Brexit: ‘I’m not bluffing on indyref2’, Scotland’s Sturgeon to May

[sandrabbit]

30 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

You forget that Catalonia and the rump of Spain are both pro EU. Wise people....

Maybe so but Spain has already said it would veto membership and as I recall I think Belgium has said it as well because the French speaking part wants independence as well.

[Grouse]

I see Cable is at 1.2172

 

Jeez

 

Good for? Numpties?

[dunroaming]

Well first of all Sturgeon has to call a second referendum and then the people have to vote to leave and then is the time to address the consequences. Before then it is all hot air and speculation.

 

May confirming a hard Brexit and leaving the single market certainly allows the people fumbling about the opportunity to pick sides.  At least now there is some clarity.

 

If (as is likely) Scotland votes leave and becomes a member of the EU then there would be a definite advantage for many of the European companies in England to move north of the border.  Like wise Ireland would also look attractive.

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by dunroaming

[JAG]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Not at all

 

I lived in Denmark for several years and paid taxes that would make your eyes water. Highly civilised!

 

Not much difference in Germany.

 

The UK is losing its way in apeing

USA ideas. No surprise that many want no part of it

 

You need to experience more of life methinks 

 

Drinking beer at Boat Quay since you ask.....

 

Oh I've experienced quite a lot of life thank you, plenty of it in Europe. I think we  established my " European credentials", and discussed my views on the EU as opposed to the continent some time ago, yes?

 

Now, living in Denmark, you paid for and benefited from their "social democratic model", much the same in Germany. The problem with the Scottish model, as espoused by Ms Sturgeon, is that some one else pays for it.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by JAG

[7by7]

10 hours ago, jacko45k said:

To hell with them. Scotland was not mentioned on the EU referendum so she is reading something into the results that was not there. Isn't there enough to worry about without her basically making a difficult situation worse. She should have postponed the indyref1 until after the EU membership referendum.

 

To be fair to Jimmy Krankie  Nicola Sturgeon, at the time of the 2014 Scottish referendum there was no serious proposal to hold a  referendum on the UK's  EU membership.

 

The 2016 EU referendum happened because of a Tory manifesto pledge in the 2015 general election.

[overherebc]

7 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

  Pleas do get up to date, Edward Heaths little creation of Humberside was kicked out and disbanded years ago. P.S do you know what the word Riding means?

 

From a thriding or thirding when it was 3 sort of areas.

Not from google by the way, just a memory from sometime way back in school.

Edited January 9, 2017 by overherebc

[7by7]

The Scottish parliament does not have the power to call a referendum on independence; that is a constitutional matter and so lies within the remit of Westminster.

 

For the 2014 referendum an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 was used to allow the Scottish Parliament to hold and make all decisions on the terms of the referendum. Although some have argued that technically this was not legally binding and an Act of the Westminster Parliament was required, in practice all sides agreed to it and that the result would be binding.

 

If another referendum were held and the result reversed then, as last time, an independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership; Scotland alone is not and never has been an EU member; the UK is (until Brexit).

 

All applicants for EU membership have to meet certain conditions; two of which being

1. Agree to join the border free Schengen zone.
2. Agree to adopt the Euro.

Would the Scottish people agree to these?

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The Scottish parliament does not have the power to call a referendum on independence; that is a constitutional matter and so lies within the remit of Westminster.

 

For the 2014 referendum an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 was used to allow the Scottish Parliament to hold and make all decisions on the terms of the referendum. Although some have argued that technically this was not legally binding and an Act of the Westminster Parliament was required, in practice all sides agreed to it and that the result would be binding.

 

If another referendum were held and the result reversed then, as last time, an independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership; Scotland alone is not and never has been an EU member; the UK is (until Brexit).

 

All applicants for EU membership have to meet certain conditions; two of which being

1. Agree to join the border free Schengen zone.
2. Agree to adopt the Euro.

Would the Scottish people agree to these?

Hopefully the next referendum will be UK-wide, since this is the break-up of the Union and affects everyone, not only Scots.

 

To join the EU, Scotland would also have to get it's deficit to under 3% of GDP.  Currently it's 9.4% and rising.  I posted about this at length earlier.  Scotland has zero chance of meeting all the requirements and accepting all the conditions of EU membership for as long as the inept SNP are in charge north of the border.

Edited January 9, 2017 by jpinx

[sinbin]

Let the sweaty socks go. They've been a pain in the UK's side since the Romans built the wall.

[ujayujay]

10 hours ago, jpinx said:

It's from EuroNews -- It seems that the EU is now tacitly supporting Scotlands efforts  as another tactic to stymie Brexit...

 

 

 

Please? ..... what does Euronews have to do with the EU? It's just a european News TV Channel.Some do not even understand the simplest contexts.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

To be fair to Jimmy Krankie  Nicola Sturgeon, at the time of the 2014 Scottish referendum there was no serious proposal to hold a  referendum on the UK's  EU membership.

 

The 2016 EU referendum happened because of a Tory manifesto pledge in the 2015 general election.

 

 Did not Cameron promise a referendum on this subject in 08/09.

I have read reports stating that quiet a large number of Scots who voted in 2014 for separation, voted in 2016 for Britex. If this is correct then NS would be very foolish to think that another referendum would go her way.

[LammyTS1]

19 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

All applicants for EU membership have to meet certain conditions; two of which being

1. Agree to join the border free Schengen zone.
2. Agree to adopt the Euro.

Would the Scottish people agree to these?

NO

[d123]

Bravefart

[7by7]

21 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

 Did not Cameron promise a referendum on this subject in 08/09........

 

Not that I can remember, and I can't find any reference to such a promise then; nor in the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 general election, though I haven't read the manifesto in full.

 

Remember, though, that Cameron and the Tories were in opposition in 2008 and 09.

[RuamRudy]

On 1/9/2017 at 0:48 PM, nontabury said:

The main Question "what do the Scottish people want. Well in 2014 they gave their democratic answer. In 2017, in fact this very morning, I received from Scottish friends living in Scotland the following-

 

I am glad to see that you are listening to us. In 2016 we made it emphatically clear - we want to remain in the EU. 

[RuamRudy]

On 1/9/2017 at 1:04 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

Sturgeon was backtracking last week on referendums - she's not really confident of winning one or she'd be gobbing off much more.

 

Most of my friends see through her and don't want to leave the UK.  The SNP would turn Scotland into a one party state given half a chance, where no criticism of the leader is tolerated and the state controls things. A very dangerous woman.

 

Tell your friends to be careful. I was very critical of Sturgeon on The Scotsman on FB. Then suddenly I was blocked off the site. No discussion, communication or reason - just blocked completely. UK free speech - not in SNP land.

 

Are you suggesting that the SNP controls the Scotsman, one of the most ardent supporters of the union and a paper that came out clearly in favour of the UK? 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

On 1/9/2017 at 4:35 PM, Always18 said:

Spot on.

This silly little woman actually thinks that she is in some way relevant in the great scheme of things and needs to constantly "make noises" to prove to herself that she is somehow important..........

 

She may be irrelevant to you, but she has an overwhelming mandate from the people of Scotland to fight for their best interests. I think that she has proven herself to be more than capable of running rings round the donkeys currently making a pig's ear out of Brexit. 

[Prbkk]

So she comes up with this the very week serious budget talks commence about the cost of decommissioning North Sea oil: a cost , borne by U.K. Takpayers, in the order of 20 billion £.

What would the basis of an independent Scottish economy be? Apart from Whiskey, not much more than the military tattoo, some cream teas for day trippers at Loch Ness, Pringle sweaters and box sets of Taggart.

[RuamRudy]

On 1/9/2017 at 5:21 PM, sandrabbit said:

Maybe so but Spain has already said it would veto membership and as I recall I think Belgium has said it as well because the French speaking part wants independence as well.

 

Not correct - it said that it will not allow Scotland to negotiate a separate EU position from the UK as long as it remains part of the UK; once we slip the yoke, then they will have no objection. 

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

So she comes up with this the very week serious budget talks commence about the cost of decommissioning North Sea oil: a cost , borne by U.K. Takpayers, in the order of 20 billion £.

 

 

As the bulk of North Sea revenue was squandered by Westminster, I see no reason why the UK taxpayer should not shoulder the responsibility of cleaning up the North Sea - assuming, that is, that the oil companies who benefited do not pay. 

 

5 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

What would the basis of an independent Scottish economy be? Apart from Whiskey, not much more than the military tattoo, some cream teas for day trippers at Loch Ness, Pringle sweaters and box sets of Taggart.

 

Scotland doesn't produce any whiskey, but then again you seem to know so little about Scotland so I should not be surprised at your mistake. There is an official document here that will help you understand more, and allow you to see how viable we are as a small nation. 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

As the bulk of North Sea revenue was squandered by Westminster, I see no reason why the UK taxpayer should not shoulder the responsibility of cleaning up the North Sea - assuming, that is, that the oil companies who benefited do not pay. 

 

 

Scotland doesn't produce any whiskey, but then again you seem to know so little about Scotland so I should not be surprised at your mistake. There is an official document here that will help you understand more, and allow you to see how viable we are as a small nation. 

 

Ha! Nicely put!

[Grouse]

Where there's a will, there's a way

 

Doesn't take a genius to see how figures may be presented to demonstrate whatever one wants! Need to be cash positive? Need a profit? A loss maybe? Trade surplus? Fiscal surplus?

 

I would be interested to hear why so many of those against, care? I thought they were the ultimate democrats? If Scots want out of U.K. but in EU, why not?

 

I'll just pour myself another large Famous Grouse if I may?

 

BTW, with Westminster squandering the North Sea oil bonanza on dole payments, I assume the wise Monetarists salted away some cash for remediation? Built a sovereign fund? Invested in the latest wafer fabs? Invested in the infrastructure?

 

What NOTHING??!!!

 

You can always trust the Con Party to be good with money! Ha!

 

incidentally, there's a new store in Phuket called: MAY - curtains & blinds - TeeHee!?

[jpinx]

20 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

As the bulk of North Sea revenue was squandered by Westminster, I see no reason why the UK taxpayer should not shoulder the responsibility of cleaning up the North Sea - assuming, that is, that the oil companies who benefited do not pay. 

 

 

Scotland doesn't produce any whiskey, but then again you seem to know so little about Scotland so I should not be surprised at your mistake. There is an official document here that will help you understand more, and allow you to see how viable we are as a small nation. 

I wonder what the folks working on Islay would say about that.

 

It's not industry's capabilities that are a problem in Scotland, it is the profligate spending by the SNP

Edited January 12, 2017 by jpinx

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

I wonder what the folks working on Islay would say about that.

 

 

I think that they would say, 'learn the difference between whiskey and whisky'. 

 

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

It's not industry's capabilities that are a problem in Scotland, it is the profligate spending by the SNP

 

That's understood - but as I keep saying, an independent Scotland will be, in no way, behove to elect an SNP government. Will they even continue to exist once their primary goal has been achieved?

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I think that they would say, 'learn the difference between whiskey and whisky'. 

 

 

That's understood - but as I keep saying, an independent Scotland will be, in no way, behove to elect an SNP government. Will they even continue to exist once their primary goal has been achieved?

I make allowances for many posters who don't have English as their first language.

[RuamRudy]

Just now, jpinx said:

I make allowances for many posters who don't have English as their first language.

 

That is very magnanimous of you, but (and I may be wrong) I believe that the OP is a native English speaker, but even if not, his comments were, while probably intending to be witty, were very dismissive of, and tending towards insulting Scotland and its people. If it were in my nature to wade into a debate simply to make negative comments about another country for the sake of a cheap laugh, I would, at least, try to be accurate in my terminology.