Scotland Indyref 2

How about the hundred or so other countries that are independent?...

You go on about this a lot, as if it was a direct comparison. This difference is that none of these countries (apart from some of Ireland) were ever actually a constituent part of the UK. Scotland isn't ruled by the UK (no matter how much the SNP like to portray us as a downtrodden little colony), we are part of the UK.

why would they be hostile to scotland, it's nonsensical

Most admittedly aren't, however they would expect Scotland to join under certain very strict conditions. The problem country is Spain, because of the Catalans. Various members of the Spanish government have made it quite clear they would make if difficult for Scotland to rejoin.

Kind of similar to how the UK wasn't ruled by the EU, but were a part of it.

Didn't stop 51.8% of voters voting to regain our sovereignty

You know the whole "we're leaving and taking 8% of the UK's assets with us" argument? Doesn't that logic mean that the rest of the UK gets 92% of Scottish assets?

[quote=welshfarmer ]Kind of similar to how the UK wasn't ruled by the EU, but were a part of it.
Didn't stop 51.8% of voters voting to [b]regain[/b] our sovereignty
Wrong word, eh?

When did David Cameron ask the permission of the EU to hold a referendum?

yes basically the assetts that belong to the UK as a whole need to be split. From the military to the railways via houses of parliament. Holyrood belongs to Scotland for Example wheras Westminster belongs to the UK

Very complex to sort out Mainly it will be done on a geographical basis but this cannot be done for some things

Seems like it's in Scotland's interest to not push the "we want 8%" button too much then.

Nope - we want 8% 'cos we have less than 8% of the UKs assets in Scotland

Like the bank of England - how much is that worth? Its a uk asset so belongs in part to scotland - as does HS1 (and 2) as they were built with UK strategic funds not english only spending ( IIRC) under Barnett

Westminster wouldn't get the 35 million a year in VAT from the Scottish police and fire services if we got independence.

You know the whole "we're leaving and taking 8% of the UK's assets with us" argument? Doesn't that logic mean that the rest of the UK gets 92% of Scottish assets?

Nope. It may mean that the value of 92% of UK assets in Scotland (those that will remain here anyway) is subtracted from the overall 8% of UK assets.

From Veterans from Independence:

[i]"....what Nicola Sturgeon has done by calling for an Independence Referendum for Scotland in late 2018/early 2019 is to remove ALL of Scotland's assets from the Brexit negotiating table.

No longer is Theresa May able to use Scotland's fishing rights as a bargaining chip, no more boosting UK trade figures with Scotland's whisky and gas exports, no more bragging about Scotland's renewable industry.

She can't make promises about things she might lose control of in a few short months - and the EU negotiators know that."[/i]

Explains the timing, especially as Westminster was talking about trying to snaffle the farming and fishing rights which are not reserved powers and therefore belong to Scotland as of right.

kennyp - Member
'How about the hundred or so other countries that are independent?...'
You go on about this a lot, as if it was a direct comparison. This difference is that none of these countries (apart from some of Ireland) were ever actually a constituent part of the UK.

It doesn't have to be a direct comparison, in fact none of them can be. Then there's also all the other countries that have secured independence from the other European countries, and none of them want back either.

So it's fair to ask - what is so unique about Scotland amongst all the countries in the world that the doom mongers can highlight as reasons Scotland would fail as an independent country?

It seems the only credible reason is that they have either ill-will or antagonism towards Scotland.

I'll accept they have a case if they can show any country similar to Scotland that has failed.

Well Scotland is at 55 degrees north, has an area of 78K km2 and a population of 5.3 million. A similar independent nation might be Denmark, also at 55 degrees north, a little smaller at 43K km2 and a pretty similar population at 5.7 million.

But then who would want to live in a small independent country like Denmark. Must be an awful place to live

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/denmark-happiest-country_n_4070761.html

yes basically the assetts that belong to the UK as a whole need to be split. From the military to the railways via houses of parliament. Holyrood belongs to Scotland for Example wheras Westminster belongs to the UK

This is what yS would like you to believe,. However, the counter argument

It is a legal principle that, as the United Kingdom would be the continuator state, institutions of the UK would remain with that state.[18] For example, Parliament, the UK Supreme Court, the Bank of England and the BBC would—as UK institutions—remain institutions of the rest of the UK. If an independent Scotland wished to continue membership of, or form a partnership in, any UK institution, that would be for the rest of the UK to consider as part of negotiations. [b]There is no legal right for a successor state to share the institutions of the state from which it secedes[/b]....

22. The Scottish Government told us that fixed assets in Scotland would become Scottish on independence, whereas all assets in the rest of the UK would be subject to negotiations.[21] This was not borne out by other evidence we heard....

Still sounds good doesn't it? and better than reality:

In the event of Scottish secession, institutions of the UK would become institutions of the rest of the UK, as the continuator state. Fixed assets would belong to the state in which they are located. Other (non-fixed) assets and liabilities would be apportioned equitably. The exact division would be a matter for negotiations, and would be complicated.

It seems the only credible reason is that they have either ill-will or antagonism towards Scotland.

Perhaps another credible reason is that we want what is best for Scotland. However we see the best future as being in a union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Insulting people who don't agree with you isn't likely to win over anyone who is undecided.

It doesn't have to be a direct comparison, in fact none of them can be. Then there's also all the other countries that have secured independence from the other European countries, and none of them want back either.

But on the other hand I don't see all the countries who gave up their independence to become the bigger country we now know as Germany desperately wanting to be independent again.

well said kenny!

Perhaps if the UK had adopted a federal system like Germany we might not have been in this position. Although given the brexit scenario there's no guarantee.

I would be quite happy with a proper federal system with the HOL abolished and 4 parliaments of equal powers

epicyclo

It seems the only credible reason is that they have either ill-will or antagonism towards Scotland.

I won't refrain from using the words sneering and condescending for this :O)

Is it not even a wee bit credible that [i]they[/i] live here, [i]they[/i] can't see the upside, and [i]they[/i] don't want the economic pain for themselves and their families.

Or maybe [i]they[/i] like being part of the UK as much as they liked being part of Europe?

After all [i]they[/i] were 55% of the population last time?

Do you know what [i]othering[/i] is?

tjagain
So would I for that matter. Except that that means full fiscal autonomy.

I would be quite happy with a proper federal system with the HOL abolished and 4 parliaments of equal powers

It's difficult when one part is so much larger than all the others. Plus London tends to complicate things. However broadly speaking I do agree with you. A well thought out federal solution would satisfy probably the majority.

So, will May be desperate enough to suggest a fully federal UK? Abd after "The Vow" would anyone believe her?

No and No

So what was wrong with the Vow?
I was under the impression that it was delivered and agreed on by Westminster and Scottish Govt?
Genuinely interested in info if it wasn't?

The vow certainly was not delivered in any form - indeed it was retracted as soon as they could. Indeed now May is talking about reducing holyroods reach in that devolved issues that were under EU regs now will go to Westminster not Holyrood ie fisheries

We did not get any significant further devolution and powers, Holyrood was not made permanent ( Westminster still holds the right to dissolve it)

It was an outright lie the VOW and never happened in any form " near home rule" " the most powerful devolved government in the world" all lies

Smith commission for example said Scotland should get full powers over income tax - what did we get - a small amount of power to tinker around the edges. We only got a portion of what Smith said we should and even Smith was nowhere near the vow and certainly not agreed by Sturgeon
" "I welcome what is being recommended" but argued that it "doesn’t deliver a modern form of home rule". Claiming that too little power would be devolved to Scotland, she added "I want to have the power in our hands to create a better system to lift people out of poverty, to get our economy growing. That’s the kind of powerhouse parliament I want. Sadly it’s not the one that’s going to be delivered."

tbh tj, the vow was succifiently vague that they could have offered scotland a mars bar and it would have been met. so whether or not the vow was met isn't really a point you can argue. Some more powers were delivered. Whether you were happy with them or not really just dependent on the hue of your nationalism, whether british or scottish.

4 equal parliaments? Well at least that would get rid of the voter imbalance that favours voters north of the border.

Nope - it states clearly that HOlyrood should be permanent and that there would be legislation to ensure this. It didn't happen.

Smith commission offered less than the vow and we didn't even get all that

Only 9% of scots think the vow was kept. this is one of the things driving a second referendum. We were lied to again

It was a stunt by the Daily Record, nothing else.

fair do's i take a different view in at if you believed you would have got what you want from the vow then you were aff yer nut... but hohumm. no a point i'll ever get animated about.

plus it wasn't really talking to nationalists, its was aimed a fence sitters anyhow, so it being fairly weak was always going to be the case.

She can't make promises about things she might lose control of in a few short months - and the EU negotiators know that."

She can make cast iron assurances that the UK will not grant a legally binding referendum for a generation.

She could probably even put that into law.

Question: If the EU are happy to reward nationalist separatists with membership of the EU, (including the Maastrict commitment to join the EZ) why don't the EU say so up front which would defuse the fears of the rest of the UK and I suspect many floating voters? Seems very odd for the EU not to do that if they're willing to have Scotland as a member.

The vow clearly states Holyrood should be permanent. This would require legislation in Westminster. It hasn't happened therefore the vow was not upheld.

outofbreath - Member

She could probably even put that into law.

Team Hurtmore was right. This really is a rehash of two very long and mostly extremely tedious years running up to the last "one in a lifetime" Referendum.

TJ the "vow" was a huge error. Cameron bottled it. Scots should have been offered nothing in addition to the very generous deal they have already.

[b]The most bizarre thing as someone noted above is that Scotland's economic fortunes as an independent nation are now almost entirely dependent upon the deal the UK negotiates with the EU.[/b]

tjagain - Member
The vow clearly states Holyrood should be permanent. This would require legislation in Westminster. It hasn't happened therefore the vow was not upheld.

Bugger.. another contentious subject....

Scots got nothing significant in addition to what is already a mean settlement. Full federal system would have kept the union going. Mays actions have ensured it will split.

Scotland fortunes are only tied to Englands deal with the EU if we stay in the union! Thats why most of us want to leave so we avoid the huge damage of leaving the EU

we're just getting warmed back up jamba! 😆

May cannot stop a scots referendum - she can only make it more difficult to hold and by doing that guarantees the YES vote

btw anyone else looking forward to jeremy corbyns fierce and energetic support for the union? 😆

probably could but she'd be just essentially signing over scotland to the nationists in 15/20 years time.

...and a Politician's horizon is how far?

Probably May will think a decent deal with the EU (whatever that means!) is probably worth the risk of a breakup of the union in 2040.

fair point.