mrmo - Member
seosamh77 - Member
You have way too much confidence in scotland actually being full of nationalists willing to die for the cause. It isn't. Thankfully.
Only takes a couple of people and things have a habit of getting out of hand, as said it really depends on how badly it gets handled. There wasn't a huge drive for Irish independence but Englands response to the uprising led to one.
If you just look at 1916 in isolation, yip, the British made a **** of it. Particularly with the executions. But even then, risings in Ireland have a long history, that was just one rising of many, you had many before, the United Irishmen, Fenians etc. Wasn't like there was one rising and that was it... independence.
And lets not forget the rising was followed by the war of independence, then partition, then the civil war followed that too. And that's before you get to more modern day attempts at insurrection ie in the border campaign etc and into the troubles. Over 100 years later since partition, the problems are still far from solved.
Here's a taste of how long physical force separatism takes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_uprisings
Independence via insurrection is a long long long game. And arguably a slower process than the democratic route(but that's a whole other, interesting, discussion.
It's also incredibly destructive, which is probably the most relevant point. Simple fact is people in Scotland wouldn't have the stomach for such a fight. Particularly with the comfy lives people lead these days. People have more to lose. Like I say the conditions just don't exist. It's fantasy, and quite frankly, no justification for it what so ever, in the scottish context..
It would be illegal. No way of getting around that. Westminster approval is required. So the route is political persuasion, Scotland is too divided on the issue for anything else.deadlydarcy - Member
Am broadly neutral on this one so don't post on it, but read it from time to time. Anyway I has question! Forgive me if I can distract you guys for a minute.What happens if Sturgeon and Co. just say "**** you May, we're running a referendum anyway."? (As in, could it physically take place without the PM's permission? Does Scotland have enough devolved powers to run one? I'm assuming it physically can; after all, it runs its own elections.
Seosamh, yes plenty of previous, but from what i have read on the topic, there wasn't really an overwhelming desire, the English response tipped the balance. Same as in Scotland, no huge desire, but handle it badly and it could escalate quite easily.
btw there's also an easy solution for unionist on any independent referendum. Non participation would invalidate any result.
We can run an advisory referendum,like brexit was but it would not be legally binding. The Unionist side could just boycott it and it that would leave the result with no credibility unless the turn out was massive.
Beat me to it Seosamh
Doubt desire is the correct word really, I would say more the rising sparked an awakening that it was possible rather than the sparked desire. I'm far from an academic on the subject though.mrmo - Member
Seosamh, yes plenty of previous, but from what i have read on the topic, there wasn't really an overwhelming desire, the English response tipped the balance. Same as in Scotland, no huge desire, but handle it badly and it could escalate quite easily.
btw there's also an easy solution for unionist on any independent referendum. Non participation would invalidate any result.
true, it worked for Hungary????? a couple of months back.
I wouldn't use the legally binding argument gordimhor, look where that has led...
what happened in hungary?
Seosamh, not on idependence but same principle in my opinion.
Interesting, didn't know about that, cheers.
I wouldn't use the legally binding argument gordimhor, look where that has led.
That perhaps says more about the desire of Mrs Mays government to implement brexit on such a tight vote.
There are hints that legal action might be taken if May refuses a referendum - not sure with whom, but wouldn't it be ironic if it went to the European courts?
bencooper - Member
There are hints that legal action might be taken if May refuses a referendum - not sure with whom, but wouldn't it be ironic if it went to the European courts?
Would that be a surprise? Absolutely not. 😛
[url= https://fraserofallander.org/2017/03/28/estimating-scotlands-fiscal-position/amp/ ]Good article on GERS figures[/url]
[url= http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2017/03/what-do-voters-in-scotland-want-from-brexit/ ]Scotalnd pretty similar to England on Brexit [/url]
seosamh77 - Member
...Independence via insurrection is a long long long game...
There's plenty that didn't take long at all.
Kenya, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Iran, Romania, off the top of my head.
But best of all was Iceland's little revolution after the GFC.
What are the paralells to scotland with any of those though that make them relevant?
Interested to know, can't say I know much about any of them.
As you said mefty a good article on gets, but you're really stretching for
on the Curtice link.Scotalnd pretty similar to England on Brexit
After all even Curtice himself doesn't discount that 62% voted Remain.
Deadly#Darcy
If all the unionist parties boycott a unilateral referendum then it becomes worthless. 99% yes on a 45% turnout does not give you a mandate. However get the turnout into the 89% region then it would and the next step is UDI
Tories certainly would boycott. Lib dems / Labour not so sure. The labour line seems to be " its a decision for the people of Scotland" so a boycott from them would look odd. lib dems - who knows. In complete disarray in Scotland but they have always had a distinctly scottish flavour to them north of the border unlike labour
the spice to that is a significant proportion of labour voters voted yes last time and although the labour vote continues to collapse in Scotland this might just finish them off and perhaps one of the various "socialist" groups in Scotland would take their vote.
The continual crys of SNP baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad from labour has put a load of folk off them me included ( I voted labour for nearly 40 years)
seosamh77 - Member
What are the paralells to scotland with any of those though that make them relevant?...
The parallel is all had bottled up desire for independence/democracy that had been restrained. That's what's in common, otherwise they are all different.
The problem with that approach is the results aren't always what most of the participants expected, and a more consensual approach leaves less bitterness and damage.
tjagain - Member
If all the unionist parties boycott a unilateral referendum then it becomes worthless...
No it doesn't.
It's their democratic right whether or not to register their opinion in an election or referendum.
If they choose to boycott, then we should support their democratic right to not have their opinion registered, and if that weights the decision the way they don't like, then that's the consequence they have to accept.
Otherwise the UK parliament would grind to a halt every time Labour shows their opposition to peasant crushing by abstaining.
But in any case, are we all forgetting the UK is still a member of the EU? Rejection of a referendum could be fought legally in those courts. That would be the ultimate Brexit irony.
For that matter the UN has rules on this too.
aye good article that. ta.mefty - Member
Good article on GERS figures
"Independence via insurrection is a long long long game"
You reckon? Scottish people are *really* hard, you know.
If it came to a fight the entire English population would be slave workers in their Inverness Porridge mines within a fortnight.
tjagain - MemberThe continual crys of SNP baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad from labour has put a load of folk off them me included ( I voted labour for nearly 40 years)
I got a facebook update from Slab and about half of all the responses were Labour members criticising the tone and content. Those responses caused an avalanche of people accusing everyone who criticised the post, of being cybernats. If I was still a Labour voter I'd have been banging my head against the wall but it's just the SNP baaaaaad taken to its illogical conclusion- "we said snp baaaad and these guys didn't like it, therefore these guys baaaaad too"
can't say I recognise that desire for independence. You'll get many people that will vote for it and like the idea, will they go out their way for it, put their houses, cars, bobbles at risk nah, not a chance in hell.epicyclo - MemberThe parallel is all had bottled up desire for independence/democracy that had been restrained
Plus, you may not like the current democratic structure. But quite simply, scotland is a functioning democracy. Probably has more democracy than other parts of the uk, particularly if you compare it to english regions, which are the equivalent to scotland, even if they don't have the same "national" identity.
You can legitimately argue for more or better democracy for scotland under independence. You can't really argue that scotland is undemocratic though, the fact it has it's own, reasonable powerfully, parliament, is over represented in westminster(correctly so) and has had 3 referendums on how it runs it's affairs is really unarguable.
It makes me want to despair the lack of understanding labour in Scotland has
Big campaign based on " half a billion cuts in the scottish NHS" which is just wrong - the budget is increasing. If it had been "300 beds closed" or "service A, B and C cut" it would have had some truth to it and would have been much harder to refute. As it was a big fanfare launch was simply killed with " this is the budget" leaving them looking foolish indeed.
to be honest, I reckon we'd be looking more at civil war, most likely in the style of a massive scheme battle! 😆 a few serious skirmishes and a lot of running away! 😆outofbreath - Member
"Independence via insurrection is a long long long game"You reckon? Scottish people are *really* hard, you know.
If it came to a fight the entire English population would be slave workers in their Inverness Porridge mines within a fortnight.
disagree epicyclo. If the unionist parties boycott and thus turnout is low it has no legitimacy unless even with the boycott significantly more votes were cast yes - not % but actual votes.
Plenty of precedent for this in international law.
Whether a boycott would be called and whether the call would be heeded we don't know but a turnout down in the 40% or lower region would make it very easy to argue its not representative and can be ignored
Again both calling an "unoffical" referendum and calling for a boycott are high risk tactics but a significant boycott would lead a referendum to be valueless
I work with a couple of Scottish guys here in England and I was asking one of them what they thought of it all. One of them replied. "Don't you find it funny that Nicola Sturgeon harks on about an independent Scotland, but then states she wants to be part of the EU!" Mmmm, that's not really independence.
Independence is when you don't need to ask permission to leave a union. It really is that simple.
flanagaj - Member
I work with a couple of Scottish guys here in England and I was asking one of them what they thought of it all. One of them replied. "Don't you find it funny that Nicola Sturgeon harks on about an independent Scotland, but then states she wants to be part of the EU!" Mmmm, that's not really independence.
I've been waiting for you! 😆
[img] 
[/img]
Yeah I had to strectch to the 4th para
The results will doubtless come as a surprise to many. For it seems that despite the way Scotland voted in the EU referendum, attitudes north of the border towards the shape of Brexit are not so different after all. In particular, rather than endorsing freedom of movement, it seems that most voters in Scotland, just like their counterparts elsewhere, would like to maintain free trade but abandon freedom of movement. As a result, it seems that their position is much closer to that of the UK government than that of the Scottish Government.
seems a vrry convoluted survey tbh, I wouldn't really put much store in it's contents tbh.
I agree the question is incredibily complex though, which is why I still don't believe a referendum should be run before brexit, it's just an unnecessary complication to a question that does need asked again at some point. The context shouldn't be UK or EU though.
seosamh77
When our budget is set in Westminster by a government with 1 out of 59 mps there is a serious democratic deficit. When that government has absolute control despite a minority of votes UK wide there is a serious democratic deficit.
Plenty of other ways that there is a serious democratic deficit
the people of Scotland do not want weapons of mass destruction on our soil. What choice have we?
so people keep telling me, can't say i have much issue with them.tjagain - Memberthe people of Scotland do not want weapons of mass destruction on our soil
When our budget is set in Westminster by a government with 1 out of 59 mps there is a serious democratic deficit. When that government has absolute control despite a minority of votes UK wide there is a serious democratic deficit.Plenty of other ways that there is a serious democratic deficit
I'm also pretty certain that within an independent scotland I'm likely to disagree with the sitting government more often than not. That's not a democratic deficit, it's just I disagree with the majority.
**** it, i'm campaigning for a republic of joe! 😆
As I said you can argue smaller is better and more reactive to scotlands needs, the larger grouping undemocratic? nah, it's just an argument over sample size. democracy is never perfect, it's a compromise(well least it should be..)
And argument I agree with, I'd like to see an independent scotland in the EU, I'd also like to so RUK in that EU too.
the people of Scotland do not want weapons of mass destruction on our soil
Now, I'm far from being an expert on the operation of them, and I haven't done the perisher course, but I seem to recall that if a Nuclear submarine somehow ends up on Scottish soil, then someone's in a lot of trouble...
Scotland being a PR (ish) parliament means you cannot get control without a majority of votes.
If you have to have permission to have a referendum its not democratic
When the parliament does not even have the power to hold a referndum its not democratic
When yo have a chamber stuffed full of political appointees, religious leaders from one sect on and people who were there because they were an invaders cronies descendent there is a serious democratic deficit
Westminster is no democracy and the relations ship bwetween westminster and Holyrood is not democratic.
Sturgeon has a far bigger mandate for a referendum than Camreon did.
If you have to have permission to have a referendum its not democratic
You don't, SNP just need to introduce a private members bill and win a vote in parliament, the real one that is, not the parish council.
When the parliament does not even have the power to hold a referndum its not democratic
Parliament is Supreme remember, you lot whinged on about it, even went to court to make sure it was the case
[quote=ninfan ]the people of Scotland do not want weapons of mass destruction on our soil
Now, I'm far from being an expert on the operation of them, and I haven't done the perisher course, but I seem to recall that if a Nuclear submarine somehow ends up on Scottish soil, then someone's in a lot of trouble...
If you're trying to be pedantic then you should at least realise that the weapons aren't all stored on the submarines all the time. In fact, there are more stored on land than ever at sea.
tj, the anti democracy line will only get you so far. As many have mentioned on this thread, positions are polarised and the pool of floating voters is small. Next ref is going to have to be smarter than the playground stuff of nationalism and oppression. Either that or there's no point in another ref. People care about their bottom line and their living conditions. Fight it on that if you want to win it.
GERS, pensions, currency, jobs etc that's the battle lines.
If you're trying to be pedantic then you should at least realise that the weapons aren't all stored on the submarines all the time. In fact, there are more stored on land than ever at sea.
If I was trying to be pedantic, I would point out that neither you, nor I, have any idea whether warheads are stored in Scotland, or elsewhere, such as AWE Aldermaston & Burghfield
Well at least you'll get the government you want seosamh, but who will be the opposition?
have you not noticed my debating style on here, I'll argue with all sides! 😆 I shall be both government and opposition. Fine job I'll do too!gordimhor - Member
Well at least you'll get the government you want seosamh, but who will be the opposition?
seems a vrry convoluted survey tbh, I wouldn't really put much store in it's contents tbh.
It is based on the same methodology as the Social Attitudes Survey which also produce inconvenient results for many politicians in Scotland in that they show that Scotland's political attitudes are remarkably similiar to those in the rest of the UK. Obviously this doesn't translate into the same electoral results, but it does the centre ground is pretty similar so for instance a shift to the left by Labour is unlikely to be more effective than it has so far so proven to be in the UK generally.
[quote=ninfan ]If you're trying to be pedantic then you should at least realise that the weapons aren't all stored on the submarines all the time. In fact, there are more stored on land than ever at sea.
If I was trying to be pedantic, I would point out that neither you, nor I, have any idea whether warheads are stored in Scotland, or elsewhere, such as AWE Aldermaston & Burghfield
* cough *
Coulport
* cough *
It's not hard, really 🙄
seosamh77
Oh I agree thats the battle lines. But its worth pointing out the democratic deficit is huge both for scotland and the UK as a whole.
Now if we had PR in westminster and it was for england only, no house of lords but a federal senate then there would be much less of one.
