maybe so, but in the only survey that really matters, scotland votes very differently from the uk. So, forgive me if if find a survey of 800odd random people coming to the exact same conclusions as other parts of the island less than conclusive.mefty - Member
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 politic 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.
Ninfan: It's not exactly a secret where the weapons are stored, at least not to the majority of us scots who have been brought up with the legacy of nuclear weapons within a few miles of our homes. Perhaps you'd be happy with them in your back garden?
Perhaps you'd be happy with them in your back garden
That's his wet dream.
Moving a long way past GERS isn't actually that complicated if we just create a functioning budget for the first year of Scottish independence.
interesting perspective on gers
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
The subs sail to Aldermaston to load or offload warheads? All those hardened bunkers at Coulport are just for show?
It's no secret where the warheads are stored.
tjagain - Memberthe people of Scotland do not want weapons of mass destruction on our soil.
Personally I'll be very happy to lease out the land and facilities (at a cost proportional to a 205 billion pound project).
Crikey things have escalated fast ... 😆
Scotland being a PR (ish) parliament means you cannot get control without a majority of votes.
Really? So how did SNP get an overall majority in 2016 with just 46.5% of the constituency vote? And 45.39% in 2011?
The SNP did not get an overall majority in 2016! there are flaws in the system hence pr(ish)
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!
Please..I am too old to be squinting to see what colours the large group of lads walking towards me are wearing.
Sorry yes, you're right. My point still stands though, you do not need a majority of the votes in order to have overall control, 2011 proved that.
Haha, I'll forward that image to my ill informed Scottish colleague!I've been waiting for you!
If you have to have permission to have a referendum its not democratic
So if a council decided it wanted to vote on regional independence (or greater powers from central government, or whatever), but had to ask Holyrood then that isn't democratic?
There are many version of democracy. Not just the one that gives you what you want.
GERS, pensions, currency, jobs etc that's the battle lines.
Not if the SNP can help it, those are exactly the areas where they are weak. Sturgeon's plan is all based around a project fear exercise before there is any real clarity on the impact of Brexit (not the terms, the actual impact).
Moving a long way past GERS isn't actually that complicated if we just create a functioning budget for the first year of Scottish independence.
Exactly what I would like to see. I expect it would look a lot like GERS. 10 years hence, it would look a lot different but I expect year 1 would look much the same.
The 2014 referendum was fought with the nats relying on GERS for much of their economic case (albeit ignoring updates as they came). But now they are useless and not representative apparently?
grumpysculler - Member
So if a council decided it wanted to vote on regional independence (or greater powers from central government, or whatever), but had to ask Holyrood then that isn't democratic?..
A council is not a country.
The 2014 referendum was fought with the nats relying on GERS for much of their economic case (albeit ignoring updates as they came). But now they are useless and not representative apparently?
I think the realisation has sunk in that they are based on estimates made by those who have a vested interest in making sure independent seeking Scots do not have the whole story.
There does not appear to be hard data available publicly of the true picture.
I think the realisation has sunk in that they are based on estimates made by those who have a vested interest in making sure independent seeking Scots do not have the whole story
Or alternatively there is a sodding great hole in them now so we will shoot the messenger.
perhaps, perhaps not, that first budget is a great idea(or not, but we'd soon find out.)mefty - Member
I think the realisation has sunk in that they are based on estimates made by those who have a vested interest in making sure independent seeking Scots do not have the whole story
Or alternatively there is a sodding great hole in them now so we will shoot the messenger.
grumpysculler - Member
I expect it would look a lot like GERS. 10 years hence, it would look a lot different but I expect year 1 would look much the same.
could well do, personally I don't really doubt the GERS figures, within the context of the UK, but as indepedently they would look different. Whether that's for the better, the worse or the same is really anyones guess.
A first budget is the the way to go to clear it up, they I don't think i could be a complete budget, there would still be a lot of stuff open to interpretation and, in particular, negotitation. But still it's a good starting point going forward.
Anybody see the kicking Ruthie has been getting on twitter? She tweeted the pic of NS on a sofa with one of her Auntie Margaret in similar pose...Possibly a mistake for somebody with the same taste in hats as Hitler and same taste in tanks as dear leader Kim iL Jong 😀
I think the realisation has sunk in that they are based on estimates made by those who have a vested interest in making sure independent seeking Scots do not have the whole story.
The SNP government in Holyrood? Because it is them that prepare them and, as National Statistics, they are held to a high level of accuracy.
GERS is as close as it is possible to get to understanding the finances and economics of Scotland at the moment.
Brexit innit?
A council is not a country.
And Scotland is not a sovereign state, nor an entity that has any sort of special status in international law.
If it is about democracy and the sovereignty of democratically elected bodies, why does it matter which particular set of lines within an internationally recognised sovereign state we are talking about?
Why choose the current borders of Scotland? Why should we not go back to Sodor, Noror, Strathclyde, Bernicia, etc? Why does "democracy" only apply as an argument to one particular set of boundaries?
That isn't an argument against Scottish independence, but I do take issue with the "waaaagggghhhh it isn't democratic" argument.
Scotland is a country. The UK is a union of countries with pooled sovereignty
this is the actual facts of the matter Recognised internationally as such hence Scottish waters managed under scottish law, separate legal and education systems etc etc.
The refusal of some to recognise this is what stokes resentment.
You could also say the inability of people to bite on insignificant bait like that also contributes to resentment.tjagain - Member
The refusal of some to recognise this is what stokes resentment.
grumpysculler - Member
And Scotland is not a sovereign state...
And you'll find many Scots would agree with that because we believe sovereignty resides in the people of Scotland, not the state.
We never surrendered sovereignty to our monarchs. Hence while you have a Queen of England, she is Queen of Scots, not Scotland. And our legal system is guaranteed by the Treaty of Union.
Anyhow, in this modern age, that is irrelevant, and England's medieval laws of sovereignty are over ruled by things like the UN or EU law.
What the UN has to say:
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
I can see a refusal to allow a referendum getting very interesting. The SNP will follow process, so this could well end up in the EU courts.
Perhaps you'd be happy with them in your back garden?
No problem for me. If there is a nuclear war it won't matter where you live or where the weapons are stored.
I can see a refusal to allow a referendum getting very interesting. The SNP will follow process, so this could well end up in the EU courts.
Scotland has a Parliament with defined devolved powers. Calling an Indy Ref is NOT one of them. Hard to see on what basis they could go to the ECJ. I wonder if AS has got any of his special "legal advice" on this one 😉
AS?
Andy Stewart, no
Alan Sugar, no he's been fired
Must be Adam Smith. I think Jamby likes him.
jambalaya - Member
...Scotland has a Parliament with defined devolved powers. Calling an Indy Ref is NOT one of them. Hard to see on what basis they could go to the ECJ. I wonder if AS has got any of his special "legal advice" on this one
Indeed, but they are representative of the Scottish people, and you are working on the basis of England's laws, not the EUs.
The point about getting the OK of Westminster to a Scottish referendum is that then there is obviously an implicit agreement to observe its result.
A referendum could be run without Westminster approval, and if it was favourable to Scottish independence, then pursued through the EU courts if Westminster refused to acknowledge the result. This could well be why the Scottish govt wants to run a referendum before an exit from the EU, and why May wants it run after exit.
Tbh the EU court would tell scotland to bolt. Just look at their refusal to even talk to scotland. Whether you like it or not, the UK has supremacy, the game is in politicing the way out of the UK. Scottish nationalists don't have a leg to stand on legally(nor morally, imo) for unilateral independence. No matter how many times you quote the UN right to self determination paragraph.epicyclo - Member
jambalaya - Member
...Scotland has a Parliament with defined devolved powers. Calling an Indy Ref is NOT one of them. Hard to see on what basis they could go to the ECJ. I wonder if AS has got any of his special "legal advice" on this one
Indeed, but they are representative of the Scottish people, and you are working on the basis of England's laws, not the EUs.The point about getting the OK of Westminster to a Scottish referendum is that then there is obviously an implicit agreement to observe its result.
Simple fact is Scotland is a nation that legally signed over control of it's affairs to another nation, it willingly allowed it's self to become part of a wider grouping. Scotland was not colonised.
seosamh77 - Member
Tbh the EU court would tell scotland to bolt. Just look at their refusal to even talk to scotland. Whether you like it or not, the UK has supremacy, the game is in politicing the way out of the UK. Scottish nationalists don't have a leg to stand on legally(nor morally, imo) for unilateral independence....
It is right that the EU does not talk to Scotland on political matters. But this would be a legal matter, one of human rights, and for the courts, not the politicians. Getting a court to dissolve the Treaty of Union is different from a UDI - although I'm seeing growing support for that.
Failing that, then the only option is direct action, but we've discussed that already.
What do you think would happen?
I think the EU courts would see scotland as no different to any of the English regions.
On what basis would anyone dissolve the act of union? On a slim 50/60% majority? I think they would take one look at the act of union and see the terms forever in it and look to 300+ year of union and say, sort it out between yourselves, the union of scotland and england is more than well established, it's an internal matter. And even if upheld, how could the EU courts enforce such a ruling? Particularly in the context of the uk leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Tbh, I'm way out of my depth on any legal intricacies here, but I just can't see it.
I can only see 1, very slim, route to independence, and that's through cunning politics to gain a referendum(far from certain) and then presenting a valid case directly to floating voters and trying to change a few unionists minds.(lets leave the utopian echo chamber behind this time.)
You also have to ask, if the ECJ is sympathetic to separatists, then why isn't there a queue of the various separatist groups in Europe lining up looking to have their causes validated and up held?
seosamh77
given what the view of many influential folk in the EU is on Scotland and given that Scotland is recognised as a separate entity I don't see the parallel with english regions
However I also think it unlikely that the ECJ would give any help to the independence movement unless there is an obvious breach on the human rights and I can't see one.
given what the view of many influential folk in the EU is on Scotland and given that Scotland is recognised as a separate entity I don't see the parallel with english regions
you don't see because you are myopic
independence for Elmet!!! independence for Dalriada!!!
big and daft - I am not an ideological independence supporter. My preferred option is a federal UK
seosamh77 - Member
You also have to ask, if the ECJ is sympathetic to separatists, then why isn't there a queue of the various separatist groups in Europe lining up looking to have their causes validated and up held?
I don't know the details of other groups seeking independence.
What I do know is Scotland is a country, not a region, not a group, and it is in a union with another country, and is not a conquest, possession, or a colony.
We're going round in circles here though so I'll butt out for a while. The next few weeks will give us a clearer picture of what is really going to happen.
big and daft - I am not an ideological independence supporter. My preferred option is a federal UK
But your basis is for a limited model based on the successful invasions that subsequently took land and political power from the indigenous peoples
Whether they be of Norman French or Irish origin our current political and national construction isn't any more valid than the post Romano kingdom's within these isles
So it's vote Yes for Yr Hen Ogledd
😉
What really frustrates me about this is there is a simple solution that would put support for independence back down to its core of around 25 - 30%. a proper federal settlement.
this would need a cross party constitutional convention rather like the one that established the rules for holyrood but I would see 4 parliaments for each of the constituent parts of the UK with the same powers covering everything but defense, international relations and macro economics with a UK "senate" that is delegates from the devolved parliaments not superior to it that deals with UK wide issues and disputes.
It would need some mechanism to prevent England population dominance dominating the whole thing and obviously and end to the house of lords and I would like to see PR.
Bingo - the union is preserved, the smaller parts of the UK no longer get thir wishes trampled on, we build a modern society.
simples!
At a stroke this stops the democratic deficit, modernises the political systems of the UK
You'd be happy with Trident, Iraq etc?I would see 4 parliaments for each of the constituent parts of the UK with the same powers covering everything but defense
It would need some mechanism to prevent England population dominance dominating the whole thing and obviously and end to the house of lords and I would like to see PR.
So how would this work?
One city in England has a bigger population,GDP and economy than the second biggest country.
Why is an English vote going to be worth less ?
Personally scotroutes no - and the way I would see this none of those things would be possible anyway as a minority government in one part of the UK could not bind the majority.
PR remember. Blair would not have had a stonking majority and anyway his majority would only have been in England so he would not have been able to take us into Iraq
could also be different rules for different things - so to take us to war needs all 4 parliaments approval but to negotiate a trade agreement simple majority
Scotroutes - I'll look at Iraq in a bit more detail. ( or infact a hypothetical similar future situation)
English parliament has a 40% vote for a warmonger like blair. He doesn't have a majority in England so would need another party to vote for it - assume the tories would but instantly the case for going to war has to be made much stronger to get it thru the english parliament
English parliament passes a resolution to go to war.
this then goes to the UK senate for ratification. No war possible without senate approval the other 3 parliaments resolve against it. No war..
Interesting idea TJ
So what do you do when one regional government, campaigning on a narrow, single interest issue, decides to blackmail the rest of the nation by demanding concessions in order to get what it wants.
Let's say, for example, the Northern Irish parties turn round and say that they will only agree to give their support to a new international treaty on oil exploration (or whatever) if they get VAT in their region reduced to 6% in return
Those are the sorts of issues that make it tricky hence needs a constitutional convention to set it up to iron out these sorts of things.
3 out of 4 parliaments delegates to senate to give decisions? England has 49% of the seats in the senate scotland 25, wales 15, NI 11 and then only a simple majority in senate needed? Or a super majority to change things? ie all 3 smaller countries can go against england but england needs only one other country to get a decision thru?
Senate members from national parliaments on a proportional basis so cross border alliances with people of similar mindset can trump single country issues?
I think some for of proper federal system with PR would take a huge amount of the tensions out of our current system but as you point out working out the balance of who can make / block decisions is not easy
It would need to be able to stop a stalemate type situation but also stop minorities being ignored.
wouldit need some equivalent of the EU council of ministers?
I think ninfan in your example NI would / should not be able to block - the other three together provide enough of a majority to get it thru
3 against 1 the three always wins
2 against 2 the side with england always wins?
With the huge population imbalance its hard to see a solution that does not seem unfair in some way
It would need some mechanism to prevent England population dominance dominating the whole thing and obviously and end to the house of lords and I would like to see PR.
England has 49% of the seats in the senate scotland 25, wales 15, NI 11
So you don't want any sort of PR, you want over representation for Scotland, Wales and NI.
