Forum menu
Take the issue of the nuclear subs. Scotland does not want them here. rUK has nowhere else to put them. That needs a negotiation.
Options would be :
1) give rUK a short deadline to remove them
2) give a long deadline to remove them and charge rent on the base
3) accept they will stay here and use that as a bargaining chip to get something else
the SNP cannot come up with a definitive answer on that without westminister input. Westminster refuses to give any input and then slates the SNP for not having answers
Or take the bank of England / the £
SNP said we would use the £ in the medium term. Westminster said we will not allow you. The bank of England is the UK reserve bank and 9% of it thus belongs to scotland and rUK would not be able to stop iScotland using it anyway
Again WEstminster refused to discuss it at all and then attacks the SNP for not having firm plans
how can you make plans when the people you need to negotiate with refuse to engage?
A lot of this stuff depends on how hardball Westminster / rUK plays.
Scotland has no legal liability for the UK debt ( this was made clear last time) but the SNP accepted they would take a fair share of the debt in exchange for a fair share of the assets - but again without input from westminster no firm figures can be given
Sounds like it’ll be really long and expensive. Yahoo, just what we need.
It's a no from the courts
Only if westminster are uncooperative
As I said. No indyref.
So its not a union of equals nor consensual then.
Supreme Court has just said 'Nae danger' 🙄
Next GE in Scotland is going to be wild then. A not illogical verdict based on the law as it stands but it makes clear Scotland is subservient to England. Next GE as a defacto referendum it is.
As I said. No indyref.
That's it then, it's over 😀
UK government: 'Silence, subjects! We make the rules here!'
The people of Scotland: 'Oh, fair enough then. We'll just continue toiling away under a government we don't want and didn't vote for. We're ever so grateful.'
Aye,like a cute (if sometimes angry) wee dug, keep it on a tight leash, give it occasional treats and muzzle it if it starts nipping 😉
That’s it then, it’s over
Its not over but that makes the subservience of Scotland to England clear and makes the path much harder.
Take the issue of the nuclear subs. Scotland does not want them here.
That's a sweeping statement, I know plenty of Scots who want them.
Ok - the vast majority of Scots.
Ok – the vast majority of Scots.
Define "vast majority"? 51%? 60%?
I think the last couple of polls were showing around 60% in favour of retaining nuclear weapons in Scotland.
UK government: ‘Silence, subjects! We make the rules here!’
Who made the rule? I don't think it was this government.
I've no interest either way on Scottish independence, but I'm glad the rules can't just be changed because it doesn't suit someones agenda.
I just looked at the polls - varies tremendously depend who asked what question from under 40% retention to over 50%
That’s a sweeping statement, I know plenty of Scots who want them
It would be a bit ridiculous to expect a unanimous decision on, well, anything, in a country of 5.5 million people!
The people of Scotland: ‘Oh, fair enough then. We’ll just continue toiling away under a government we don’t want and didn’t vote for. We’re ever so grateful.’
That's democracy, suck it up. Loads of the country is doing the same thing without claiming that they shouldn't have to.
NB this post might be deliberately provocative, but it does boil my piss a bit that so many people here are happy to lump all the English together regardless of political inclination, but get all pissy when the British get lumped together. This is why I get irritated.
Support for keeping Trident in Scotland is now higher than support for removing it. Russia has changed many people’s thinking this year. It has mine.
I just looked at the polls – varies tremendously depend who asked what question from under 40% retention to over 50%
Where the polls before or after the Ukraine war?
That’s democracy, suck it up.
No its not . Its totally undemocratic. We have elected a scottish government with a manifesto committment to have an independence referendum on multiple occasions. to be denied that is a huge affront to democracy
What this judgement along with the attitude of the Westminster main parites is asaying is that the UK union is not a relationship of equals or consensual. Its shows scotland is subservient and the relationship is coercive
They weren't denied one - the result just didn't suit a section of the population
this post might be deliberately provocative, but it does boil my piss a bit that so many people here are happy to lump all the English together regardless of political inclination, but get all pissy when the British get lumped together. This is why I get irritated.
We've been through this repeatedly and it's just sidelining the topic. You don't see Scotland as any different than a region of England. We know. Unfortunately the law disagrees with you and it's the law, and it's application, we are currently dealing with.
NB this post might be deliberately provocative, but it does boil my piss a bit that so many people here are happy to lump all the English together regardless of political inclination, but get all pissy when the British get lumped together. This is why I get irritated.
You've been making the same point repeatedly since who knows when. We get it, not every English person voted for Brexit and not every English person voted Tory.
However, it still doesn't change the fact that the majority did vote for Brexit and, thanks to the Westminster voting system and a large minority of English voters, we have had a Tory government for far too long.
I'm sorry you don't have the option to distance yourself from England and the Westminster voting system but can you at least accept that people in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and possibly even Wales do have that option and would be insane to not consider ejecting from this basket of lunatics who are driving the whole of the UK off a cliff?
They weren’t denied one – the result just didn’t suit a section of the population
We are being denied one now despite having a scottish government elected on a manifesto of having a second independence referendum
I just looked at the polls – varies tremendously depend who asked what question from under 40% retention to over 50%
So how come you originally stated "the vast majority"? Did you just make it up with absolutely no supporting evidence?
Are you part of the IEA or ERG?
I’m sorry you don’t have the option to distance yourself from England
He does - he lives in Wales
So how come you originally stated “the vast majority
Because the last time I saw any polling on this it was the vast majority
Who made the rule? I don’t think it was this government.
Rules, not 'ruling'. The UK gov have been fairly clear that they won't allow another indyref.
To use the time-worn analogy of a marriage, this is a bit like one party in a marriage being told by the other 'sorry, you can only leave when I say so.' Telling the people of Scotland, 'No, you can't make this decision for yourselves' is not going to make this issue go away. It's going to breed anger and resentment, and that's not a healthy thing in any relationship.
Because the last time I saw any polling on this it was the vast majority
When? Where?
I have not believed the UK was a union of equals for a long long time. Still disturbing to hear it layed out in plain language.
Broad brush comment: treating Scotland as a prisoner not a partner might play well with certain “unionist through strength” voters both sides of the border, but it will only strengthen support for independence more generally north of the border.
Rules, not ‘ruling’. The UK gov have been fairly clear that they won’t allow another indyref.
I'm not talking about todays ruling, I was meaning when was the rule written that Scotland needed UK government approval for a referendum. Was it 10, 20, 50 or hundreds of years ago?
Its part of the scotland act that set up holyrood
constitutional matters are reserved for westminster
1988.
Of course, this question could have been put to the courts any time since 2014. That's eight years of the SNP sitting on their hands, but it's given them power over that period so not a total loss for them. I'm sure they can milk a few more election wins out of this latest ruling too.
Oh dear you have become cynical 🙂
Become?
So in law terms it's recent legislation not some archaic centuries old agreement.
When there was no distinct Scottish Government there was no one who could call a referendum. All the 1988 act says is that while setting up a Scottish Government, the UK government reserved certain (most) powers for itself.
However, it still doesn’t change the fact that the majority did vote for Brexit
The majority of Brits did not. You live in Britain. So by your own logic you have to suck it up like the rest of us, no?
I'm trying to provoke a debate about nationalism, but failing again. Because so many nats (here and in Scotland) are starting on the premise that they are fundamentally different from other Brits and that they are being oppressed in some different way to English people whose views are also being ignored by Westminster.
I mean, I have some ideas on the psychology behind why you might think that way. I also have to think about the same issues here in Wales.
Wasn't independence support much lower in the past?
I’m trying to provoke a debate about nationalism
Nope, you're trying to wind people up by saying that Scotland is just another region like any other English region.
Which it's not.
Because so many nats (here and in Scotland) are starting on the premise that they are fundamentally different from other Brits and that they are being oppressed in some different way to English people whose views are also being ignored by Westminster.
literally no one is saying this here at all
The difference is that Scotland is a separate country and we have a path ( even if difficult) to independence and we elected a scottish government on the basis of having another referendum
When Yorkshire votes for a yorkshire independence party and gains a majority for that party they can do the same thing
I know you do not mean it but by continually making this false assertation on the basis of incomplete understanding its actually pretty offensive
we elected a scottish government on the basis of having another referendum
Despite being told you couldn't have one?
Yup - thats the democratic deficit
the people of Scotland have voted to have another referendum and we are being denied one by Westminster. so much for democracy
literally no one is saying this here at all
Yes you are, without meaning to:
The difference is that Scotland is a separate country
That's what that ^^ actually means.
Scotland isn't a separate country at all. It's part of the UK. It was a separate country 300 years ago, then they joined. It's a country, but not a separate one self-evidently otherwise you wouldn't need an independence referendum!
Despite being told you couldn’t have one?
To be fair, we were also told this was a voluntary union.
Moley - when in a hole stop digging
I don't comment on Welsh politics because I know I do not know enough
You have misunderstood a basic proposition here and following that misunderstanding reach erroneous conclusions which are highly offensive
It was a separate country 300 years ago, then they joined.
So Scotland is just another region? No different from any other English region?
Despite being told you couldn’t have one?
So Scotland is just another region? No different from any other English region?
You tell me. Is it? I think it's a country within a country. A country, but not a separate one clearly.
This isn't about Scottish politics at this point it's about history and humanity.
As I said before I am rather sympathetic to the cause, but for different reasons than many on here seem to be.
I'm not a paid-up member of the independence cause but to me Brexit counts as enough of a material change to what the UK is that I think that another referendum is justifiable. I do somewhat feel that if it weren't for Brexit, holding another referendum relatively soon after the last one would be harder to justify.
When a reasonable argument for a referendum was first made a Tory (well coalition) government accepted the argument and allowed for a referendum. But now a Tory government won't accept what seems to be a reasonable argument for a second one. It seems like another case where the UK's constitutional affairs rely on the "good chap" theory (in this case that a UK government will accept a request to hold an independence referendum if there is good cause) and that principle is hitting against a distinct lack of "good chaps" in the current government.
You tell me. Is it?
Scotland is a small European country. Whether that's as a full EU member, EFTA member, or stuck outside against it's will forevermore only time will tell.
You consider yourself British first. That's fine. I consider myself to be European first. That is also fine and doesn't make me 'just like a Brexiteer' as you always like to imply.
This isn’t about Scottish politics at this point it’s about history and humanity.
Nope, getting hung up on history and nostagia is not the way to go about this. It's about the future.
Just have an advisory referendum & if Westminster complains about the result just refer them to the 2016 event 🤣
This ruling is that they can't hold an advisory referendum.
It's the choice of the UK gov, not the Scottish one... which could mean that there may never be a legal case for an independance referendum if the rUK keeps voting in governments that deny Scotland one, no matter how people in Scotland vote. All legally sound, but it's not democracy.
Jesus, I didn't realise that, this country* really has gone to the dogs.
*UK but mostly I blame England ☹️
It’s the choice of the UK gov, not the Scottish one… which could mean that there may never be a legal case for an independance referendum if the rUK keeps voting in governments that deny Scotland one, no matter how people in Scotland vote
I think realistically once there is an overwhelming pro-Independence sentiment in Scotland the UK govt would concede that a referendum was inevitable. You could argue that what the UK government is doing is preventing the Scottish govt from cherry picking its moment enabling it to get Independence even if it’s only by a 50.1% majority. Like Brexit, Indie is pretty much irreversible & I personally think you need to demonstrate that it isn’t something that a majority is going to regret a couple of years down the line (like you know what)
it isn’t something that a majority is going to regret a couple of years down the line
No country that's gained independence from the UK has ever asked to come back. If all those countries don't regret it, why would Scotland?
why would Scotland?
Dunno. Perhaps if it turned out to be a complete shambles & all the supposed benefits of Independence didn't live up to expectations & all the warnings of the problems it would cause which were dismissed as Project Fear turned out to be accurate? (Like you know what)
I think realistically once there is an overwhelming pro-Independence sentiment in Scotland the UK govt would concede that a referendum was inevitable.
I get what your saying and I'm sure if it wasn't for the fact that the central point of the No campaign was that the only way for Scotland to remain in the EU was to vote No then I'd agree with you. Maybe it's not the best way but Brexit has set the precedent and holding Yes to a higher standard is not really justifiable, imo.
You could argue that what the UK government is doing is preventing the Scottish govt from cherry picking its moment enabling it to get Independence even if it’s only by a 50.1% majority.
Another way of arguing it would be that the UK government is cherry picking it's moment.
Like Brexit, Indie is pretty much irreversible & I personally think you need to demonstrate that it isn’t something that a majority is going to regret a couple of years down the line (like you know what)
As much as the tories like to say the got brexit done, they haven't. It's still an ongoing process and we don't know what it's going to look like in the end. The longer it goes on the harder it will be and the longer it will take for Scotland to rebuild ties with the EU post-independence.
The car is still heading towards the cliff and not giving Scotland the chance to jump out before the car is mid-air is a bit unfair, imo.
the people of Scotland have voted to have another referendum
When was that, I must have missed it?
When was that, I must have missed it?
Any election where the majority of MPs or MSPs returned represent parties who are pro-independence.
It's not really up to the SNP to stop working towards independence. The clue is in the name. It's up to Unionist parties to come up with a more attractive alternative so that people stop voting for pro-indy parties.
The 'problem' is not the SNP or any other pro-indy party. It's the Scottish voters.
Any election where the majority of MPs or MSPs returned represent parties who are pro-independence.
But at the last election, those two parties combined still got less than 50% of the vote, so are you saying that a minority of voters represents the "the people of scotland"?
So all these folk who tell us that Scotland isn't a separate country, just a country/region within the UK & NI, are they also demanding that England & Wales immediately leave the World Cup and for the next one we'll play as the United Kingdom (and Northern Ireland)?
Any election where the majority of MPs or MSPs returned represent parties who are pro-independence.
I don't think you can conclude that represents a vote for independence, because that's not the only issue on the table.
So all these folk who tell us that Scotland isn’t a separate country
The problem is, like species, country is a bit of a vague term with multiple different definitions.
Under some Scotland isnt a country (neither is England) and under others it is (under most of these its more a "special cases are...").
Hence why in the Olympics we have one team vs football where there are the four.
Just say that Westminster say yes to another indy referendum, the votes are cast and counted and again the Scots vote against independence.
What happens then?
Do the same vocal pro-independence people just carry on shouting the odds about how unfair it is? Do we just keep having referendums on it every few years until the vocal few get what they want?
The same as Northern Ireland, for example, where a "political generation" is defined as seven years?
The same as Northern Ireland, for example, where a “political generation” is defined as seven years?
So you are saying having a vote every 7 years until the result is Yes? & do we continue to have that vote every 7 years afterwards?
But at the last election, those two parties combined still got less than 50% of the vote, so are you saying that a minority of voters represents the “the people of scotland”?
You can only play the game in front of you. Until Westminster and Holyrood elections are purely proportional representation then it's difficult to assign exact percentages to opinions on policies.
So, you just have to assume that if a party says something in it's manifesto and that party returns the most MPs/MSPs then that is the 'will of the people.'
In the same way that the tories only got 43% of the vote in the last election and that resulted in a 90 seat majority, it's not really fair but it is what it is.
The only way to truly know what the will of the Scottish people is is to have a referendum on having a referendum.
Until then we just have to go with the democratic process we have.
So you are saying having a vote every 7 years until the result is Yes? & do we continue to have that vote every 7 years afterwards?
The easy way to avoid that is not to vote for pro-indy parties.
I don’t think you can conclude that represents a vote for independence, because that’s not the only issue on the table.
No - but you can conclude it was a vote to have another referendum. Clear manifesto commitment, 3 elections at least that a majority government was elected on a manifesto commitment to have another referendum.
To deny this manifesto commitment is a clear affront to democracy. I was talking to a died in the wool unionist today who agrees its a clear denial of democracy
& do we continue to have that vote every 7 years afterwards?
If a post independence Scottish government returned a majority government with a manifesto commitment to rejoining the UK then another ref would be democratic
it's a tough call to get indy passed I think. Just from the previous full weight of the Westminster parties, their electioneer psychologists and uk mainstream media all pushing for a No. It's quite a task, even after the total hash of a government we have.
I suspect that, should it go ahead, we'd see the same hard push against it from rUK.
maybe I've been taken in my the indy brainwashing ;-), but as an Englishman living in Scotland for the last 20+ years. There is a distinct difference between the politicians we see here and those in the HoC, and for all the bashing the SNP get from the unionists here, at least you can make some sort of sense of their direction and objectives. it just seems a bit more transparent than the political ****ery, smoke and mirrors ego gameshow that is westminster.
The opportunity to be governed properly, by politicians who seem to at least want to try to address some of the issues presented, is an opportunity I'd like to take.
If there's a way to have that, even if it doesn't mean full independence, I'm game.
I don’t think you can conclude that represents a vote for independence, because that’s not the only issue on the table.
True, it's not a vote for independence, I never said it was. It is, however, a vote for an independence referendum.
Even if you don't agree and you were actually voting for other manifesto commitments, if it's in the manifesto you've still voted for an independence referendum.
That's how May was 100% correct when she said 80% of voters voted for parties in favour of exiting the EU in the 2017 election. It's also why I would never vote for Labour with it's current commitment to no Single Market, no CU, etc.
If a post independence Scottish government returned a majority government with a manifesto commitment to rejoining the UK then another ref would be democratic
Yes, but it isn't as simple as that is it? The rest of the UK would have to agree to the Union being re-formed
Yeah - but a referendum on it would be democratic.
Yeah – but a referendum on it would be democratic.
Fair point
Yes, but it isn’t as simple as that is it? The rest of the UK would have to agree to the Union being re-formed
We can get some idea of how that might go if we look at other territories that have left the UK, decided they didn't like it, and applied to rejoin...