Independence referendum: Scottish government loses indyref2 court case

[RuamRudy]

17 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Oven ready deals ?

I certainly hope that David Davis or Liz Truss aren't going to be advising.

 

Edit: I should add that I don't see brexit as being a good example of how trade negotiations generally go.

 

Brexit was borne of a sense of exceptionalism and arrogance. An independent Scotland will, I hope, play a far more conciliatory role in the world. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by RuamRudy

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Dear oh dear ????

 

Have you still not realized it's deliberate - to highlight the double standard of Scottish nationalists demanding exactly what they opposed so vehemently during Brexit? SMH. ????

I see the double-standards of you when you are happy to pull the WHOLE of the UK out of the EU but bemoan Scotland 'walking away from their biggest trading partner and all of the trade deals it had as part of the UK'.

And they're not 'demanding exactly what they opposed so vehemently during Brexit'. The SNP didn't want Brexit because of the self-imposed trade barriers. If Scotland was independent but back in the EU, the only countries they would have trouble dealing with in Europe would ironically be England, N Ireland and Wales.   

[hotandsticky]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Nonetheless the point stands, there is no legal reason a referendum cannot take place. Enough with  this ''once in a lifetime'' nonsense.

 

 

The only nonsense is the bleating about having another one because the last one didn't go the way you wanted.

 

 

I think generation was referred to, rather than lifetime  -  so sit back and wait, but you might not be around for the next one anyway.

[JonnyF]

11 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I see the double-standards of you when you are happy to pull the WHOLE of the UK out of the EU but bemoan Scotland 'walking away from their biggest trading partner and all of the trade deals it had as part of the UK'.

And they're not 'demanding exactly what they opposed so vehemently during Brexit'. The SNP didn't want Brexit because of the self-imposed trade barriers. If Scotland was independent but back in the EU, the only countries they would have trouble dealing with in Europe would ironically be England, N Ireland and Wales.   

The difference is, I accepted there would be some short term pain to Brexit, in the region of 5-10 years. I was happy to do that to regain sovereignty and expand our horizons outside of the failing federalist project.

 

On the other hand, our Scottish nationalists think they can walk away from the UK with no debt and be accepted into the EU with a fantastic deal a couple of days later. All the other countries who currently have trade deals with the UK will also sign trade deals within the week, despite them claiming it would take Britain half a decade. The UK will just laugh away this default on 180 billion pounds of debt and continue to trade with them just as before. No hard feelings and all that. No downsides when the Scots do it, just a noble, heroic escape from the auld enemy, the evil English ???? 

 

Furthermore, eco warrior and purporter of net zero, Nicola Sturgeon is going to transform into an oil baron and drill up half of the north sea. The Scots will be driving around in gold plated Rolls Royces. Dubai on Clyde. 

 

Delusional.

[RayC]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

What makes you think they could manage the debt effectively having just walked away from their biggest trading partner and all of the trade deals it had as part of the UK? Their economy would be in tatters.

Why would it be in the UK's interest to see an independent Scotland's economy left in tatters? The only reason would be vindictiveness.

 

An independent Scotland would not sever economic links with the remainder of the UK overnight. It would be in both parties' interests to make the divorce proceed as smoothly as possible. I imagine that there would have to be a transition period similar to when the UK left the EU.

 

One thinks for sure: An independent Scottish government can't use any transition period less effectively than the UK government did during the Brexit negotiations.

 

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Anyway, why would they want to join the EU if they want to be Independent?

Imo rejoining the EU is sole justification for holding a second referendum so soon after the first one. 

 

Not withstanding that, it's a ridiculous question: Why do 27 other sovereign nations remain in the EU? Because their governments perceive it to be in their national interests. Presumably, that is why an independent Scotland would wish to join.

 

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Pretty much the definition of an Oxymoron.

No more so than England remaining in the United Kingdom.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

The difference is, I accepted there would be some short term pain to Brexit, in the region of 5-10 years. I was happy to do that to regain sovereignty and expand our horizons outside of the failing federalist project.

I'll make a diary note for February 2030: Brexit benefits materialise.

[Phulublub]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

You never answered my questions on this yesterday - do you think English companies would willingly stop trading with Scotland? Where will you get your energy from? But the end of the decade you are going to have a fresh water deficit. How will you deal with that?

Your hubris is nothing more than hot air. Practicalities on both sides will see compromise and cooperation.

I'll have a go:

 

Trading - you need them more than they need you.  rUK has made over 70 trade deals since Brexit doncha know. 

Energy - now the turkey is well and truly ready cooked, they can turn off the ovens.  No need for so much energy.  Job done.

Water - climate change is bringing more rain to the whole of the UK, not just the sunny uplands.  No need for new reservoirs as the ones we have will be more than enough as they fill up again quicker.

_________________

meanwhile, back on planet Earth....

 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Phulublub

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

The only nonsense is the bleating about having another one because the last one didn't go the way you wanted.

Me? I haven't called for a referendum and I'm not Scottish.

 

2 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

I think generation was referred to

 

Still irrelevant as it is not a legal position

2 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

so sit back and wait

Not your call

 

 

[JonnyF]

14 hours ago, RayC said:

I'll make a diary note for February 2030: Brexit benefits materialise.

Yes, do that.

 

No need to make a diary note to see how Scottish Independence worked out, since it's a fantasy, as this thread proves.

[RuamRudy]

Always nice to wake up to good news.

???????????????????????????? Support for Scottish independence by age, according to the latest poll by Redfield & Wilton:

16-24: 64%
25-34: 61%
35-44: 55%
45-54: 51%
55-64: 53%
65+: 39%

 

[RuamRudy]

Would Scottish voters support or oppose a referendum on Scottish independence being held in the next year? (26-27 November)

Support 46% (+12)
Oppose 43% (-7)
Neither 9% (-5)

Changes +/- 18 September 2021

[johnnybangkok]

16 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The difference is, I accepted there would be some short term pain to Brexit, in the region of 5-10 years. I was happy to do that to regain sovereignty and expand our horizons outside of the failing federalist project.

 

On the other hand, our Scottish nationalists think they can walk away from the UK with no debt and be accepted into the EU with a fantastic deal a couple of days later. All the other countries who currently have trade deals with the UK will also sign trade deals within the week, despite them claiming it would take Britain half a decade. The UK will just laugh away this default on 180 billion pounds of debt and continue to trade with them just as before. No hard feelings and all that. No downsides when the Scots do it, just a noble, heroic escape from the auld enemy, the evil English ???? 

 

Furthermore, eco warrior and purporter of net zero, Nicola Sturgeon is going to transform into an oil baron and drill up half of the north sea. The Scots will be driving around in gold plated Rolls Royces. Dubai on Clyde. 

 

Delusional.

Well I'm glad you are so magnanimous in your idea that Brexit will ONLY bring a 'short-term' pain of 5-10 years. I think many wouldn't be quite so relaxed when that 5-10 years brings unneccessary economic woes and hardship, especially when all it was all about regaining a sovereignty that was never lost in the first place or be part of an EU that is blatantly NOT failing.

 

There has never been a conversation from independance fans that shirked Scotlands financial responsibilities but you keep bandying around an 180 billion GDP debt as fact that the author of your link himself freely admits is 'conjecture'. Likewise, there is still a conversation to be had about joining the EU but that criteria (like all countries wishing to join the EU), will be set by the EU and Scotland will/will not qualify accordingly and then we will choose (or not) thereafter. Economics will play a very big part in mine and many Scots thoughts on independance, but unlike yourself when you chose Brexit, xenophobia and the made up nonsense you continue to try and push as solid reasons for leaving the UK's largest trading partner will not.

 

 

 

[James105]

3 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Well I'm glad you are so magnanimous in your idea that Brexit will ONLY bring a 'short-term' pain of 5-10 years. I think many wouldn't be quite so relaxed when that 5-10 years brings unneccessary economic woes and hardship, especially when all it was all about regaining a sovereignty that was never lost in the first place or be part of an EU that is blatantly NOT failing.

 

There has never been a conversation from independance fans that shirked Scotlands financial responsibilities but you keep bandying around an 180 billion GDP debt as fact that the author of your link himself freely admits is 'conjecture'. Likewise, there is still a conversation to be had about joining the EU but that criteria (like all countries wishing to join the EU), will be set by the EU and Scotland will/will not qualify accordingly and then we will choose (or not) thereafter. Economics will play a very big part in mine and many Scots thoughts on independance, but unlike yourself when you chose Brexit, xenophobia and the made up nonsense you continue to try and push as solid reasons for leaving the UK's largest trading partner will not.

 

 

 

Yes, the £180bn feels a bit low to me.   The barnet formula should of course be applied to this so it should be 30% higher, so something along the lines of £220bn would be more appropriate.

 

But don't worry, it won't come to that for the following reasons:

1. Scotland cannot legally hold a referendum without Westminster approval.

2. Scotland had a once in a lifetime/generation vote 8 years ago.

3. In 20-30 years when Scotland get permission to legally hold another referendum, the Scots will once again vote against it.  

[johnnybangkok]

3 hours ago, James105 said:

Yes, the £180bn feels a bit low to me.   The barnet formula should of course be applied to this so it should be 30% higher, so something along the lines of £220bn would be more appropriate.

 

But don't worry, it won't come to that for the following reasons:

1. Scotland cannot legally hold a referendum without Westminster approval.

2. Scotland had a once in a lifetime/generation vote 8 years ago.

3. In 20-30 years when Scotland get permission to legally hold another referendum, the Scots will once again vote against it.  

1. Scotland cannot legally hold a referendum without Westminster approval. Only recently confirmed but yes.

2. Scotland had a once in a lifetime/generation vote 8 years ago. Disagree. No one mentioned 'once in a lifetime/generation' at the last vote and if the SNP continue to dominate Scottish politics and consensus grows from it's current narrow margin to say 70-80% in favour of independence then I don't see how Westminster can't put it to the vote again.

3. In 20-30 years when Scotland get permission to legally hold another referendum, the Scots will once again vote against it. Can I borrow your crystal ball? Might come in handy soon.

[James105]

20 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

1. Scotland cannot legally hold a referendum without Westminster approval. Only recently confirmed but yes.

2. Scotland had a once in a lifetime/generation vote 8 years ago. Disagree. No one mentioned 'once in a lifetime/generation' at the last vote and if the SNP continue to dominate Scottish politics and consensus grows from it's current narrow margin to say 70-80% in favour of independence then I don't see how Westminster can't put it to the vote again.

3. In 20-30 years when Scotland get permission to legally hold another referendum, the Scots will once again vote against it. Can I borrow your crystal ball? Might come in handy soon.

I know facts are highly inconvenient to the narrative you have told yourself but here you go...

 

"Salmond: 'Referendum is once in a generation opportunity'"

 

SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity".

Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

 

It's difficult to lend out the crystal ball (I actually refer to it as common sense) as it's one of those things you have or you don't.   It cannot be shared.  

[johnnybangkok]

58 minutes ago, James105 said:

I know facts are highly inconvenient to the narrative you have told yourself but here you go...

 

"Salmond: 'Referendum is once in a generation opportunity'"

 

SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity".

Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

 

It's difficult to lend out the crystal ball (I actually refer to it as common sense) as it's one of those things you have or you don't.   It cannot be shared.  

The hyperbole from Alex Salmond is not law. You can just as easily read that as a call to arms rather than an actual time limit as amazingly enough, neither Alex Salmond nor anyone for that matter has the right to dictate how many times a referendum can be held. It does however now require the consent of Westminster, so will PROBABLY be 'once in a generation'.

 

This might be highly inconvenient to the narrative you have told yourself, but these are facts. There is no official law/ruling that says the referendum was a one-off.

[Phulublub]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

I know facts are highly inconvenient to the narrative you have told yourself but here you go...

 

"Salmond: 'Referendum is once in a generation opportunity'"

 

SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity".

How is this in any way different to Nigel Farage saying a 52/48 Brexit vote would be unfinished business?

 

PH

[James105]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

The hyperbole from Alex Salmond is not law. You can just as easily read that as a call to arms rather than an actual time limit as amazingly enough, neither Alex Salmond nor anyone for that matter has the right to dictate how many times a referendum can be held. It does however now require the consent of Westminster, so will PROBABLY be 'once in a generation'.

 

This might be highly inconvenient to the narrative you have told yourself, but these are facts. There is no official law/ruling that says the referendum was a one-off.

Here is another fact.  If you read your previous post you literally said:  "No one mentioned 'once in a lifetime/generation' at the last vote ".   Alex Salmond was the leader of the SNP at the time so what he says counts.   

 

The simple fact is the only reason to offer another referendum to Scotland would be a foolish attempt to stop the incessant whinging that comes from the north of the border, but since the last referendum did not achieve that goal there is no guarantee the moaning would stop after the next one.   Since the Scots have stopped voting for parties that have the potential to be in power in Westminster neither of the 2 main UK parties seek or need the Scottish vote any more, so there is literally zero incentive for the winning party to offer Scotland another referendum.   Unless you genuinely think that politicians are in it for altruistic reasons and to "serve the people", what benefit is it to the current UK government (or the next one, or the one after that etc) to grant another Scottish referendum?

[Phulublub]

24 minutes ago, James105 said:

Here is another fact.  If you read your previous post you literally said:  "No one mentioned 'once in a lifetime/generation' at the last vote ".   Alex Salmond was the leader of the SNP at the time so what he says counts.   

So what Alex Salmond said counts,  but what the Leader of the UK Inpedendence Party - the ones who led the charge to leave the EU - doesn't?  Hypocrisy writ large!

 

PH

[johnnybangkok]

14 minutes ago, James105 said:

Here is another fact.  If you read your previous post you literally said:  "No one mentioned 'once in a lifetime/generation' at the last vote ".   Alex Salmond was the leader of the SNP at the time so what he says counts.   

 

The simple fact is the only reason to offer another referendum to Scotland would be a foolish attempt to stop the incessant whinging that comes from the north of the border, but since the last referendum did not achieve that goal there is no guarantee the moaning would stop after the next one.   Since the Scots have stopped voting for parties that have the potential to be in power in Westminster neither of the 2 main UK parties seek or need the Scottish vote any more, so there is literally zero incentive for the winning party to offer Scotland another referendum.   Unless you genuinely think that politicians are in it for altruistic reasons and to "serve the people", what benefit is it to the current UK government (or the next one, or the one after that etc) to grant another Scottish referendum?

“Incessant whinging?” You heard about it 8 years ago; you’re hearing about it again because of the recent ruling and you’re probably not going too hear about it again until there’s a seismic shift in Scottish thinking. Hardly incessant. 
And altruistic or not, I do believe that elected politicians should have the interests of the WHOLE of the UK in their mind and not just England. The consensus isn’t strong enough in Scotland right now to push the matter but thinking like yours and this “them and us” mentality is why this is a problem in the first place. You add nothing to the narrative other than the usual partisan nonsense. 

[James105]

2 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

So what Alex Salmond said counts,  but what the Leader of the UK Inpedendence Party - the ones who led the charge to leave the EU - doesn't?  Hypocrisy writ large!

 

PH

Nigel Farage had no power.   He wasn't the PM and UKIP had 1 MP in Westminster out of 650.  He was basically a media personality.   His voice counted no more than Bob Geldof's and had the result gone the other way he would have been (rightly) ignored.   Alex Salmond would have been president of Scotland if Scotland had voted for independence so yes, what he said does count and should not be compared to Farage who is irrelevant in comparison.   

[James105]

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

“Incessant whinging?” You heard about it 8 years ago; you’re hearing about it again because of the recent ruling and you’re probably not going too hear about it again until there’s a seismic shift in Scottish thinking. Hardly incessant. 
And altruistic or not, I do believe that elected politicians should have the interests of the WHOLE of the UK in their mind and not just England. The consensus isn’t strong enough in Scotland right now to push the matter but thinking like yours and this “them and us” mentality is why this is a problem in the first place. You add nothing to the narrative other than the usual partisan nonsense. 

Incessant whinging is an accurate description of my perception of the Scottish lately on this question.   If you want another referendum then you are going about it the wrong way.   It's all me, me, me and what can I get, without taking into account what the other side wants.   Since you need the other side to grant this referendum it needs to be sold to the other side.   If there is no benefit to the other side then why would they waste the time and money on it?   Once you look at it from that perspective you will edge a bit closer to understanding why a referendum is not and will not be granted for the foreseeable future.   You should also reset your expectations of politicians as their primary goal is re-election.  How does a UK politician offering support for another Scottish referendum help them achieve that goal?  Hint:  It doesn't.  

[RuamRudy]

8 hours ago, James105 said:

Nigel Farage had no power.   He wasn't the PM and UKIP had 1 MP in Westminster out of 650.  He was basically a media personality.   His voice counted no more than Bob Geldof's and had the result gone the other way he would have been (rightly) ignored.   Alex Salmond would have been president of Scotland if Scotland had voted for independence so yes, what he said does count and should not be compared to Farage who is irrelevant in comparison.   

President? While I very much look forward to Scotland becoming an independent republic in the near future, you are jumping ahead of yourself - and the Scottish people.

[RuamRudy]

8 hours ago, James105 said:

Incessant whinging is an accurate description of my perception of the Scottish lately on this question.   If you want another referendum then you are going about it the wrong way.   It's all me, me, me and what can I get, without taking into account what the other side wants.   Since you need the other side to grant this referendum it needs to be sold to the other side.   If there is no benefit to the other side then why would they waste the time and money on it?   Once you look at it from that perspective you will edge a bit closer to understanding why a referendum is not and will not be granted for the foreseeable future.   You should also reset your expectations of politicians as their primary goal is re-election.  How does a UK politician offering support for another Scottish referendum help them achieve that goal?  Hint:  It doesn't.  

If I was campaigning for upgraded hospitals, better schools, fair pay and a better social deal for the population, would that also be incessant whinging?

 

It just so happens that I am campaigning for all those but neatly wrapped up in a single concept - Scottish independence. Because let's be honest, none of those things are going to be delivered by a UK government any time soon.

[James105]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

If I was campaigning for upgraded hospitals, better schools, fair pay and a better social deal for the population, would that also be incessant whinging?

 

It just so happens that I am campaigning for all those but neatly wrapped up in a single concept - Scottish independence. Because let's be honest, none of those things are going to be delivered by a UK government any time soon.

Sturgeon has the power to raise taxes in Scotland.   You want nicer things then pay for them.   

 

What is the benefit to the UK or UK politicians to grant Scotland another divisive, expensive time wasting referendum?   If there is no benefit to the UK or UK politicians then why on earth would the UK grant it? 

[RuamRudy]

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

Sturgeon has the power to raise taxes in Scotland.   You want nicer things then pay for them.   

 

What is the benefit to the UK or UK politicians to grant Scotland another divisive, expensive time wasting referendum?   If there is no benefit to the UK or UK politicians then why on earth would the UK grant it? 

I want that I don't need my government to go cap in hand to the country next door to ask for some of our money back. We already pay far more than we get back from the UK - as it has been from day 1. There is no need to raise more taxes in Scotland - the requirement is to remove the parasitic government that has been syphoning off our money since 1707. 

 

But I agree with your final point - to say that the UK is not a democracy is hardly news, but you are right; why would a parliament which contains 80% English MPs vote to allow their cash cow neighbour to depart?  

[Mac Mickmanus]

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I want that I don't need my government to go cap in hand to the country next door to ask for some of our money back. We already pay far more than we get back from the UK - as it has been from day 1. There is no need to raise more taxes in Scotland - the requirement is to remove the parasitic government that has been syphoning off our money since 1707. 

 

But I agree with your final point - to say that the UK is not a democracy is hardly news, but you are right; why would a parliament which contains 80% English MPs vote to allow their cash cow neighbour to depart?  

Not true .

Scotland receives more from Westminster than what it pays in

 

WHAT WAS CLAIMED

Scotland subsidises England.

 

 

 

OUR VERDICT

False. Public spending per person is higher in Scotland than across the UK as a whole. Scotland receives more public spending than it raises in tax.

 

 

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/scotland-finances-whisky-tax/

 

[James105]

13 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I want that I don't need my government to go cap in hand to the country next door to ask for some of our money back.

You pay less tax than England and you get more per head spending than the English:

 

"Scotland receives £1671 or 17% more per person by the UK average and its tax revenues are £308 lower per person."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/can-scotland-afford-to-be-independent-how-much-independence-from-uk-would-cost-and-budget-deficit-explained-3231268

 

This is what I mean by the incessant whinging.   

[RuamRudy]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Not true .

Scotland receives more from Westminster than what it pays in

 

WHAT WAS CLAIMED

Scotland subsidises England.

 

 

 

OUR VERDICT

False. Public spending per person is higher in Scotland than across the UK as a whole. Scotland receives more public spending than it raises in tax.

 

 

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/scotland-finances-whisky-tax/

 

England receives more than it pays in; Wales and NI too - that is why the UK has such a horrendous deficit. The point is that all our money goes into Westminster and a government we have rejected at every election since 1955 decides how much to return to us, and how much to charge us for the privilege of having them rule us.

 

We want to make our own spending decisions at every level of government. It is as simple as that. 

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, James105 said:

You pay less tax than England and you get more per head spending than the English:

 

"Scotland receives £1671 or 17% more per person by the UK average and its tax revenues are £308 lower per person."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/can-scotland-afford-to-be-independent-how-much-independence-from-uk-would-cost-and-budget-deficit-explained-3231268

 

This is what I mean by the incessant whinging.   

Then why the reluctance to let us go? We will clearly never settle for Tory rule in Scotland; Labour are moving closer by the day to being Tory-Lite - we will continue to agitate and object. In fact, I see the anger growing as the UK continues its slide into nasty rightwing politics, and as our institutions continue to crumble or are sold off for a pittance to friends and family. You are tired of us now? We are still ramping up.