Just out of interest and because we apparently don't attract migrants; will any of these EU citizens be able to vote if we have left? ( even though they are all in Barnsley)
To be fair 'Most' of the conversation about migration was actually more an attempt at quantifying it and its causality.
I'd heard plenty to suggest unusually high levels of various groups but pretty much zero evidence to suggest anything unusually high in a wider U.K. context other than, "I've seen loads round here" which doesn't really evidence it enough for me.
Something like this is a bit more useful http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/immigration-map-britain-foreign-migrants-4669250
Although still too blunt IMO and missing some bigs chunks of Scotland, it's also too old considering it's what migrants are doing now that intrigues me most.
And just to be clear it's not some sort of pissing contest about who wins the immigrants competition. More a genuine interest as to what we can do to increase the immigration appeal of Scotland.
That New Statesmen article reads like an exercise in confirmation bias.
Considering it comes from a former labour party advisor I don't think so
Well, you wouldn't would you 😛
piemonster - Member
That wasn't REALLY what I was saying; bearing in mind one of the main thrusts of the SNP argument is EU membership, You would expect migrant workers to vote resoundingly yes. Is there a possibility that they might not be invited to?
Ahh,
I'd certainly hope they'd get a vote. I sit in the camp of if you're? planning to make a life here you should have a vote.
Thats another reason why the SNP want / need the vote before we leave the EU. As things stand EU citizens living in Scotland have a vote. After leaving the EU they wouldn't.
Agreed Pie; but bearing in mind the post-brexit rise of "Britishness"
I would be surprised if that fair approach will be popular; "Migrant NHS tourists decide fate of GREAT Britain." (share if you think this is a disc-race) etc,etc. A good way to remove (insert figure here) YES votes.
Interesting article on the GERS figures. Note the publication and have yor pinch of salt ready but also note who the author is
However the SNP used GERS figures last time so it will be hard for them to argue this time they don't show the whole picture
True Ducky
But how does that look to the Scottish electorate. Such sentiments are hardly endearing at least amongst my peer group.
They might take away the votes of EU citizens only to lose those of moderate voters in Scotland.
I'm not so sure there will be any moderate voters left here before there is a vote. But it is another interesting sub plot in what is going to be a bitter campaign.
Eligibility to vote in the last referendum was lifted straight from the electoral roles, IIRC - I can't see how else it could be done. If EU migrants are eligible to vote and have registered to vote, they can vote in any referendum. Nicola can't and doesn't have to wave a magic wand, and her evil stepmother can't either.
I had May as Cruella Deville
Eligibility to vote in the last referendum was lifted straight from the electoral roles, IIRC - I can't see how else it could be done. If EU migrants are eligible to vote and have registered to vote, they can vote in any referendum.
They weren't able to vote in the EU referendum. It's done off the electoral roll, but UK-wide votes exclude some people in Scotland - 16-17 year olds and EU citizens.
Arguably, as the independence referendum would be a Scotland-only vote, they should be allowed to vote, but that is not automatic.
Isn't that the Green Party amendment?
Interesting article on the GERS figures. Note the publication and have yor pinch of salt ready but also note who the author is
And increase the size of the pinch significantly
Mefty - you know something about the author? Interested to hear it 'cos in all information adding into the debate we need to know the biases of the authors
Just launched [url= https://www.scer.scot/ ]Scottish Centre on European Relations[/url] website "a new independent and unaligned EU think tank, based in Edinburgh"
Might be interesting reading for some
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/jeremy-corbyn/page/370 ]See my post on this thread[/url]
Ta Mefty - this bit? "I am not writing off all his work, but I am always take what he says about anything with a hefty pinch of salt because his level of expertise and achievements are overstated by the media and sadly, it appears by himself. "
fair enough. I just thought a professor from a london institute would have no axe to grind on scottish independence so might give a decent summary. So not biased just not as clever as he thinks?
doesn't invalidate the assessment of GERs tho does it?
So not biased just not as clever as he thinks? doesn't invalidate the assessment of GERs tho does it?
No, the fact that most of what he wrote in that article was nonsense invalidates his assessment of GERs
So you know better than a professor of economics from a london university - or is that merely it doesn't fit your narrative?
So you know better than a professor of economics from a london university
He is a Professor in economics by name but he has not had a conventional academic career, in fact as far as I can tell this is his first academic post. Afterall, Angelina Jolie is a visiting professor at the LSE.
its a tad unfair to compare him with a visiting professor
Your initial critique that his method of getting there is unusual is fair but the comparison with a visiting professor and Ms Jolie in particular is OTT
Visiting professors in practice was a title given to people “who have appropriate distinction within their area of (non-academic) practice”, the university said in a statement. “It includes individuals who have achieved prominence in public service, or who have attained distinction in their profession and through their practical experience.” The role is unpaid.
Ta Mefty - as I say its good to have as much info as possible.
It was not supposed to be a comparison, but an illustration of how the title can be used. City University has a long history of using former practitioners to create courses, indeed it has the most highly regard journalism course in the country, originally started by former journalists. Murphy has achieved it through his writing on tax which is highly political - as are most economists - and therefore his articles should be read accordingly.
A bit more about the internment of Scots-Italians.
Shame you used a totally different title for your illustrative non comparisonIt was not supposed to be a comparison, but an illustration of how the title can be used
It somewhat weakened your otherwise reasonable point- as indeed was the rest of the post above re his bias.
OK mefty - so not an totally bogus analysis but large pinch of salt required - reasonable enough?
That what I said originally.
"thumbsup"
Another devastating blow to the economy. Thankfully we are not independent so the UK will be able to help us through the worst of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39406131
No reason the EU would want iScotland as a member...
Lets wait and see, often this things are over blown. And West of Shetland is a harsh environment which is not cheap to develop, so will need a decent oil price to make it worthwhile.
Still for the O&G industry in the UK the find can only be a good thing.
This. Private companies are often guilty of inflating prospects.dragon - Member
Lets wait and see, often this things are over blown
Private companies are often guilty of inflating prospects.
Big, but not huge find. Probably rather expensive to exploit, might not fit with current oil price although it will surely have good value at some point in the future.
But a well spun press release will bump the share price up today and that is what matters most.
Definitely good news, how good remains to be seen.
Last time, Shetland asked for their own referendum after the Scottish one. Perhaps this will encourage them further?
No reason the EU would want iScotland as a member...
Fish probably won't make much difference (although I am sure that we will have the SNP claiming Scotland was cheated when all is done). A boat 199 miles from shore (inside our EEZ) needs to be working to the same quota as a boat 201 miles from shore. Otherwise it just doesn't work. Fish don't respect international borders.
There are a limited amount of fish and if we don't all work together through the annual CFP quota shout-a-thon then nobody will have any fish. That's the point fishing was at when the CFP came along and quotas shrunk drastically. It wasn't the CFP that did per se, it was that the waters had been overfished. I think the CFP (or something that does the same job) will stay.
In 2014, Salmond did threaten the EU with an illegal blockade to stop EU vessels transiting our waters (many go through ours to access North Atlantic fishing). Perhaps he could try that again? It might get the same silence that met him last time.
Last time, Shetland asked for their own referendum after the Scottish one. Perhaps this will encourage them further?
Correction. Some islanders asked for a referendum on their future if Scotland voted Yes. Not that many though. It was stated by the Scottish Government at the time that it would be granted if there were sufficient numbers wanting one.
Loving the hypocrisy in TMs speech today
First of all, now is the point when we are triggering article 50, we’re starting negotiations for leaving the European Union.[b] Now is the time when we should be pulling together, not hanging apart[/b]. Pulling together to make sure we get the best possible deal for the whole of the UK.[b]Also I think it would be unfair on the people of Scotland to ask them to make a significant decision until all the facts were known[/b], at a point where nobody knows what the situation is going to be.
😆 🙄 😆 🙄
grumpysculler - MemberLast time, Shetland asked for their own referendum after the Scottish one.
Well, no. Someone started a petition for a referendum for orkney, shetland and the western isles, which gathered a mighty 1350 signatures despite not being liited only to people from the islands (which have a population of 70000).
HOlyrood votes for another referendum
Sturgeon continues to play a blinder on this.
May said " Now is not the time" Sturgeon agrees " We need to know the terms of the brexit deal first and May has confirmed this will be in about 18 months time" and thus has made the queston not " will there be a new independence referendum" but simply "when"
Once again Sturgeon has completely outflanked May by this and has also made it clear that this is now about the democratic rights of Holyrood
Mundell has been forced into stating " NO negotiations with Scotland until the brexit process is complete" - a very different line from May. If he / they really try to persist in that line they will easily be cast as disrespecting the will of Holyrood and thus make a "grievance" much easier to frame.
If the tories stand firm, SNPs only real move is an quick election in the next few months.
There are other options like calling one without westminster support but that would need tories labour and the libdems not to call a boycott. However IMO Mays position is one Davidson has been told to follow despite it being contradictory with her usual stance and if May perseveres with a hardball approach it will damge Davidson and the tories in Scotland further although I really can't see who the beneficiaries would be - labour and the lib dems being so toxic in scotland. Ondonlabour have siad its a decision that should be up to the scots so its hard to judge if they would call for a boycott and any poll ccalled only by holyrood would need a huge majority to call UDI
Holyrood election on single issue of another referendum would be a huge gamble for sturgeon but I did see a recent poll showing 54% for the SNP if another holyrood election was called
Too risky to call an election, they could easily lose their majority (when combined with the Greens) and that would be that for a number of years. They need to play it smart whatever they come up with as the issue is on a knife edge at the moment and if they don't get it right this time I think they are in trouble.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
If you look at the scale above, band 5, 6 and 7 is where it's at. Yes has much more to lose here than No. In order to get over the 50% line, Yes would need to convince those in band 7 as well as 6 whereas No only need to win some support from band 5 to galvanise their position putting a Yes vote out of reach.
Either way, it removes some of the bargaining chips of the UK Govt in the EU negotiations if there's any chance of an Indyref taking Scotlands resources off the table in the near future. Or maybe the UK Govt will use iScotland [i]as[/i] a bargaining chip?
And apparently, NI could remain in the EU if they vote for re-unification as per East/West Germany.
