"Forget it," London tells Scots who want second independence vote

[webfact]

"Forget it," London tells Scots who want second independence vote

By Elisabeth O'Leary

REUTERS

 

Britain's Defence Secretary Michael Fallon attends a press conference with U.S. Secretary of Defence Ash Carter at the Foreign Office in London, December 15, 2016. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

 

EDINBURGH (Reuters) - The UK government told Scotland on Thursday to abandon any hopes of holding another independence referendum before 2020, deepening a row with the devolved pro-independence government in Edinburgh over the impact of Brexit on possible secession.

 

"No, forget it," Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told the Herald Newspaper when asked whether the government in London would facilitate a new referendum on independence, the stated long-term aim of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

 

"The respect agenda is two-way," Fallon was quoted by the newspaper as saying, adding that Sturgeon should respect the 2014 referendum in which Scots voted 55-45 to stay in the United Kingdom and the UK-wide 2016 vote to exit the European Union.

 

Sturgeon "has to respect the decision of Scotland to stay inside the UK in 2014 and the decision of the UK to leave the EU," Fallon told the Glasgow-based newspaper which opposed secession in 2014.

 

Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly said she does not believe there is any need for a second independence referendum in Scotland but Sturgeon has warned that the Brexit plans of the government in London could force Scots to call another vote on the grounds that circumstances had changed since 2014.

 

The June 23 ballot on Brexit called the future of the United Kingdom into question because England and Wales voted to leave but Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay.

 

Sturgeon has repeatedly demanded that the interests of Scotland are taken into account during the Brexit negotiations with the other 27 members of the European Union and has asked for a special deal for Scotland including full access to the EU's single market.

 

Fallon's remarks, which he later sought to temper, risk fuelling nationalist resentment in Scotland that England is both driving Scotland out of the EU and denying it any chance of an alternative via independence.

 

Sturgeon said any attempt by the London government to block a second referendum would be a "disastrous move".

 

While technically the British parliament, which is sovereign, could block another referendum on independence, to do so would provoke a constitutional crisis if polls indicated a majority of Scots were in favour of a ballot.

 

A Scottish government spokesman said any bid to block a second referendum would be "a democratic outrage" that would only "succeed in boosting support for both a referendum and for independence itself."

 

While Sturgeon says she wants Scottish independence, she will also seek to avoid triggering another referendum that she would lose; public opinion polls show support for Scottish independence is still at around 45 percent as it was in 2014.

 

(Editing by Guy Faulconbridge and John Stonestreet)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-03

[trogers]

So says those who wants to be in the UK, and also wants to be in the EU...

[jpinx]

Sturgeon has had her chance, but she is a megalomaniac and can not represent the people of Scotland.  They voted to keep the Union last time, and the time before.  Now can she please stop this nonesense and get on with sorting out the balance of payments, the social infrastructure, Education, NHS, etc, etc.  The SNP have had ten years to get thses things on track and have failed miserably.  They don't deserve to govern Scotland and the only reason they are in power is the lack of a cohesive opposition.

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Sturgeon has had her chance, but she is a megalomaniac and can not represent the people of Scotland.  They voted to keep the Union last time, and the time before.  Now can she please stop this nonesense and get on with sorting out the balance of payments, the social infrastructure, Education, NHS, etc, etc.  The SNP have had ten years to get thses things on track and have failed miserably.  They don't deserve to govern Scotland and the only reason they are in power is the lack of a cohesive opposition.

 

The time before is not relevant to a vast part of the current population, but it actually returned a majority in favour of Home Rule, not independence because that wasn't on the table, however the majority was ignored by westminster because the turnout did not muster 40% of the electorate. I suggest we do not go down that path though, or we might get mired in the fact that Brexit would similarly be rejected on those very grounds.

 

As for the SNP's performance now, they operate within a financial capacity that is mostly controlled by Westminster, but with slight tax varying powers. Therefore their hands are mostly tied - exercise the powers to generate more income and be accused of driving business south and hurting already squeezed taxpayers.

 

Therefore they have to do the best they can with the resources they have. Schools need a shot in the arm, no doubt - the labour PFI disaster continues to blight education across the country, while continuing to syphon essential cash away from education and into the pockets of the friends of labour, but there still needs to be a massive improvement in performance across the board, agreed.

 

The NHS is struggling, of that there is no doubt, but there is also no doubt that NHS Scotland is head and shoulders above the rest of the UK in terms of performance. I don't mean that in a triumphalist way, but the Scottish government is managing to keep it functioning whereas the UK government is failing the English NHS at every juncture - most likely deliberately.

 

Social infrastructure is also an area that needs vast work - but this is a whole other can of worms. Society in central Scotland was left to rot by successive Tory governments who allowed a culture of despondency and desperation to become the norm. This seems to be generational, ingrained, endemic - the gross damage that Thatcher etc caused cannot be undone in a year or two - even 10. Things are getting better, violent crime is reducing, but to expect that after generations of deliberate Westminster attack followed by neglect, that suddenly everybody starts looking to the future and singing kum ba yah is very optimistic. This recovery will take much longer.

 

I dispute your suggestion that there is no credible opposition. If we put labour to one side because that is, indeed, a basket case, the Lib Dems and Tories both have a host of competent and credible MSPs; Ruth Davidson has shown herself to be likeable, competent and statesmanlike, and the Tories are more than capable of holding the feet of the Scottish government to the fire. But yet, people still seem to want to elect the SNP. What can you see that the majority cannot?

 

As for deserving to govern Scotland - do you think that TM does?

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The time before is not relevant to a vast part of the current population, but it actually returned a majority in favour of Home Rule, not independence because that wasn't on the table, however the majority was ignored by westminster because the turnout did not muster 40% of the electorate. I suggest we do not go down that path though, or we might get mired in the fact that Brexit would similarly be rejected on those very grounds.

 

As for the SNP's performance now, they operate within a financial capacity that is mostly controlled by Westminster, but with slight tax varying powers. Therefore their hands are mostly tied - exercise the powers to generate more income and be accused of driving business south and hurting already squeezed taxpayers.

 

Therefore they have to do the best they can with the resources they have. Schools need a shot in the arm, no doubt - the labour PFI disaster continues to blight education across the country, while continuing to syphon essential cash away from education and into the pockets of the friends of labour, but there still needs to be a massive improvement in performance across the board, agreed.

 

The NHS is struggling, of that there is no doubt, but there is also no doubt that NHS Scotland is head and shoulders above the rest of the UK in terms of performance. I don't mean that in a triumphalist way, but the Scottish government is managing to keep it functioning whereas the UK government is failing the English NHS at every juncture - most likely deliberately.

 

Social infrastructure is also an area that needs vast work - but this is a whole other can of worms. Society in central Scotland was left to rot by successive Tory governments who allowed a culture of despondency and desperation to become the norm. This seems to be generational, ingrained, endemic - the gross damage that Thatcher etc caused cannot be undone in a year or two - even 10. Things are getting better, violent crime is reducing, but to expect that after generations of deliberate Westminster attack followed by neglect, that suddenly everybody starts looking to the future and singing kum ba yah is very optimistic. This recovery will take much longer.

 

I dispute your suggestion that there is no credible opposition. If we put labour to one side because that is, indeed, a basket case, the Lib Dems and Tories both have a host of competent and credible MSPs; Ruth Davidson has shown herself to be likeable, competent and statesmanlike, and the Tories are more than capable of holding the feet of the Scottish government to the fire. But yet, people still seem to want to elect the SNP. What can you see that the majority cannot?

 

As for deserving to govern Scotland - do you think that TM does?

Nicely put

 

As you say, many issues require attention with education heading the list. No idea what has/is causing problems there.

 

 

[jpinx]

Making excuses for a housewife who can not live within her means demeans the discussion.  SNP have always known how much they'll get from Westminster, so it was  up to them to not spend more.  Scotland's economy is not so big and complicated.  Even my grandson wonders why they can't live with their means, in the same way as his mum does. 

[RuamRudy]

Just now, jpinx said:

Making excuses for a housewife who can not live within her means demeans the discussion.  SNP have always known how much they'll get from Westminster, so it was  up to them to not spend more.  Scotland's economy is not so big and complicated.  Even my grandson wonders why they can't live with their means, in the same way as his mum does. 

 

Show me any government that lives within its means - the UK government cannot and makes no effort to do so. Why is the SNP held to a standard that Westminster does not need to meet?

[jpinx]

We've been over this many times -- SNP have not even come close to Westminsters deficit.  I'll let it go now -- bored with these futile threads...

[Kasset Tak]

When the Scots voted on the referendum 2014 the "stay" side with the backing of the parliament (located in England) talked about the difficulties Scotland would get with staying in EU if leaving UK... Then England voted to voted to leave EU while Scotland voted to stay and now the English people say that the Scots don't have the choice to leave UK!?
If Brexit would have been on the table at the 2014 referendum then Scotland would have voted to leave UK!

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, jpinx said:

We've been over this many times -- SNP have not even come close to Westminsters deficit.  I'll let it go now -- bored with these futile threads...

 

How should I phrase it to your suiting? I don't intend playing Government Deficit Top Trumps, but at least try to address some of my other points.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The time before is not relevant to a vast part of the current population, but it actually returned a majority in favour of Home Rule, not independence because that wasn't on the table, however the majority was ignored by westminster because the turnout did not muster 40% of the electorate. I suggest we do not go down that path though, or we might get mired in the fact that Brexit would similarly be rejected on those very grounds.

 

As for the SNP's performance now, they operate within a financial capacity that is mostly controlled by Westminster, but with slight tax varying powers. Therefore their hands are mostly tied - exercise the powers to generate more income and be accused of driving business south and hurting already squeezed taxpayers.

 

Therefore they have to do the best they can with the resources they have. Schools need a shot in the arm, no doubt - the labour PFI disaster continues to blight education across the country, while continuing to syphon essential cash away from education and into the pockets of the friends of labour, but there still needs to be a massive improvement in performance across the board, agreed.

 

The NHS is struggling, of that there is no doubt, but there is also no doubt that NHS Scotland is head and shoulders above the rest of the UK in terms of performance. I don't mean that in a triumphalist way, but the Scottish government is managing to keep it functioning whereas the UK government is failing the English NHS at every juncture - most likely deliberately.

 

Social infrastructure is also an area that needs vast work - but this is a whole other can of worms. Society in central Scotland was left to rot by successive Tory governments who allowed a culture of despondency and desperation to become the norm. This seems to be generational, ingrained, endemic - the gross damage that Thatcher etc caused cannot be undone in a year or two - even 10. Things are getting better, violent crime is reducing, but to expect that after generations of deliberate Westminster attack followed by neglect, that suddenly everybody starts looking to the future and singing kum ba yah is very optimistic. This recovery will take much longer.

 

I dispute your suggestion that there is no credible opposition. If we put labour to one side because that is, indeed, a basket case, the Lib Dems and Tories both have a host of competent and credible MSPs; Ruth Davidson has shown herself to be likeable, competent and statesmanlike, and the Tories are more than capable of holding the feet of the Scottish government to the fire. But yet, people still seem to want to elect the SNP. What can you see that the majority cannot?

 

As for deserving to govern Scotland - do you think that TM does?

 

There was the party political broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Nationalist Party.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

Nicely put

 

As you say, many issues require attention with education heading the list. No idea what has/is causing problems there.

 

 

 

While you're slapping on another on the back, try reading what many in Scotland say about declining health services, declining local services, declining police performance, and how cheesed off they are with prima donna Nicola and her constant one goal agenda.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The time before is not relevant to a vast part of the current population, but it actually returned a majority in favour of Home Rule, not independence because that wasn't on the table, however the majority was ignored by westminster because the turnout did not muster 40% of the electorate. I suggest we do not go down that path though, or we might get mired in the fact that Brexit would similarly be rejected on those very grounds.

 

As for the SNP's performance now, they operate within a financial capacity that is mostly controlled by Westminster, but with slight tax varying powers. Therefore their hands are mostly tied - exercise the powers to generate more income and be accused of driving business south and hurting already squeezed taxpayers.

 

Therefore they have to do the best they can with the resources they have. Schools need a shot in the arm, no doubt - the labour PFI disaster continues to blight education across the country, while continuing to syphon essential cash away from education and into the pockets of the friends of labour, but there still needs to be a massive improvement in performance across the board, agreed.

 

The NHS is struggling, of that there is no doubt, but there is also no doubt that NHS Scotland is head and shoulders above the rest of the UK in terms of performance. I don't mean that in a triumphalist way, but the Scottish government is managing to keep it functioning whereas the UK government is failing the English NHS at every juncture - most likely deliberately.

 

Social infrastructure is also an area that needs vast work - but this is a whole other can of worms. Society in central Scotland was left to rot by successive Tory governments who allowed a culture of despondency and desperation to become the norm. This seems to be generational, ingrained, endemic - the gross damage that Thatcher etc caused cannot be undone in a year or two - even 10. Things are getting better, violent crime is reducing, but to expect that after generations of deliberate Westminster attack followed by neglect, that suddenly everybody starts looking to the future and singing kum ba yah is very optimistic. This recovery will take much longer.

 

I dispute your suggestion that there is no credible opposition. If we put labour to one side because that is, indeed, a basket case, the Lib Dems and Tories both have a host of competent and credible MSPs; Ruth Davidson has shown herself to be likeable, competent and statesmanlike, and the Tories are more than capable of holding the feet of the Scottish government to the fire. But yet, people still seem to want to elect the SNP. What can you see that the majority cannot?

 

As for deserving to govern Scotland - do you think that TM does?

 

TM is the current Prime Minister of the UK. Whether you, me or anyone else likes that is immaterial. Scotland, an integral part of the UK, like other parts of the UK is governed by the elected UK government, of which TM is the current leader.

 

So yes, she does deserve to - far more than Sturgeon deserves to decide the future of the UK or govern the rest of the UK.

 

Interesting how Scotland, with it's small % of UK population gets 53 UK MP's. Far greater ratio than anywhere else. 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

Doesn't this chap know Sturgeon can block Brexit? She said so herself, adding that Mrs. May told her so at their very first meeting.

 

Delusional megalomaniac whose demands and threatens all of the time whilst claiming the Scottish people have spoken but only if it's something she wants to hear.

[evadgib]

Commitment from MOD:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-marines-future-secure-in-scotland 

[Humberstone]

Of course they want another referendum, they (the SNP) are the majority party in the Scottish parliament and are an avowedly nationalist party. To call Sturgeon a megalomaniac is also risible.

 

It's the same with the Brexit vote. The remain camp are now called 'remoaners' and much worse for wanting to get the it debated in Westminster via the courts. You can bet your bottom dollar that if the vote went the other way, Farage , the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party and the Fleet Street fish wraps would all be lobbying for another EU vote.  

[sagittarius6999]

Let them have another referendum but this time make it  fair, let the whole of the UK vote , not just the scots and then they will win but 95% to 5% as people are p--------d off with them always moaning and wanting more money, it already costs nearly twice as much to look after every scot than those in England.

In 2 years they will be broke and going cap in hand to the IMF and of course back to the UK saying oops we made a mistake and the the rest of the UK gives them two greasy fingers, pompous lot

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

TM is the current Prime Minister of the UK. Whether you, me or anyone else likes that is immaterial. Scotland, an integral part of the UK, like other parts of the UK is governed by the elected UK government, of which TM is the current leader.

 

So yes, she does deserve to - far more than Sturgeon deserves to decide the future of the UK or govern the rest of the UK.

 

Interesting how Scotland, with it's small % of UK population gets 53 UK MP's. Far greater ratio than anywhere else. 

 

 

5.4M Scots

65.5 Total UK NI

= 8.3%

650 MPs

Scotland should have about 54?

 

Is my arithmetic far out?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

While you're slapping on another on the back, try reading what many in Scotland say about declining health services, declining local services, declining police performance, and how cheesed off they are with prima donna Nicola and her constant one goal agenda.

 

 

Scotland is not much different to the rest of the UK in having all sorts of problems due to Westminster's view of priorities and their view of the tax/service balance generally. Personally, I favour high taxes and much better services. Having said that, Scottish primary and secondary education needs looking at urgently.

[Grouse]

25 minutes ago, sagittarius6999 said:

Let them have another referendum but this time make it  fair, let the whole of the UK vote , not just the scots and then they will win but 95% to 5% as people are p--------d off with them always moaning and wanting more money, it already costs nearly twice as much to look after every scot than those in England.

In 2 years they will be broke and going cap in hand to the IMF and of course back to the UK saying oops we made a mistake and the the rest of the UK gives them two greasy fingers, pompous lot

"It already costs nearly twice as much to look after every scot than those in England."

 

Really?

 

England -3%

Scotland +16%

Wales +10%

NI +21%

 

Ever consider the effect of population density? 

 

Would you like like me to adjust for that?

 

So, there's an imbalance right enough. Excessive? I don't think so.

[RuamRudy]

34 minutes ago, Grouse said:

5.4M Scots

65.5 Total UK NI

= 8.3%

650 MPs

Scotland should have about 54?

 

Is my arithmetic far out?

Your arithmetic is spot on - it is the actualité that escapes Baerboxer.

[RuamRudy]

51 minutes ago, sagittarius6999 said:

Let them have another referendum but this time make it  fair, let the whole of the UK vote , not just the scots and then they will win but 95% to 5% as people are p--------d off with them always moaning and wanting more money, it already costs nearly twice as much to look after every scot than those in England.

In 2 years they will be broke and going cap in hand to the IMF and of course back to the UK saying oops we made a mistake and the the rest of the UK gives them two greasy fingers, pompous lot

 

So much ignorance, arrogance, and a complete lack of knowledge in one post. Well done, you!

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

So yes, she does deserve to - far more than Sturgeon deserves to decide the future of the UK or govern the rest of the UK.

 

Sturgeon doesn't want to dictate to the rest of the UK any more than any other Scot does - but we want an equal say of our future because that is what happens in an equal partnership.

[jpinx]

To break up the union, the WHOLE of the UK needs to vote.

[onthesoi]

3 minutes ago, jpinx said:

To break up the union, the WHOLE of the UK needs to vote.

Following your logic, the Brexit referendum must be invalid as the rest of the EU was excluded from voting?

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

To break up the union, the WHOLE of the UK needs to vote.

 

But the union can continue without Scotland - 3 of the 4 members are not withdrawing. If your proposal was the case then the decision would only ever be one for the English to decide, hardly a fair situation for any of the other partner countries.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, onthesoi said:

Following your logic, the Brexit referendum must be invalid as the rest of the EU was excluded?

Arguably - yes :)  Let's start another round of nonsense posts on re-running the Brexit referendum acroos the whol of the EU.  Does that include the EEA as well?

[onthesoi]

Just now, jpinx said:

Arguably - yes :)  Let's start another round of nonsense posts on re-running the Brexit referendum acroos the whol of the EU.  Does that include the EEA as well?

 

Hey ..whatever floats your boat! :)

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

But the union can continue without Scotland - 3 of the 4 members are not withdrawing. If your proposal was the case then the decision would only ever be one for the English to decide, hardly a fair situation for any of the other partner countries.

It can continue if all the people in it agree on the breakup

[jpinx]

We might need one of those too, in case global warming floods London