest that Scottish independence has nothing to do with the rest of the UK.

 

The UK is an independent country in it's own right and that cannot be disputed. If some would like to leave and create their own independent country, taking things that they desire with them but leaving what they don't want behind, that needs to be discussed.

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

If you read the post I quoted from another poster who wrote "Scotland should decide what and when", that is what I was referring to. Many of his posts suggest that the whole process of Scottish independence is up to them and them alone.

 

You @Rookiescothave replied to many of my posts, many of which have shown that I have no dispute with indyref2.

 

What I do dispute is when people appear in denial that a referendum has already taken place, when they blame England and England alone for being in the union and when they suggest that Scottish independence has nothing to do with the rest of the UK.

 

The UK is an independent country in it's own right and that cannot be disputed. If some would like to leave and create their own independent country, taking things that they desire with them but leaving what they don't want behind, that needs to be discussed.

 

Then we are in agreement then. Scotland should be allowed to hold a referendum at a time it chooses and the rest of the UK will be involved in the negotiations after that vote?

 

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Then we are in agreement then. Scotland should be allowed to hold a referendum at a time it chooses and the rest of the UK will be involved in the negotiations after that vote?

 

I have never said any different.

 

However, I do believe that in the current climate of the Covid19 virus, it would be better if it were later rather than sooner. I do believe this was mentioned in the draft released yesterday. I read that Ms. Sturgeon suggested the first half of the next term following May elections. So within the next 2.5 years or so.

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

I have never said any different.

 

However, I do believe that in the current climate of the Covid19 virus, it would be better if it were later rather than sooner. I do believe this was mentioned in the draft released yesterday. I read that Ms. Sturgeon suggested the first half of the next term following May elections. So within the next 2.5 years or so.

 

That will be up to the Scottish government but I see no difference in holding general elections, local elections and Holyrood elections compared to a referendum.

Is this the most offensive headline of the day? The sheer arrogance of a goverment without a mandate in Scotland lamenting that they gave Scots the power to manage covid response in Scotland - thank god we had Sturgeon in charge or the death toll would have, undoubtedly, been higher. 

ONE YEAR ON Boris Johnson was ‘naive’ to give Nicola Sturgeon pandemic powers, Cabinet colleagues claim

 

BORIS Johnson should have used sweeping civil contingencies powers to cut out Nicola Sturgeon from the Covid response, Cabinet colleagues claim. 

And a year on, some around the top table say the PM regrets his decision not to do so.

I think Sturgeon should declare UDI if she is reelected in May.

That will leave Scotland without a currency, without trade agreements, without passports and heavily in debt to the remainder of the UK.

4 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

I think Sturgeon should declare UDI if she is reelected in May.

That will leave Scotland without a currency, without trade agreements, without passports and heavily in debt to the remainder of the UK.

 

- UDI would be illegal in the eyes of the world and would cause problems long term. I know nobody who sees this as a desirable option while we still have a democratic process to follow. 

- Scotland already has a currency and will develop its own to relinquish the need to rely on a pre-independence legacy, especially one with such a troubling future ahead of it.

- Trade agreements are the easiest thing in the world to negotiate and we will hold all the cards ((TM) Brexiteers).

- Passports are not uniquely British in concept, design or manufacture. In fact, I understand that the UK cannot even manufacture their own so government has had to go to a better organised European country to do it for them.

- Debt will be negotiated (assuming that we don't go down the UDI route) and will be reasonable and transparent. But the debt will be to the holders of the bonds, not to rUK, which already has eye-watering levels of debt itself (albeit to the same people). bkkcanuck8 has posted some very good write-ups of debt management and future trade opportunities. 

Two new independence polls have been published by Hanbury Strategy.

The first, taken between 12th February and 1st March, has Yes at 56% and No at 44%. 

The second, polled between 5th and 9th March, has Yes at 53% and No at 47%.

(LINK)

 

A couple of (to me) interesting points: over 80% of people in the 18 to 34yo group support independence; Only the 55+ age groups have majority support for the status quo. 

Edited March 25, 20215 yr by RuamRudy

On 3/23/2021 at 1:46 PM, Rookiescot said:

 

That will be up to the Scottish government but I see no difference in holding general elections, local elections and Holyrood elections compared to a referendum.

I see a lot of difference! Its a totally different animal.

7 minutes ago, Jimbo53 said:

I see a lot of difference! Its a totally different animal.

 

In what way?

On 3/22/2021 at 12:50 AM, Rookiescot said:

 

Debunked more times than I care to remember.

Only by the pro-independence clan in Scotland.

28 minutes ago, Yahooka said:

Only by the pro-independence clan in Scotland.

 

First of all there is no independence clan. If you even a basic grasp of how the clan system worked you would know that.

Second of all it has been debunked dozens if not hundreds of times even here on Thai Visa.

If you had even a basic grasp of Scottish independence you would know that.

2 hours ago, Yahooka said:

On 3/21/2021 at 11:50 PM, Rookiescot said:

 

Debunked more times than I care to remember.

Only by the pro-independence clan in Scotland.

 

And, amongst others, the Spanish government! They have been denying reports that they would veto any application to join the EU by an independent Scotland since at least 2012!

 

For example, from June 2019: Spanish government confirms no EU veto for an independent Scotland

Quote

The Spanish government has clarified that if Scotland becomes an independent state, it will not have to "wait in line" to become a full member of the European Union, nor would Spain veto its membership application.

 

And now the Alba party.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/26/alex-salmond-launches-new-independence-focused-political-party-alba

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/03/26/alex-salmond-make-statement-2pm-amid-speculation-return-politics/

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19190279.salmond-stand-holyrood-feud-sturgeon-deepens/

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alba-party-alex-salmond-announces-bid-to-return-to-holyrood-as-leader-of-new-pro-independence-party-3180084

 

 

On 3/22/2021 at 11:16 PM, RuamRudy said:

Now that Sturgeon has been cleared of misconduct, hopefully we can get down to real business. 

 

Scottish independence: Draft bill for indyref2 published

Hey, Rudy.

As you know we clashed before over Indyref2, as I hope Scotland remains in the UK. Still do, in fact.

BUT, were I a Scot, given Brexit and the prospect of perpetual Tory (mis)rule, I would be baying to get the hell away from the UK, so I don't blame the Scots one little bit. You should definately have this referendum, in my opinion. Best of luck to you.

9 hours ago, NanLaew said:

And now the Alba party.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/26/alex-salmond-launches-new-independence-focused-political-party-alba

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/03/26/alex-salmond-make-statement-2pm-amid-speculation-return-politics/

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19190279.salmond-stand-holyrood-feud-sturgeon-deepens/

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alba-party-alex-salmond-announces-bid-to-return-to-holyrood-as-leader-of-new-pro-independence-party-3180084

 

 

 

It's maybe worth pointing out that this is not a disaster for the independence movement - in fact, it will hopefully return more independence supporting MSPs. The unionists, on paper, should be very concerned, as should the Greens.

 

@Nanlaew, I have no intention of teaching you to suck eggs, but possibly some others may be unaware of the Holyrood voting process. 

 

Alba proposes to run only on the regional list and not contest constituency seats. The SNP's strength in the constituency vote means that, under the D'Hondt method of 'Additional Member System', they are negatively impacted by that in the list allocation. At the last election, while securing 59 constituency seats, they only took 4 regional seats because of how they are 'penalised' for their constituency success. 

 

Therefore, if Alba can convince the independence voters that Salmond is to be trusted, they can come in and sweep up independence voters' regional votes, which would normally have been wasted on the SNP or gone to the Greens.

 

This means that the unionists need to work extra hard as they will no longer benefit from the SNP's expected success in the constituency vote.  And, unfortunately, it means that the Greens now have a challenge to maintain their position, as people who voted for them on the basis of their support for independence now have a 'big hitter' to whom they can give their vote.

 

Edited March 27, 20215 yr by RuamRudy

7 hours ago, baboon said:

Hey, Rudy.

As you know we clashed before over Indyref2, as I hope Scotland remains in the UK. Still do, in fact.

BUT, were I a Scot, given Brexit and the prospect of perpetual Tory (mis)rule, I would be baying to get the hell away from the UK, so I don't blame the Scots one little bit. You should definately have this referendum, in my opinion. Best of luck to you.

 

Thank you baboon - my intention, of course, is for a better Scotland, however I hope that any seismic change in the British Isles has a positive impact on our neighbours too. I would love to see a resurgent, confident England, happy with its place in the world, without the unwarranted sense of exceptionalism that our politicians seem to encourage.

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

It's maybe worth pointing out that this is not a disaster for the independence movement - in fact, it will hopefully return more independence supporting MSPs. The unionists, on paper, should be very concerned, as should the Greens.

 

@Nanlaew, I have no intention of teaching you to suck eggs, but possibly some others may be unaware of the Holyrood voting process. 

 

Alba proposes to run only on the regional list and not contest constituency seats. The SNP's strength in the constituency vote means that, under the D'Hondt method of 'Additional Member System', they are negatively impacted by that in the list allocation. At the last election, while securing 59 constituency seats, they only took 4 regional seats because of how they are 'penalised' for their constituency success. 

 

Therefore, if Alba can convince the independence voters that Salmond is to be trusted, they can come in and sweep up independence voters' regional votes, which would normally have been wasted on the SNP or gone to the Greens.

 

This means that the unionists need to work extra hard as they will no longer benefit from the SNP's expected success in the constituency vote.  And, unfortunately, it means that the Greens now have a challenge to maintain their position, as people who voted for them on the basis of their support for independence now have a 'big hitter' to whom they can give their vote.

 

If Alex Salmons can heal is rift with NS then it gives SNP voters an opportunity for their votes to count twice.

The Alba party if it survives will be a proxy for the SNP/independence. Thus rendering the D'Hont method irrelevant.

The crunch will come when the Scottish Parliament sits. How will Alba and SNP representatives resolve their differences.

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

If Alex Salmons can heal is rift with NS then it gives SNP voters an opportunity for their votes to count twice.

The Alba party if it survives will be a proxy for the SNP/independence. Thus rendering the D'Hont method irrelevant.

The crunch will come when the Scottish Parliament sits. How will Alba and SNP representatives resolve their differences.

 

Salmond has already stated several times that people should still vote SNP in their constituency and Alba in their list votes.

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

It's maybe worth pointing out that this is not a disaster for the independence movement - in fact, it will hopefully return more independence supporting MSPs. The unionists, on paper, should be very concerned, as should the Greens.

 

@Nanlaew, I have no intention of teaching you to suck eggs, but possibly some others may be unaware of the Holyrood voting process. 

 

Alba proposes to run only on the regional list and not contest constituency seats. The SNP's strength in the constituency vote means that, under the D'Hondt method of 'Additional Member System', they are negatively impacted by that in the list allocation. At the last election, while securing 59 constituency seats, they only took 4 regional seats because of how they are 'penalised' for their constituency success. 

 

Therefore, if Alba can convince the independence voters that Salmond is to be trusted, they can come in and sweep up independence voters' regional votes, which would normally have been wasted on the SNP or gone to the Greens.

 

This means that the unionists need to work extra hard as they will no longer benefit from the SNP's expected success in the constituency vote.  And, unfortunately, it means that the Greens now have a challenge to maintain their position, as people who voted for them on the basis of their support for independence now have a 'big hitter' to whom they can give their vote.

 

Of course this means nothing if the Indyref2, which will hopefully be granted as desired, goes against independence.

 

The SNP had a majority in 2014 and still lost the referendum. I doubt unionists will be that much more worried just yet. 

 

Westminster certainly won't be. They have more pressing things to worry about. Maybe the Scottish government should too, with their Covid19 figures now the worst in UK.

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Of course this means nothing if the Indyref2, which will hopefully be granted as desired, goes against independence.

 

The SNP had a majority in 2014 and still lost the referendum. I doubt unionists will be that much more worried just yet. 

 

Westminster certainly won't be. They have more pressing things to worry about. Maybe the Scottish government should too, with their Covid19 figures now the worst in UK.

 

Your opening statement is a little redundant, don't you think? It's a bit like saying "it means nothing if the sun goes into red giant phase tomorrow". 

 

I suspect that the uk government is a little more concerned than you - they recognise that the amount they pocket from scotland exceeds what they return. 

 

But look on the bright side - it gave you an opportunity to slip in a bit of 'Scotland bad' at the end there. 

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Your opening statement is a little redundant, don't you think? It's a bit like saying "it means nothing if the sun goes into red giant phase tomorrow". 

 

I suspect that the uk government is a little more concerned than you - they recognise that the amount they pocket from scotland exceeds what they return. 

 

But look on the bright side - it gave you an opportunity to slip in a bit of 'Scotland bad' at the end there. 

All that I wrote is true. I know that you and your Rookie mate like to read into things differently but you can't change the truth.

 

Another fact is the the UK is one. Therefore, my reference to any part of the UK is in reference to the bigger picture. Rising Covid19 cases in one part could possibly impact the others. That is a concern for all.

Edited March 27, 20215 yr by youreavinalaff

20 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

All that I wrote is true. I know that you and your Rookie mate like to read into things differently but you can't change the truth.

 

Another fact is the the UK is one. Therefore, my reference to any part of the UK is in reference to the bigger picture. Rising Covid19 cases in one part could possibly impact the others. That is a concern for all.

Indeed, and it was the inability of our incompetent prime minister to, initially, understand the potential scale of the issue in the early days of the pandemic, then his failure to put into place appropriate border controls for almost a year which has exacerbated the UK's shameful death toll north to South. 

 

But that's off topic. Far more relevant is the possibility not of an independence majority in May, but an independence super majority. 

37 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I suspect that the uk government is a little more concerned than you - they recognise that the amount they pocket from scotland exceeds what they return. 

Are you using the slightly dated and unrevised 2013 figures? The ones that were used in 2019 as an arguement for independence?

 

If so, you must be assuming that North Sea oil is owned wholly by Scotland. That the oil prices are going to remain at a sustainable level, despite carbon level targets. I believe that part of the independence negotiations, if the Scottish government can ever convince the electorate to vote for it, will be to split income, expenditure and debt.

 

To base income so heavily on oil is not exactly a great platform for going independent.

 

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Indeed, and it was the inability of our incompetent prime minister to, initially, understand the potential scale of the issue in the early days of the pandemic, then his failure to put into place appropriate border controls for almost a year which has exacerbated the UK's shameful death toll north to South. 

It is my understanding that the devolved nations all had/have their own policies with regards to Covid19.

 

Surely if the Scottish government were so much more aware, foresight here not hindsight, they would have acted alone to kerb the virus on their own patch. Sadly they were not, as with the majority of world leaders, medical experts, scientists and WHO. Most of whom were constantly changing their views on several possible measures that could be taken. 

 

However, now that more is known about this virus, any increases in cases should be looked at as a serious matter. The public don't really help the cause. Glasgow seems to becoming a hotspot. Probably linked to the shameful behaviour of Celtic and Rangers fans recently. I suspect Bristol could go the same way soon.

5 hours ago, puchooay said:

Are you using the slightly dated and unrevised 2013 figures? The ones that were used in 2019 as an arguement for independence?

 

If so, you must be assuming that North Sea oil is owned wholly by Scotland. That the oil prices are going to remain at a sustainable level, despite carbon level targets. I believe that part of the independence negotiations, if the Scottish government can ever convince the electorate to vote for it, will be to split income, expenditure and debt.

 

To base income so heavily on oil is not exactly a great platform for going independent.

 

It is my understanding that the devolved nations all had/have their own policies with regards to Covid19.

 

Surely if the Scottish government were so much more aware, foresight here not hindsight, they would have acted alone to kerb the virus on their own patch. Sadly they were not, as with the majority of world leaders, medical experts, scientists and WHO. Most of whom were constantly changing their views on several possible measures that could be taken. 

 

However, now that more is known about this virus, any increases in cases should be looked at as a serious matter. The public don't really help the cause. Glasgow seems to becoming a hotspot. Probably linked to the shameful behaviour of Celtic and Rangers fans recently. I suspect Bristol could go the same way soon.

 

And yet Norway generates far more income from the same oil at the same price.

 

Why UK’s oil and gas revenues are dwarfed by Norway’s – Business for Scotland