Scotland Indyref 2

Even though I voted Yes in IndyRef I was content enough to stay in the UK as part of the EU when we lost. I could have lived with that for any number of years until the case for independence could be convincingly won.

Since brexit and the way things are going now, the overall tone of things, I can't get out of the UK fast enough. If this costs us money in the short and/or long term then so be it, a price worth paying to distance ourselves from what remains.

You can, you clearly don't understand democracy.

An absolute fundamental factor of it is that people are allowed to change their mind. Nothing is set in stone forever.

so we just have referendums every year because one party didn't like the result? Then once we get it do we have another one in 2 years time to see if we want back?

poah - Member
You can, you clearly don't understand democracy.
An absolute fundamental factor of it is that people are allowed to change their mind. Nothing is set in stone forever.
so we just have referendums every year because one party didn't like the result? Then once we get it do we have another one in 2 years time to see if we want back?

We could if we liked. yes.

btw I don't favour an early ref. like I say 2030 is the timeframe I think people should be looking at. be honest about the obvious financial challenges that scotland has and in the meantime and openly fix them. I'd like to see an honest debate and action on that before another ref.

I think that's how you convice the majority to vote for it. Not some opportunistic and overly simplistic bullshit about remaining in the EU being a redline.

(I actually think that an iscotland being in an EU that is hostile to RUK is a fairly complex situation, given scotlands largest trading partner is England.)

so we just have referendums every year because one party didn't like the result? Then once we get it do we have another one in 2 years time to see if we want back?

If someone puts the idea forward and enough people vote for it then sure, why not.

km - businesses would love you!!

We could if we liked. yes.

If someone puts the idea forward and enough people vote for it then sure, why not.

and the effect that would have on the country?

poah - Member
We could if we liked. yes.
If someone puts the idea forward and enough people vote for it then sure, why not.
and the effect that would have on the country?

People would get what the majority for(you know democracy). If one referendum gives a result, it should be able to withstand another. If not, then the initial result was suspect.

Precisely the reason why we should have another EU ref, imo. If 52% is a convincing majority, it should be able to withstand another referendum.

Why this simple argument isn't in the public domain is indication of a stitchup regarding the EU ref.

I have no particular interest in business. Whatever the situation, as long as there is money to be made there will be businesses there and willing to make it. It is no concern or objective of mine to ensure that they make ever increasing amounts of money. Sure they will complain if they don't get to do so, good for them, let them, I don't give a shit. If it's not enough money for one business, it will be for another. Believe it or not, not everyone lives their life being a slave to money, there are many other parts of life.

[quote=BruceWee ]So for Scotland the optimum scenario would be to be independent while a member of the single market while the worst scenario would be to be a small part of a large country without access to the single market.

If everything was equal regarding Scotland's trade with rUK and the EU - but it's not, it does far more trade with rUK. I'm basing my opinion (which is all anybody has on here, I'm not sure why that needs pointing out) on the basis that access to rUK markets is far, far more important. Clearly if Scotland managed to have cake and eat it, become independent and part of the EU then it faces the same issues that Germany does in terms of access to post Brexit UK markets - except that the rUK is a rather more significant market for Scotland than it is for Germany. We have done all this argument already on the Brexit thread.

If a party says they're going to have a referendum in their manifesto and people elect them then, yes, they can call a referendum every year if they like. The solution is to get people to vote for parties that say they won't have a referendum.

Even though I voted Yes in IndyRef I was content enough to stay in the UK as part of the EU when we lost. I could have lived with that for any number of years until the case for independence could be convincingly won.

Since brexit and the way things are going now, the overall tone of things, I can't get out of the UK fast enough. If this costs us money in the short and/or long term then so be it, a price worth paying to distance ourselves from what remains.

This is exactly my feeling too. Even though I campaigned for Yes last time, there was a sense after we lost that things would just stay the same really, back to the day job. There was even, I'll admit, perhaps a little relief that we hadn't leaped into the unknown - though also a lot of sadness that we hadn't.

Now, with the way the UK is going, a leap into the unknown is looking pretty good.

Like I said thm, it's pretty clear which ever investments you have are based on the status quo, you dislike change for this reason.

I am not sure where you get that from - but feel free to believe it if you want. As Bruce noted last night that is a much better path to happiness.

But returning to cold hard truths. Brexshit is bad for all of us. We know that and as I noted earlier its obviously more galling for Scots given the vote. But, that doesn't mean that a second knee-jerk bad decision is the correct way forward. This is not a maths exercise where tow minuses make a plus. This is real life.

As usual, the Narcissitic one is stirring up trouble, giving false hope to the gullible, and avoiding scrutiny of her track record. Cue talk of setting up rep offices/"embassies" - was meeting junior Germans in a restaurant that big a dent to the ego?

How about focusing on the tasks at hand, fully utilising the tools already at her disposal, tackling issues such as educational inequality, poor health standards; weaker economic performance. Or is just muddying the waters an easier option.

Like her or loathe her at least Theresa is getting on with the job at hand.

People would get what the majority for(you know democracy).

Remind what that was?

If one referendum gives a result, it should be able to withstand another. If not, then the initial result was suspect.

Oh I see.

Here's an idea like cumpulsory re-selection we can have rolling independence referendums. When the sun is shining vote out, when it rains vote in and blame the Westminsters.

Why has no one else though of that?

If everything was equal regarding Scotland's trade with rUK and the EU - but it's not, it does far more trade with rUK. I'm basing my opinion (which is all anybody has on here, I'm not sure why that needs pointing out) on the basis that access to rUK markets is far, far more important.

Yes but aracer these are the same facts that In posted a few pages back and they are inconvenient for the narrative. Like experts they really are not helpful.

If everything was equal regarding Scotland's trade with rUK and the EU - but it's not, it does far more trade with rUK.

Based on the situation we have now with Scotland part of the UK and the UK part of the EU. Unless you're an ardent Brexit fan you have to admit that the economy of the UK is going to suffer, thus reducing the level of trade with the UK.

Another thing is that trade between an independent Scotland and rUK won't cease but will be impacted. What I'm saying is that the the benefits of trade with the UK will not disappear completely.

An independent Scotland in the single market will have at least that part of it's trade protected which is more than can be said for her if she is part of a UK that has left the EU.

Also, Scotland is a small country with a population roughly a tenth of the UK. Some businesses will relocate to Scotland. How many it's impossible to say but that will increase our trade with the EU.

It's not as simple as saying that because things are this way with Scotland part of the UK which is part of the EU that they're going to stay the same with Scotland outside the UK but part of the single market.

teamhurtmore - Member
People would get what the majority for(you know democracy).
Remind what that was?

If one referendum gives a result, it should be able to withstand another. If not, then the initial result was suspect.
Oh I see.

Here's an idea like cumpulsory re-selection we can have rolling independence referendums. When the sun is shining vote out, when it rains vote in and blame the Westminsters.

Why has no one else though of that?

So I think the Scottish ref and current status quo is correct, the result is valid and should be followed, which it is. That should not exclude another ref sometime down the future, if the will is there within the scottish people to have one. That time is not now. But Scotland is definied as a nation within the UK, so it's a question only the people of Scotland can decide or not decide to have. Youse can waffle on, from south of the border, about once in a lifetime all you like. Simple fact is you don't get to decide that.

I think exiting the EU based on 52% is highly suspect. There should be another ref on what the vision of exiting the EU is, before the button is pressed.

So for Scotland the optimum scenario would be to be independent while a member of the single market while the worst scenario would be to be a small part of a large country without access to the single market.

The optimum solution was the one you reject for being overly cautious ie, membership of UK and EU (under UK priviliged terms). But I accept that has gone now (possible future fudges aside). But perhaps you misunderstand what being part of the single market would involve ie giving up independence of fiscal and monetary policy and less sovereignty? The worst scenario would be a small country (having to fulfill entry criteria ouch!) being a member of a broken economic structure. As before that is the upmost folly.

Good job, your leader only has that "in mind" 🙂

teamhurtmore - Member
Like I said thm, it's pretty clear which ever investments you have are based on the status quo, you dislike change for this reason.
I am not sure where you get that from - but feel free to believe it if you want. As Bruce noted last night that is a much better path to happiness.

But returning to cold hard truths. Brexshit is bad for all of us. We know that and as I noted earlier its obviously more galling for Scots given the vote. But, that doesn't mean that a second knee-jerk bad decision is the correct way forward. This is not a maths exercise where tow minuses make a plus. This is real life.

As usual, the Narcissitic one is stirring up trouble, giving false hope to the gullible, and avoiding scrutiny of her track record. Cue talk of setting up rep offices/"embassies" - was meeting junior Germans in a restaurant that big a dent to the ego?

How about focusing on the tasks at hand, fully utilising the tools already at her disposal, tackling issues such as educational inequality, poor health standards; weaker economic performance. Or is just muddying the waters an easier option.

Like her or loathe her at least Theresa is getting on with the job at hand.

Agreed a kneejerk reaction is wrong. My thoughts of 2030 and fixing scotlands problems(Ie making scotland financially self sustainable before another ref) isn't a kneejery reaction though.

I favour super majorities for such fundamental votes.

So do I.

Jo you are obviously far more sensible that your representatives who, in stark contrast, are jerking their knees faster than a reeling party goer

So we agree. Time for Nicola to STFU and concentrate on the job at hand until 2030. Stop the smokescreens and start delivering on your promises. That's what "the interests of the Scottish people" is all about not pointless grandstanding.

Like Theresa she has v weak oppo, but unlike her a much stronger majority. So no more excuses. Time for results. Scotland deserves better. See you for the 2030 referendum!!

Me too - I'm not sure if that makes us all conservative (small c).

But perhaps you misunderstand what being part of the single market would involve ie giving up independence of fiscal and monetary policy and less sovereignty? The worst scenario would be a small country (having to fulfill entry criteria ouch!) being a member of a broken economic structure. As before that is the upmost folly.

Scotland already has little or no input on fiscal and monetary policy and less sovereignty than if we were an independent member of the single market.

I'll take being a member of a broken economic structure with a population of 500 million over being a member of a broken economic structure with a population of 60 million people.

Maybe you just don't understand how little influence Scotland has on how it is governed.

No i can see though politicians excuses a bit better and i understand how the single market works.

If it's going to be such a ballache to leave the EU, isn't it going to be an even bigger one to leave the UK and also re-join the EU possibly, or possibly have to wait outside both then re-join? Would businesses view this as unfavourably as Brexit?

But then, Scotland could enjoy a good position as the only other native English speaking country in the EU. But if there are special trade relationships with rUK being based in Scotland could allow access to both the EU and whatever trade empire rUK can create...

teamhurtmore - Member
I favour super majorities for such fundamental votes.
So do I.

Jo you are obviously far more sensible that your representatives who, in stark contrast, are jerking their knees faster than a reeling party goer

So we agree. Time for Nicola to STFU and concentrate on the job at hand until 2030. Stop the smokescreens and start delivering on your promises. That's what "the interests of the Scottish people" is all about not pointless grandstanding.

Like Theresa she has v weak oppo, but unlike her a much stronger majority. So no more excuses. Time for results. Scotland deserves better. See you for the 2030 referendum!!

Don't take that as an indication I wouldn't vote yes again tomorrow! 😆

The dislike of tory westminster is a powerful force! 😆 as ben alludes to.

I think overall my view of the 2014 ref, with hindsight, is that there was a lot of naivety to it.

Time for Nicola to STFU and concentrate on the job at hand until 2030.

Unionists keep saying this. It's odd because the SNP have been in power for a decade now, and are still incredibly popular - how do they do that if all they concentrate on is independence?

The obvious answer is that they're doing a lot of other things, including running the country in a pretty competent manner. They are capable of doing more than one thing at once - just look at the discussions going on now at their conference.

What's funny is that people have surveyed how much the SNP talk about independence versus other parties - and the other Scottish parties mention it an awful lot more than the SNP do!

Maybe you just don't understand how little influence Scotland has on how it is governed.

What? It has the same amount as England and Wales, actually slightly more.

are still incredibly popular - how do they do that if all they concentrate on is independence?

Maybe people are pro SNP for the same reasons they were pro Brexit in England? Lashing out at the establishment? Maybe it's simply reactionary rather than considered?

[quote=BruceWee ]I'll take being a member of a broken economic structure with a population of 500 million over being a member of a broken economic structure with a population of 60 million people.

How exactly does the greater number of people benefit you? The most obvious difference being that you'll have far less influence over the other 594 million than you do over the other 54 million. Are you seriously expecting that the greater number of people will result in Scotland doing more trade with them despite the opposite being the case at the moment - your previous musing about how things might change post independence have a similar level of fantasy to that of most Brexiters.

I think overall my view of the 2014 ref, with hindsight, is that there was a lot of naivety to it.

Well we agree again - as does Stiglitz the main econ advisor to the naive ones!

If you are going to do it, do it properly. Not half-arsed, half-baked and based purely on [s]anti-English[/s] anti-Westminster rhetoric and candy floss. And dont avoid the currency question next time - it wont go away and the € is not the answer either.

Scotland deserves better. Much better.

An independent Scotland in the single market will have access to a larger market for goods and services and have greater sovereignty than Scotland inside the a UK that is outside the single market.

The one thing we know about trade is that the current levels of trade between Scotland and rUK and the EU is going to change. You can't tell me how it's going to change and I can't tell you. I'm presenting an optimistic scenario and you're not presenting any scenario you're just telling me I'm being stupid.

Maybe you can say what you think is going to happen with Scotland outside the UK but inside the single market?

[quote=BruceWee ]An independent Scotland in the single market will have access to a larger market for goods and services and have greater sovereignty than Scotland inside the a UK that is outside the single market.

The same access as it has at present. Losing that access will make rather less difference than losing access to the rUK market - it's a simple matter of where Scotland does trade with. I'm just not sure of the benefits of trying to change that around given the geography involved.

My scenario is that the trade with the EU won't be much different than it is now (there's no obvious reason why it should be), whilst trade with the rUK will be reduced due to trade barriers, in the same way Brexit is an issue for Germany. The only reason trade with the EU would increase is as an attempt to make up for loss of trade with the rUK, but it's not going to make up for the loss. It being a larger market is somewhat irrelevant if you're not actually trading with it - the US or the world is an even larger market, why are you limiting your ambitions?

I'm fairly sure my scenario is rather more based in reality than your optimistic one.

BTW you mention sovereignty as well - exactly how does that directly benefit an ordinary Scottish person?

I find it hard to believe that rUK leaving the single market while Scotland stays won't result in any companies wanting to relocate to Scotland so they can continue business as usual. What do you think companies that rely heavily on trade with the single market will do if the UK leaves the single market? If they won't move to Scotland where will they go?

Like I said, Scotland is a small country so it doesn't take a large percentage of the firms currently based in England and Wales to relocate to have a large effect on trading.

As far as the sovereignty thing goes, I think you have to live in a small country to realise how close you are to members of the government.

When I moved to Norway I got chatting to a guy in a bar and it turns out he was the minister for culture. Apparently it was well known that this was his local.

The level of political engagement in Norway is far higher than it is in the UK because the politicians live amongst us.

A good illustration of what can happen when the prime minister pops out for some coffee and a paper.

[quote=BruceWee ]What do you think companies that rely heavily on trade with the single market will do if the UK leaves the single market? If they won't move to Scotland where will they go?

Ireland, Holland...

teamhurtmore - Member
One can argue that any nation, state, region, etc can be independent. Of course they can but that is not the question....

It is very much the question.

Everything else is embroidery around the edges.

Ireland, Holland...

What would make Ireland and Holland more desirable than Scotland to the extent that none of these businesses would move to Scotland?

No it isn't - its merely a statement.

What would make Ireland and Holland more desirable than Scotland to the extent that none of these businesses would move to Scotland?

Easy starter for ten - a less volatile currency. Marmite anyone?

Countering that of course, the left-of-centre (no really) government has the old lets compete on corporation tax card. So we have two tax types of "havens", but one with a more volatile currency driven by the price of a commodity whose supply and demand is driven by others (#fakecontrol2). Not a tough choice that one, is it?

[quote=BruceWee ]What would make Ireland and Holland more desirable than Scotland to the extent that none of these businesses would move to Scotland?

😆 there is a specific reason I picked those out of all the options available!

Though the most obvious other answer is that they will still be in the EU at the point the UK leaves.

To even make a stab at what might happen with trade, what industries are the main ones in Scotland? Could post Brexit the Rest of World make up for an lost EU trade?

O&G, Defence, Manufacturing
Food & Drink
Financial Services
Agriculture / Fishing
Tourism
Textiles
Electronics / Software

[img] [/img]

Easy starter for ten - a less volatile currency. Marmite anyone?

So now the Euro would be a good thing?

Though the most obvious other answer is that they will still be in the EU at the point the UK leaves.

That's why I said a Scotland in the single market. We need to get our finger out with this referendum.

Remember, Scotland is a small country. We don't need all the businesses, just some of them.

Bruce be sensible - the Euro? No that would be daft. You see, with a little thought you come back to same point. The interests of the Scottish people are best served as members of the UK coupled with a devolved assembly.

You can keep going round and round in circles - or believe the snake oil salesmen - but the hard truth remains the same. Why? Because its so bloody obvious which is why as Jo put it the last attempt looked so naive.

Bruce be sensible - the Euro? No that would be daft. You see, with a little thought you come back to same point. The interests of the Scottish people are best served as members of the UK coupled with a devolved assembly.

Holland and Ireland are more desirable because they use the Euro but the Euro is also such a massive folly you'd have to mad to use it?

In your opinion are there no businesses that would want to relocate from rUK outside the single market to an independent Scotland in the single market? Not a single one?

[quote=BruceWee ]In your opinion are there no businesses that would want to relocate from rUK outside the single market to an independent Scotland in the single market? Not a single one?

That's not my opinion - however if the prime reason for moving is access to the single market then it's far from the most desirable location, the options I suggested have pretty much everything Scotland has to offer along with other advantages. I'm sure you will get a few companies moving, but not the big players in the sort of scale you'd need for your vision.

Bruce - pause a little, This is becoming nonsensical now.

Holland and Ireland are more desirable because they use the Euro

As a foreign base - yes. A Scottish pound is likely to be more volatile due to the exposure to oil price. Why would you want that additional risk as a foreign company? (assuming similar tax rates etc).

but the Euro is also such a massive folly you'd have to mad to use it?

Different thing altogther. This is from the perspective of the home nation not the foreign company considering where to locate.

Of course, there is one hope - a disordely collapse pf the € - but the best place to "benefit" from that would to be part of the UK not as a marginal side player.

In your opinion are there no businesses that would want to relocate from rUK outside the single market to an independent Scotland in the single market? Not a single one?

No one is saying that, so why pose the question. Its irrelevant.

But once again, another circle but same end point. The interests of the Scottish people are best served as part of the UK.

It has the same amount as England and Wales, actually slightly more.

When did the election results in scotland last decide an election result for the UK?
Same questions for England please.

IIRC it was 1951 for both questions for scotland

After that they get the govt england votes for
Now you can argue that is fair within a Union or unfair as you see fit but its hard to argue they have the same influence as England

Unionists keep saying this. It's odd because the SNP have been in power for a decade now, and are still incredibly popular - how do they do that if all they concentrate on is independence

I voted for independance BTW