Nice link Kenny - Curtis is perhaps overly fair to the SNP so his analysis certainly has no unionist bias
tjagain, you've got to be factually correct or you'll appear like a fanatic and no one will be swayed by your arguments. As I understand it one member could veto Scotland's addition to Europe and at least one member has already said not on my watch, back of the line please.
I thought even the SNP has acknowledged this by softening their (probable manifesto promise) to we'll join the EFTA.
[quote=tjagain ]The theory is that Scotland would remain in the EU and the rUK would leave both the UK and the EU at the same time.
I thought I'd already debunked that one - and you don't appear to have replied to my post to explain how Scotland can become independent from the UK in 6 months when it was going to take 18 months last time. I'm open to discussion on this, but it's a point which doesn't seem to have been addressed.
Just imagine Brussels had told the UK that they are not allowed to have a referendum. That's the difference between Scotland's 'two Unions.'
TJ thay's exactly why the UK is getting [b]OUT[/b] of Europe before it's too late and Brussels does have a veto. It also reflects the key and vital difference between the UK and Scotland, one is an independent country seeking to remain independent and the other is a "nation" / region trying to gain independence. Thats a massive difference. BTW many of my French relatives who are very hostile to the EU feel it's too late for them as they have adopted the €.
n how Scotland can become independent from the UK in 6 months when it was going to take 18 months last time.
Or how the UK will take at least 2 yrs to dissolve a 40yr old union but the SNP think a 300yr old union can be dissolved in 6 months.
But I don't think there will be an indyref until after Brexit. It isn't acceptable to compromise Brexit negotiations by trying to do indy negotiations at the same time.
As Brexit is the reason for the new referendum is makes sense to wait until after Brexit to hold the indyref. So we can see exactly what Breixit is before voting.
The UK is 300 yrs old. What difference does another year or two either way make?
Party politics isn't really an indicator of what people want in relation to a constitutional question, all parties had people who went against the common perception of how they should have voted in 2014.kennyp - Member
Am also happy to admit the SNP did win the majority of the seats, but still contend that the majority of voters did not vote for pro-independence parties.
As @aracer says the SNP are skewered over the timing, they can't have a Referendum soon enough to exit the UK before we exit the EU - even if they held it tomorrow. May is quite right to push Indy Ref 2 until post March 2019 as actually it makes no difference as even if it was in Sep 2018 the SNP can't action it fast enough.
kennyp
Here you go then...
Ok, that BBC article mentions 2 of 5 polls conducted this year - one for the Herald, one for The Sunday Times & gives us an average of 48% v 52% in favour of Scotland rembrexiteering - shenanigans aside, it's a bit close for comfort for the PM - especially with the police investigation into tory election fraud hanging over her, a brexit secretary who doesn't have a clue what's happening, a treasurer who can't count, and she's under fire for ignoring the democratic will of the Scottish electorate - lucky she can rely on the BBC to blame everything on Jeremy Corbyn eh? 😆
I don't think it's debunked (as I think if political will is there(beyond campaign) it could happen.) But I do think it's entirely unclear though and un-provable at the moment. If it's a choice the SNP think we have, it's up to them to produce evidence(as I argued pages ago).aracer - Member
tjagain » The theory is that Scotland would remain in the EU and the rUK would leave both the UK and the EU at the same time.
I thought I'd already debunked that one - and you don't appear to have replied to my post to explain how Scotland can become independent from the UK in 6 months when it was going to take 18 months last time. I'm open to discussion on this, but it's a point which doesn't seem to have been addressed.
No real point in arguing the point though till the SNPs position is made clear, as you can't win it from a stay in perspective, at the moment.
[quote=seosamh77 ]I don't think it's debunked(as I think if political will is there(beyond campaign) it could happen.)
Becoming independent in 6 months, or some political wrangling to keep Scotland in the EU whilst still being part of a UK which has left the EU? The former isn't really related to political will, it's about the practicalities of separation which can't be done tomorrow (and the required political will has to come from both sides unless iS wants to have a really shit deal). The latter would require an unthinkable level of political will from the 27 which I'm not sure they're capable of.
Hence my opinion that it's political posturing and power positioning rather than a real attempt to have a referendum then. I suspect your opinion on whether a referendum will happen depends on your opinion on how accurate the SNP are in portraying it as a way Scotland can stay in the EU (rather than rejoin), though as already pointed it this is a risky strategy anyway given the significant proportion of those pro independence who also want to be independent from the EU.
First of all, there is no queue. Each application for membership is considered on its own and is not delayed just because another country applied before it.As I understand it one member could veto Scotland's addition to Europe and at least one member has already said not on my watch, back of the line please.
Secondly- which country has said they'd veto Scotland. The Spanish have already said that the Scottish situation is completely different from the Catalan one.
"Secondly- which country has said they'd veto Scotland. The Spanish have already said that the Scottish situation is completely different from the Catalan one."
If the 27 remaining EU nations are happy to give Scotland membership (including EZ), let them come out and say so.
It would allay fears on both sides.
Aracer - as I said its not without its problems and its not certain but its the best way for and independent scotland to stay in the EU hence the need for the referendum before the UK leaves the EU
the UK leaving the EU changes the situation with the spanish completely - and remember that the spanish fishing fleet need access to scottish waters
They won't till the question is settled though. It's a pointless argument really. But obviously one that unionists will seize upon as it generates uncertainty.outofbreath - MemberIf the 27 remaining EU nations are happy to give Scotland membership (including EZ), let them come out and say so.
Edit, which is a fair political tactic and one that scottish nationalists need to understand they negotiate very smartly.(a difficult task, given it's not really provable from their perspective till after the fact.(unless the SNP have a card up their sleeves.(uncertain at the moment, as is their position on the EU too.)))
The theory is that Scotland would remain in the EU and the rUK would leave both the UK and the EU at the same time. Its much easier for a fudge to be found that would allow Scotland continuing membership than leaving the EU as part of the UK then reapplying as iScotlandIts not a sure fire thing but we know that most in the EU would like Scotland to continue as a member for a whole load of reasons not least of which is the fishing and the oil
as has been pointed out timings mean that hat approach wont work.
Sturgeon is clearly being an oportunist, trying to capatilise on the uncertainty of brexit. If we vote no again then i fully expect her to call yet another vote once we have actually left europe and things have fallen apart for the uk.
That is a far more justifiable time to call another referendum, but then again she is perhaps not so confident that brexit will be a disaster as myself, and will miss the opportunity. Cant understand how people can't see this for what it blatantly is, self serving politics at its finest. She clearly doesn't have our best interests at heart.
Also, given shes been telling us for the last 5 years that joining the EU is a sure thing for an indpendent scotland, why does it matter if we leave as part of the UK and then rejoin after independence. That was always the plan anyhow wasn't it?
Some in the EU have suggested that Scotland could go into some sort of constitutional "holding pen" post Brexit and prior to its situation being resolved. That would avoid any in-out-in faff. Of course, there's nothing in the treaties about this situation and I can't see any top officials saying much before an indy vote as they'd be seen to be interfering in internal UK politics.
no tpbiker - the plan was always to have continueing EU membership
IN some ways its actually easier this way as some of the untangling for rUK and Scotland is the same issues
Because it's all uncertainty and delay and we're repeatedly being told that's a baaaad thing., why does it matter if we leave as part of the UK and then rejoin after independence.
"I can't see any top officials saying much before an indy vote as they'd be seen to be interfering in internal UK politics."
Yeah, that'll be the reason. 🙂
Well, they've said that's the reason. Of course, they could all be in on some sort of nationalist conspiracy....
btw does anyone have a link to the EU treaties that deal with the break up of nations in relation to EU membership?
Sbob said it existed, but dissappeared when I asked for the link(probably just lost interest in the thread).
But I would like to read that if it exists? anyone have a link, or clues what to google?
outofbreath - Member
"I can't see any top officials saying much before an indy vote as they'd be seen to be interfering in internal UK politics."Yeah, that'll be the reason.
yip, one that's been mentioned, many times.
[quote=scotroutes ]Some in the EU have suggested that Scotland could go into some sort of constitutional "holding pen" post Brexit and prior to its situation being resolved.
Linky? Would require completely new EU rules, if not new treaties and likely also to require unanimous approval of 27 parliaments. As you say, it appears somewhat unlikely that even if such a measure was approved it would be on the table before an indy vote, so you'd be asking people to vote for the remote chance of staying in.
[quote=tjagain ]no tpbiker - the plan was always to have continueing EU membership
Who's plan? NS might make claims about that, but there appears to be no evidence that it's a realistic claim. The timing appears to be more about political opportunity and the chance to grab power by threatening to weaken the hand of the Brexit negotiations than any realistic chance of that happening. But then I guess one of us is going to be buying the other a pint over it, which means we get to chat about it over beers 🙂
Aracer - as I said its not without its problems and its not certain but its the best way for and independent scotland to stay in the EU hence the need for the referendum before the UK leaves the EU
Have you got a less hand wavy suggestion on how it will be possible to get around the timescale issue? It all seems a bit "we'll fix it". If that's the best way, then I'm afraid you're stuffed, TM is going to be dragging you out kicking and screaming just like the rest of us 48%.
not been reading [ apologies if discussed] this but can scotland not just have the Uk continous membership?
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the EU can do fudges like no other so anything is possible and it would seem pretty clear the EI would be happy with look the UK left but it split their country as an outcome to deter others
I doubt they would be that upset at rUK surrounded by the EU
I would not like to speculate on the outcome personally as its largely guesswork
Brexit is going to go one of two ways. The first is that all parties realise that in order to negotiate a deal properly it's going to take far longer than two years, probably closer to ten.
The second is a cliff edge at the end of the two years. I get the impression this is the Tories preferred option.
So, on one hand, we wait indefinitely as deadline after deadline passes and the UK enters a Brexit limbo hell with negotiations proceeding at their usual glacial pace. All this time we're told that we aren't allowed a referendum until the UK finalises the Brexit deal. As the years pass the UK slowly circles the drain as uncertainty becomes the norm and international companies drift off looking for solid ground.
On the other hand, if it's the cliff edge, we know exactly what our options are already. Option 1 we have continued membership in the single market in an independent Scotland. Option 2 we operate under WTO rules in the UK.
Anyone want to honestly tell me there's any chance of a proper deal being in place in March 2019?
All it needs is the political will in Scotland and in the EU. Personally I see no issues at all with it,
As you say, God knows how it might work. We'd still be left with the Scottish electorate choosing between an uncertain membership and a definite departure.
It will also give the EU ammo over little engerland, if the Scott's are poised to leave the UK ASAP, the UK has less weight on the negotiation table when it comes to getting a good deal.
The EU might be inclined to 'fast track' Scottish membership, be it under existing terms or so kind of interim deal..
Needs political will in rUK also. Which I believe would be there if there was a winning referendum in the required timescale. They are highly unlikely to admit that though.tjagain - Member
All it needs is the political will in Scotland and in the EU. Personally I see no issues at all with it
There is that too. Farage was suggesting May was prepared to keep the fisheries open to the EU.
[quote=BruceWee ]The second is a cliff edge at the end of the two years. I get the impression this is the Tories preferred option.
To be fair, THM is right about this - if we're going to do it, it's best to get it over with, because:
As the years pass the UK slowly circles the drain as uncertainty becomes the norm and international companies drift off looking for solid ground.
Even WTO is better than that (we've already apparently dismissed all the best options).
[quote=tjagain ]All it needs is the political will in Scotland and in the EU.
You're asking for a lot of political will from the parliament of every one of the 27 (it has to be a unanimous thing). Though reading the end of that article I'm not sure what the benefit is over leaving and reapplying - I suppose you get over the issue of your deficit being too large for EU rules on membership 😈
If the 27 remaining EU nations are happy to give Scotland membership (including EZ), let them come out and say so.
Maybe no one's asked them yet?
Or maybe the BBC has but it hasn't managed to get the right answer yet.
Can I just go off-topic for a moment and ask what's happening in Gibraltar? They voted overwhelmingly for Remain and I've not heard anything much since.
Party politics isn't really an indicator of what people want in relation to a constitutional question
Totally agree. However Nicola's justification for calling for a second referendum is that she has a mandate for it, and that that mandate came about as a result of the 2015 Scottish elections. Therefore she is the one using party politics to affect a constitutional question.
Now in some ways I do agree with her. Their election manifesto made quite clear what the policies were and she is quite entitled to say that they were elected fair and square so are entitled to carry out that pledge. However my counter argument is that the pro-independence vote went almost entirely to the SNP (who are essentially a single issue party) whereas the pro-union vote was split. Therefore you have the anomaly of an SNP dominated parliament at Holyrood voted in by an electorate that is not in favour of a second referendum. If any of that makes sense (I tend to ramble). (-:
Surely, in an age where political compromise is sadly lacking, it seems quite fair that the SNP call for another referendum, but that the UK government have a say in when is best to hold it.
here fishy fishy! 😆aracer - Member
I suppose you get over the issue of your deficit being too large for EU rules on membership
currently bending over and waiting for it like most others? 😆scotroutes - Member
Can I just go off-topic for a moment and ask what's happening in Gibraltar? They voted overwhelmingly for Remain and I've not heard anything much since.
gives us an average of 48% v 52% in favour
As you admit yourself, the electorate is not in favour of another referendum. Admittedly it is very close, but in a situation like this the onus is on the side demanding change to prove that an appetite for change exists. Otherwise we continue with the status quo. Show me proof that this appetite exists and I will join in calls for a second referendum.
Damned if she did, damned if she didn't. The predominantly unionist press would be bad-mouthing her if she'd not followed through on that commitment. One might suggest that the Holyrood vote is the very least she had to achieve to prevent that happening.Now in some ways I do agree with her. Their election manifesto made quite clear what the policies were and she is quite entitled to say that they were elected fair and square so are entitled to carry out that pledge.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/03/ruth-davidson-next-pm-should-not-block-scottish-independence-ref/ ]At least Nicola can count on Ruth's backing[/url]
And how many pages since someone was singing her praises?
don't have a source for this, but another fine example of principled ruth! 😆
“You don’t get a referendum for free, you have to earn it. So if the Greens and the SNP – and the SSP or any of the other parties who’ve declared an interest in independence – get over the line and can make a coalition, make a majority, get the votes in the Parliament, then they’ll vote through a referendum, and that’s what democracy’s all about… it’s perfectly simple”Ruth Davidson.
What will I be voting for, other than the headline of independence? We dont know what the uk economy will look like, so how can we possibly make a judgement that isnt based upon nationalism and uncertainty.
We have two options..
A - leaave now, Brexit may be a tremendous success ( I doubt this), we'll look a bit daft if it is and we've done a runner.
B- bide our time till after brexit, see if uk is in a mess then leave with no possibility of regrets. Or stay if the uk is flurishing and reep the benefits.
Can someone who is for a quick referendum tell me why waiting isnt the better option. Its a win win for us.
[quote=scotroutes ]Damned if she did, damned if she didn't. The predominantly unionist press would be bad-mouthing her if she'd not followed through on that commitment. One might suggest that the Holyrood vote is the very least she had to achieve to prevent that happening.
She's a politician, it comes with the territory. In any case it's a rod she made herself.
Ruth is indeed principled - if more politicians were like her and actually in the job for mostly the right reasons the world might be a better place. Given other sentiment on here, I'm hoping such thoughts might be possible whatever colour her rosette is.
