Scotland Indyref 2

Correct airtragic. Easily achieved by taxing at the average european level instead of the low taxation we have. also huge savings by being non nuclear, not having to pay for foreign wars, crossrail,westminster, hinkley etc and of course being able to grow the economy with suitable economic policies.

Denmark can manage this without Scotlands advantages. Why can't scotland?

The UN is quite clear on self determination of a people

Could you explain to me on what definition you propose that the residents of Scotland constitute an identifiable 'people' distinct from the wider population of the United Kingdom?

The Falklands voted to stay British by something like 99% IIRC. The votes for Argentinean equated to 3 people ISTR! (Jose, Manuel and Pedro)

Denmark has plenty of advantages that Scotland doesn't, of course, like geography; it's at the centre of Europe, rather than the periphery. CBA checking, but I bet their tax rates aren't that different to Germany, because of the other problem Scotland would face with a high tax differential with the UK, capital flight. Nuclear and "foreign wars": IIRC the white paper identified about £500m savings on defence off your current £3bn share, some way short. You don't pay for things like Crossrail, covered [url= https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/meme-busting-wings-over-scotland-infrastructure-spending/ ]here.[/url] Grow the economy, laudable goal but if it was that easy, why isn't it happening already? How is an economically poorer performing Scotland in the UK Govt's interest? Hinkley, not looking great admittedly, but you'll be needing some sort of base load in that green mix. You wouldn't have thought the national grid would split on separation, so maybe you end up paying for it anyway as your existing nukes go offline?
It sounds eerily similar to the Brexit arguments pre-referendum to me, it'll all be fine because xyz. Xyz often seems doubtful at best!

Airtragic - yes and that is not an independence vote - its a vote to remain a colony which is against UN principles of decolonisation

Ninfan Self recognised. thats all that is needed.

Self recognised. thats all that is needed.

So you're proposing that [i]any[/i] group of people who self identify as a 'people' should be able to announce independence?

😆

*klaxon sounds*

TJ - step away from the thread

Denmark can manage this without Scotlands advantages. Why can't scotland?

History innit.

Didn't denmark used to be a part of Germany? Schleswig-Holstein?

everyone did but us 😉

I never understood the Schleswig-Holstein question anyway

It's just our queen who is German

TJ - step away from the thread

And yet....

It's like catnip, isn't it? You just can't resist.

(Step away. Actually, I know what to do....!)

Worse than bloody catnip CFH.

Airtragic - yes and that is not an independence vote - its a vote to remain a colony which is against UN principles of decolonisation

Looking at the list of colonies they mostly seem to be quite happy with their status

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

I is disappointed no one got the Schleswig-Holstein joke. I thought there were experts on here. Obviously not

[quote=aracer ]It's just our queen who is German

looks up origin of the word england...oooh really he says in surprise 😉

Who can resist a Scottish Indy thread C'pn - the stuff that gets posted here is truly fantastic

It's just our queen who is German

[quote=tjagain ]I is disappointed no one got the Schleswig-Holstein joke. I thought there were experts on here. Obviously not

We've had enough of experts

I presume you were pointing out that you're not dead or mad and your memory is OK?

Angles and saxons - where are they from?

Ta Aracer

Angles and saxons - where are they from?

Using examples of what happens when you invite skilled migrants into your country may not be the best idea

Hang on - aren't Angles and Saxons peoples? So they could declare independence.

Invite them? Angles and saxons were invaders!

Illegal immigrants then!

Sorry where do you live again and where we you born ?

Invite them? Angles and saxons were invaders!

Historical sources seem to indicate they were initially invited by King Vortigern

Vortigern , was possibly a 5th-century warlord in Britain, known perhaps as a king of the Britons. His existence is contested, and information about him is obscure.

From Wiki

You use wiki, can I cite my sources

The sources

Gildas
We come across Vortigern for the first time in the writings of the British monk Gildas, who wrote his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae around 540. De Excidio is a moral tract, not a work of history ! We may therefore accept the more outstanding features of the DEB: the reception of the Saxons; the subsequent conflict between them and the Britons; the resistance to the Saxons by a certain Ambrosius Aurelianus; and finally the defeat of the Saxons at the Siege of Badonicus Mons in the day of his birth (or so he seems to say).
In C.23 we hear of a meeting of the Proud Tyrant and all the councillors:

Tum omnes consiliarii una cum superbo tyranno caecantur, adinvenientes tale praesidium, immo excidium patriae ut ferocissimi illi nefandi nominis Saxones deo hominibusque invisi, quasi in caulas lupi, in insulam ad retundendas aquilonales gentes intromitterentur. (DEB XXIII.1)

At this meeting, the council invited the Saxons in three keels from Germany, as a counter to the threat from the Picts in the north. This is followed after some time by a conflict over the annona (payment in kind), after which the Saxon federates devastate the country. Vortigern, who may have been named by Gildas, is not portrayed by Gildas as a sole ruler, or a High King if you will. He rules together with a Council, which Gildas blames equally for the disastrous policy concerning the invitation of the Saxons. Maybe looking at him as a 'first among equals' would be more fitting his actual position at that time. In all, Gildas’ view of the Superbus Tyrannus is almost positive; though he is judged careless and lacking foresight, he is called infaustus (unlucky), which is very mild considering Gildas’ views on the Saxons and the hindsight he had on the disaster that resulted from the Tyrannus’ policies.

Bede
Bede, writing in Northumbria at the beginning of the 8th century, hardly gives any information apart from what he has taken from Gildas. He knew Vortigern as the British leader who had authorized the first settlement of the Saxon invaders in eastern Britain, and identified him with the 'proud usurper' of Gildas. Bede uses two early versions of Vortigern’s name, the earliest one is Vertigernus, which Bede uses in his De Tempore Ratione. In his Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, which was written rather later than the preceding and is largely paraphrased or summarized from Gildas, the form used is Uurtigerno, which is pre-literary English and must have been copied from a document written early in the 7th century.

Historia Brittonum
The Historia Brittonum gives us far more information on Vortigern; in fact, the chief part is concerned with him. This probably early 9th century work appears to be based on a genuine historical tradition, but the greater part of this portion of his work is folk tale and legend. Much of his material is drawn from an older work, the *Life of Germanus or Garmon, whose cult was centered in Powys. Vortigern is mentioned as a ruler called Guorthigirn, who seems to have the whole of what had been Roman Britain under his authority in some sense. A ruler in Kent is subject to him, as are rulers in other regions. His wife is not disclosed here, but he has sons: Vortimer, Catigern and Pascent, to which is added Faustus as an afterthought. This Faustus is claimed as offspring from an incestous relation between Vortigern and his daughter. During a peace-conference with the Saxons, they treacherously produce hidden Stilicho, fourth centuryweapons and kill most of the British nobles.

More strange is the story about his dealings with St Germanus which interspace the historical material, and which is hardly more than a folk-tale. Also interspaced is the material about Vortimer, who clearly had his own set of legends. Important as well is the bulky Dinas Emrys legend, in which Vortigern also seems out of place (see Saints on the move), but what in the end has made his name famous because of the Merlin-connection...

The Pillar of Elise
This pillar was originally a cross and stands in the abbey of Valle Crucis, not far from Llangollen in northern Powys. The inscription states that the monument was set up by Concenn (or Cyngen), the last native king of Powys, in memory of his great-grandfather Eliseg (or Eliset or Elise). This insription is almost certainly contemporary with the Historia Brittonum.

Much of the inscription seems to have been occupied with genealogical matter. So far as this is preserved, it agrees with the Harleian Genealogies (22, 23, 27), except that, at the beginning Britu and perhaps also Pascent are said to be sons, not of Catigern (son of Catell Dyrnllwc), but of Vortigern. Of Britu it is said that Germanus blessed him, and that his mother was Sevira, daughter of Magnus Fifth-century BritonMaximus! It would seem that the royal family of Powys did not accept the story of their origin as given above in the Historia Brittonum where a slave named Cadell was given the throne of Powys by St Germanus. They evidently claimed to be descended from Vortigern, and declared that he was a son-in-law of Maximus. The Pascent from which most kings claimed descent would then be identified with the Pascent, son of Vortigern, whom the Historia Brittonum itself recognises as ancestor of the kings of Builth.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
This chronicle probably dates from a little later than the last two sources; the oldest text ends in 891. Vortigern is mentioned in two entries: AD 449 and AD 455. Much is taken from Bede, which accounts for the traditional dating. For the year 449 it mentions the Adventus Saxonum, with Vortigern as 'king of the Britons' inviting the brothers Hengist and Horsa. Significantly, in the same year there is a second invitation to the Angles. For the year 455 the chronicle mentions a great battle between the Saxons and the Britons under Vortigern, the Saxons are victorious and no more is mentioned of Vortigern or his sons.

Geoffrey of Monmouth
The Historia Regum Britanniae, which was first written down in 1136, is the last source for the stories around Vortigern. Though it clearly borrows from earlier sources, it has been shown that between this material and the doubtless 'modifications' by Geoffrey himself, there is enough material from other, unknown, sources to make a detailed study for the origins of this material.

Geoffrey tells us of the archbishop Guithelinus, who takes the responsibility for the defence of Britain by popular demand after the final departure of the Roman armies. Guithelinus or Vitalinus goes to Brittany to get troops and a king to lead Britain: Constantinus, brother of Aldroenus, the king of Brittany. After some time he is killed, and his son Constans is made king by Vortigern, Duke of Gwent, who now enters the scene. I will defend elsewhere in detail why I believe that Vitalinus and Vortigern are one and the same, and that the story of the troops from Brittany is the same as the Adventus Saxonum as described by Gildas and those following him.

Vortigern has Constans killed and 'reluctantly' accepts the crown, after which Geoffrey follows much of the earlier story. He gets Hengist from Germany to fight the Picts and marries his daughter Renwein for his own purposes and to reward Hengist. Kent is given to Hengist, thereby angering the Britons and Vortigern's own sons. Thy revolt and put Vortimer on the throne, who starts fighting the Saxons. Renwein then poisons him, after which Vortigern returns as king. Then followes the Saxon betrayal at Stonehenge, which Geoffrey calls "the Cloister of Ambrius", clearly after Amesbury. Then Geoffrey Vortigernrelates the Dinas Emrys legend, but calls the boy Merlin. Interspaced are the 'Prophecies of Merlin' as a separate chapter. Vortigern flees to Ercing, where he is killed by Ambrosius, who is called 'Aurelius Ambrosius' here. Vortigern is burned with his fortress.

So essentially the written history of the period

Forgot you are in Scotland so all the above sources are discredited as the BBC agree with his existence

http://www.historyextra.com/article/alfred-great/10-facts-anglo-saxons-history

So in summary, some King who may or may not have existed invited the German invaders over here, the Falkland Islanders voted to keep them in a referendum, the Schleswigers and Holsteinish weren't sure what the question is and that's why Scotland should be independent?

I thought it was just thick racists?

So in summary, some King who may or may not have existed invited the German invaders over here, the Falkland Islanders voted to keep them in a referendum, the Schleswigers and Holsteinish weren't sure what the question is and that's why Scotland should be independent?

That's going to require a big ballot paper

Still probably won't happen. Nicola hinting at Scotland stays if we get soft Brexit - so underneath all the bluster she really might just know what is in the best interests of the Scottish people after all. Here's hoping....even if it would less amusing to watch.

nearly there aracer just needed an economic treatise in the middle to explain it properly
#posttruth

EDIT@ THM She may be playing a blinder

What tory PM wants to ignore scottish requests for soft Brexit and do it hard and then risk the break up of the union? so she is forcing the UK to remain in the EU she plays her hand well for she either gets this or once more portrays the english Tories as ignoring the scottish people prior to a referendum. Canny politics IMHO

Big risks for a tory PM horrible Brexit, break up of the union, economic shit storm on two fronts and then an election

High stake game of poker begins, Will May play her hand so well in Europe?

aracer - Member
Hang on - aren't Angles and Saxons peoples? So they could declare independence.

If they could get enough people together and define their lands then get enough of those people vote for separation, i'm pretty sure they could.

It's fairly commonly accepted on these islands, the irish have the right to it, the scottish continually get votes as a block allowing then to get further and further towards self determination.

Dunno why you have trouble with the concept. If the welsh wanted it they ccould get it, if the cornish wanted it, they could get it. And if the scots want it they will get it.

Say what you like about the brits, but these days, in relation to self determination, they seem pretty open to following the democratic will of which ever constituent group of people, imo. the 2 scottish devolution refs, the independence ref, the EU ref and the belfast agreement are all pretty hard to argue with as indications of an attitude to allow self determination. Even the falkland islands had a ref.

So yes, gather together your fellow angles, saxons and batter in. Seems to be the in thing.

You keep forgetting that other people have principles other than what is financially best for me, quite possibly because you put money first second and third but not everyone does.
[b]Please just accept it[/b]

55 - 45 please just accept it 😀 Having no money is not fun as you well know JY given your day job, the Scots could also ask the Greeks how its working out for them

Will post this in EU thread too, various stories today of Irish proposal for a crises summit to address the impact on Ireland of the fall in £ and how significant the negative impact will be on Irish exports. The Govt has already committed €150m to support farmers. I mention this as an iS will have exactly the same issue. Also something relevant to Scotland is the dire warning issued by the first ECB Chief Economist and "architect" of the euro that the currency cannot survive in its current form.

May can play hardball with both the EU and Scotland. Whilst it will clearly p.ss off a significant [b]minority[/b] of Scots (45% 😉 ) she can just ignore their calls for a Referendum, the Scots can pass their own bill the UK is not obliged to pay a blind bit of notice. UK quits EU by 2019, significant politcal change in Austria, France and probably Germany too with flames fanned strongly by financial collapse of Greece and the euro. Immigration issues will flare up materially as a result.

Will this be an environment Scots will want to be part of, will EU members even be willing to focus on new member discussions at a time of crises ?

It's just our queen who is German

Isn't she half-Scottish?

More Jambanonsense. If scotland holds a referendum and gets a majority then scotland becomes independent under UN principles. Scotland simply remains in the EU as the successor state. Whats May going to do - invade?

Whats May going to do - invade?

There would probably be plenty people calling for it. By that time though the armed forces will be fully engaged with Russia, so I doubt they'll have the resources left.

Tj - among the inconvenient truths that nats typically ignore, does that include all the messages coming from the EU on the subject?

Jambas - May is probably quite happy to have a swarm of angry nats buzzing around. Who are the losers there (apart from the people of Scotland)? The labour party primarily....the status quo suits her narrow interests well.

Whats May going to do - invade?

If scotland holds a referendum and gets a majority then scotland becomes independent under UN principles.

Stop talking nonsense

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

Ninfan - its not nonsense. there is no reason at all Holyrood could not arrange its own referendum without Westminster permission and it would be recognised by the UN.

Sure it would be harder to arrange and more expensive but obstruction from Westminster would push a lot of folk into yes

then explain why Kosovo isn't recognised by the UN (or the EU for that matter)

TJ, you are talking nonsense. ultimately Scotland needs Westminster approval, I happen to think they wouldn't have much choice but to give it, as for one, they actually believe in democracy, and if they did deny it, it would put a hefty dent in the image of being the best democracy in the world that they like to protect.

It could declare UDI without it. But it's far from clear what would happen there. To state that it's that simple and that's it done is the land of the loonball saor alba-ists I mentioned a few pages back.

Come back to reality.

You also make a massive leap about pushing people towards yes. People will avoid that type of confrontation. Me included. People ain't that militant.

Those who are currently divorced from reality yet claim to have the wider interest of society - cough, not just financial (?!!) - at heart, would do well to read Varoufakis' "and the poor suffer what they must" before imagining that the EU remains a solution to their current "oppression and misfortune'"

Spoiler: it will prick the fluffy bubble and bring readers back down to reality with a bump

seosamh77 - Member
Tj you are talking nonsense. ultimately Scotland needs Westminster approval.

It could declare udi without it. But it's far from clear what would happen there. To state that it's that simple and that's it done is the land of the loonball saor albaists I mentioned a few pages back.

Come back to reality.

I happen to think they wouldn't have much choice but to give it, as for one, they actually believe in democracy, and if they did deny it, it would put a hefty dent in the image of being the best democracy in the world that they like to protect.

although, I think the likely scenario there would be an indy ref 3 with full legal backing as a last gap stop.. As it would no doubt be easy to argue that the unionist didn't vote in a non-legal ref. Which would be fair comment imo.

TJ that's a fantasy like a game of Top Trumps - UN rules 🙂 If it where that simple Basque Country and Catalonia would have been independent decades ago. May doesn't have to do anything at all just ignore it. SNP had two years to make their case, formulate their plans discuss EU scenarios. All we are seeing from them and on here is the aame old arguments which Scots rejected 55-45

If Holyrood wants a referendum and Westminster tries to block it you don't think that would push people towards Yes?

Its utter nonsense to suggest Holyrood could not hold a referendum without Westminster permission. Yes it would be harder to do but it could be done

epicyclo - Member
It depends if you believe that sovereignty belongs to the head of state or to the people, ie are you a subject or a citizen?

It's got nothing to do with belief. It's there in legal black and white, and you wouldn't take the Scottish people with you in a unilateral declaration, so it's a moot point.

tjagain - Member
If Holyrood wants a referendum and Westminster tries to block it you don't think that would push people towards Yes?

Nope, I don't think they will. Not in any militant sense.

Yes a referendum without Westnmmister approval would not be binding. However UDI would then be activated and there is nothing Westminster could do about it

In some ways this would be a good option for Scotland because if its a hard breakup which in that scenario it would be Scotland would not have to take on any of the debt.

Joe, you have admirable patience!

We will be back to (technical) debt defaults soon.... 😉

What was the definition of insanity???

seosamh77

Of course its all ifs and buts but my opinion is if Westminster tries to block a referendum then that would push a couple of % of people to vote yes and that could be the difference

Personally tho for referendums of this type I would like a big majority to make change - as the EU referendum should have been. not 50% +1 but something that makes it the settled will of the people. 50% of the electorate or 60% of the vote or something like that

tjagain - Member
50% of the electorate or 60% of the vote or something like that

Agreed there.

The argument should move on, independence for Yr Hen Ogledd!!!

Well that's another issue that the nativists could face up to... 🙂

It wouldn't be binding only in the sense that the Brexit referendum is not binding. If a sufficient majority for independence was there, it can't be ignored politically.

Not sure that 51-49 in counted votes would be quite enough, even on a high turnout - I'd want >50% of the electorate.

Personally tho for referendums of this type I would like a big majority to make change - as the EU referendum should have been. not 50% +1 but something that makes it the settled will of the people. 50% of the electorate or 60% of the vote or something like that

I thought you wanted Scottish independence?

I do aracer - but only as a pragmatist not an ideological way - and I want it to be obviously the settled will of the people. If 70% of the people vote yes then its clearcut no argument. if its 50% +1 then a lot of folk will be very disgruntled.

Quite an amount of acrobatics going on here with some yes voters arguing for a requirement to have more than a simple majority in any Indy referendum yet most yes voters were critical of the 79 devo referendum which had a 40% stipulation. Meantime there's brexiteers arguing that advisory referendums should just be ignored. In my opinion both ignoring referendums and udi are dangerous steps.

with UDI you have zero chance of iS being allowed into the EU, Spain, Italy etc would simply say no before they have similar issues

I didn't say it should be a requirement but I would like to see it

gordimhor - Member
In my opinion both ignoring referendums and udi are dangerous steps.

Allowing fundamental questions to be answered on extremely slim, and changeable(imo) majorities is the dangerous precedent. A genie that won't be put back in it's bottle now.

Sorry tjagain misread your post

Ninfan - its not nonsense. there is no reason at all Holyrood could not arrange its own referendum without Westminster permission and it would be recognised by the UN.

International law only provides for self-determination where that does not affect territorial integrity. Seccession by self-determination (i.e. the UDI) is not legally recognised. The internationally recognised territory is the United Kingdom and any break up of that territory is an internal matter.

You can find many papers on the topic - it is a contentious one and there is a desire for change but, right now, the territorial integrity of the UK trumps any right to self-determination in international law.

Some countries may choose to recognise states in spite of this, others are free not to.

That's why places like Kosovo are still contentious (and I guess Crimea now too).

Eritrea? Slovenia? Croatia?

Scotland is a country - the UK is a union.

So how would a country which ignored international law, renages on its debt, and has a potentially volatile currency attract the foreign investment that would be required to finance its deficit and which currently supports its core industries?

Scotland is a country - the UK is a union.

What is Texas then?

teamhurtmore - Member
So how would a country which ignored international law, renages on its debt, and has a potentially volatile currency attract the foreign investment that would be required to finance its deficit and which currently supports its core industries?

If there's an international law that says a country should remain subject to another one when its citizens say otherwise, then it should be ignored. Which law is it?

What debt? The one attached to the currency we are not allowed to use?

And what deficit? In the event we are talking about the UK is keeping all its goodies, not splitting them, so it seems fair it keeps its deficit. Split the goodies, we share the deficit seems fair.

But in any case the UK is a Union. This is not like Yorkshire splitting off from its parent country. This is a case of one country deciding it no longer wishes to be in a Union with another.

Epic your innocence is as breathtaking/warming as it is worrying.

So Alex proved that if you keep repeating lies often enough, people start believing you

3 Jackson's Entry - the birthplace of posttruthpolitics

teamhurtmore - Member
Epic your innocence is as breathtaking/warming as it is worrying.

So Alex proved that if you keep repeating lies often enough, people start believing you

3 Jackson's Entry - the birthplace of posttruthpolitics

They were covered in depth last time round. If you guys haven't learned from last time, god help you. It's not best of five you know!

If you are going to start with what debt and what deficit, then it's auto-switch off time. And Wee Brucie was surprised to hear that this is not a forum for serious debate 😉

Oh no - some one quoted a THM post so I saw it.

THM keeps on claiming Salmond lied - but has never been able to actually point out a single lie. Just that Salmond has a difference of opinion to THM and as THM is always right then Salmond must be lying. Despite the fact that Salmond was a nop notch economist and THM is some sort of something he won't tell us.
*klaxon sounds*

STEP AWAY FROM THE THREAD

Is you klaxon on mute - it keeps sounding but has no effect?

Despite the fact that Salmond was a nop notch economist and THM is some sort of something

Salmond and I were taught by the same department - he just seems to have conveniently forgot basic macro - and poor old epic believed him. Dont forget even his old policy chief described his economic case as deluded.

Or perhaps nop notch is the (anglo) Scottish word for the opposite of top notch?

has never been able to actually point out a single lie

Turn off your supposed block and you might see (and learn)

And what deficit? In the event we are talking about the UK is keeping all its goodies, not splitting them, so it seems fair it keeps its deficit. Split the goodies, we share the deficit seems fair.

er, do you understand what a deficit is? How do you propose rUK keeping your deficit?

THM keeps on claiming Salmond lied

Shall we start with Salmond's prediction of a pending oil "boom" and average annual tax receipts of £48B in the face of quite overwhelming evidence to the contrary at that time?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/alex-salmond-scotland-oil-boom

Or are we chalking this wee oversight up to Salmond's "chipper" attitude and positive vision for Scotland?

I have been told off forum that THM does not believe I am blocking him
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/stw-killfile-plugin