Stringer Field and Hoey have move a long way right in their views.  Hoey for example wants a repeal of the hunting ban.  Field supported tory benefit cuts and actually helped them with legislation to do so.

Stringer was a part of the left wing group on manchester council that were like Hatton without being such arses.  In the 80s labour had 60 out of 62 on the council and the main political debate was between the technocratic labour on the right and the socialist worker militant type on the left.  Stringer led the left grouping and was responsible for some very good stuff as leader of the council

I have no issue at all with voting on principle and voting against the whip indeed I think MPs should do so more often – until it reaches the point of saving a tory government from collapse.  that IMO is wrong

Stringer on brexit I think is just running scared of the brexixter voters and I think his political judgement is wrong on that.  He is actually voting aginst his principles out of fear for his seat – a completed misguided fear as well so the polls say.  But Hoey and Field have moved so far to the right they would be much better off in the tory party.  They are far to the right of Blair even

My other half campaigned for Hoey in the early 80s when she first got her seat.  She was well to the left of the party then – well to the left of Kinnock

2: what should the labour party do with these folk who have already saved May from a commons defeat on brexit once that could well have led to the fall of this Tory government and are likely to vote against the party whip on such an important issue in a way that might well save Mays government again?

Er… what about when the party whip is used to prevent the government facing defeats over Brexit? Or are memories so short?

It makes things easier to label anyone going for Brexit as right wing (especially if you hate them already) at the moment it is being hijacked by the right but there are plenty of good old socialists complicit here as they reckon they can shape the world they want.

Most of those involved see it as a bring it all down and rebuild in their image opportunity. For those wanting radical change it’s about the only way to get there.

3) How do folk in the labour party Like Hoey and Stringer go from leftwing firebrands taking principled stances to being so right wing they would be better off in the tory party.
Both t’missus and I know these folk – Stringer and Hoey – from the 80s. They have travelled a long way to the right politically from their stance then. How can they do that?

Far from unusual. See Living Marxism transforming into Spiked…

There is a left wing argument for brexit, and the idea’s certainly not owned exclusively by the right- but the fact is every vision of brexit we’ve had has been right wing, every brexit we’ve any real chance of getting will only suit the right. So it’s pretty reasonable to cut past the bigger picture and get into the specifics where, realistically, it’s a right wing project.

good point Kelvin.

Bang on Northwind. Quiet a few people I know and respect the opinion of voted leave with a left wing vision of the future. I was almost convinced to vote leave too as what they were saying made an awful lot of sense to me.

I didn’t in the end because I knew it would get hijacked and utterly ruined by the head bangers and right wing nut jobs. The Brexit we end up with will be for the benefit of the rich elite, not the well intentioned left.

<h3>BREXIT discussion is hampered by “a rise in political correctness” that paints proud working class citizens as “bigots or xenophobes”, an artist from Sheffield claimed on</h3>

thread on LFGSS I going potty

What is LFGSS? More worryingly is this thread being quoted as “Leading Cyclists Claim”

Sturgeon is on Marr this morning, battle lines being drawn for her, Not accepting a bad result seems to be the point being pushed.

mike LFGSS is London fixed gear it’s like a….oh **** it link here

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/326079/

Sturgeon is in a tricky position politically.  A significant number of YES voters in the indepoendence referendum voted yes to get out of the EU.  There has been some movement towards YES in the polls for a second independence referendum but not enough for someone as naturally cautious as her.  She wants to see what the brexit deal is before calling another independence referendum and I believe really thought it would be clear by now

She is also under enormous pressure to call another independence referendum.  Politically its somewhat difficult tho as to do it without westminster consent would invite the unionist parties to boycott it which would then make any result suspect.

Politically she is between a rock and a hard place.

Westminster has also trampled all over the devolution settlement on this, wanting to grab powers back and also completely ignoring the Sewall convention.

There is a slow motion constitutional crisis going on as regards the devolution settlement that is only going to get worse.  Basically Mays government has show total disdain for holyrood which has harded attitudes up here.

To me – and I am no ideological independence supporter nor SNP voter I think the movement towards an independent scotland is inevitable now.  I want it sooner rather than later to make EU membership easier.

To me – and I am no ideological independence supporter nor SNP voter I think the movement towards an independent scotland is inevitable now.  I want it sooner rather than later to make EU membership easier.

I completely get the urge to decouple from England on grounds of sovereignty. However, the economic argument against Scottish independence is even stronger than the one for the UK remaining in the EU. Unless there’s a very soft Brexit indeed, Scotland becoming an independent EU member would be erecting barriers to exports to rUK (64%) and gaining frictionless trade with the EU (15%). And aside from trade and customs issues, wouldn’t a rUK which has ended freedom of movement need a hard border?

Yes the scotland / england border would need to be a hard border.  However especially with oil now 80 a barrel and rising again IMO an independent scotland would still be better off in the EU and out of the UK.  Its rUK that would be totally stuffed without scotlands money and that does concern me.

Remember that for all but a couple of the last 30 years money flows from Scotland to England.  Scotland would also be able to pursue economic policies that suit rather than having ones to suit LOndon.  Scotland would also be well placed to take financial service from rUK rather than them going to Paris or Frankfurt.

Depends how hardball rUK wanted to play.

Remember that for all but a couple of the last 30 years money flows from Scotland to England.

It may flow the other way with decommissioning tax refunds. That would not be a liability Scotland would want to take on.

Realistically independant Scotland would need to be looking beyond the oil and gas industry as that is not a sensible long term plan. If it had happened in the 70s and the money invested wisely you could be in a Norway situation. To do that now would take some courage from politicians who may have to tell the population they need to spend 10-20 years in stagnation/rebuilding/restructuring to make the place better for their children. The cost of setting up a national bank and all the political services needed to function could be high BUT this should be copy paste from the Yugoslavia splits.

as for taking on ownership or part ownership of the UKs assets. Watching how the UK manages to take part ownership of EU assets will set the tone for that conversation.

Yes the scotland / england border would need to be a hard border

Only until England comes up with some kind of cake/cherries and unicorn/technology solution….. 🙂

Even the Torygraph is spreading project fear

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/

A Scotland in the EU and England out with a hard border would be a logistical nightmare, how much capacity is there in the closest ports to get goods in? Or will goods be shipped in, bonded and hauled up to the border?

That is one of the simpler issues to deal with.

If anything has been learned then a calm and dignified study preferably done by independent/cross party groups on the issues that need to be addressed and the implications of them should be put forward and signed off by both sides before campaigning can start.

Back to Brexit a mass rejection of the whip is what is really needed and it would be good to see a coalition of Pro EU MP’s standing together above party politics, I can image that some tories have already written off staying in power especially if a BoJo takeover happens.

what we need is a unicorn mine

or

bring back robert the bruce

A Scotland in the EU and England out with a hard border would be a logistical nightmare,

damn right they have a world cup at fort bill

That’s something I hadn’t considered.

Pre-brexit referendum, if Scotland had left the UK a few years ago, wouldn’t that mean they’d also automatically leave the EU?  Or do they get some sort of fall-back status and remain by default?  Are the UK nations also all EU members in their own right or is it just the UK as an entity?

Scotland would not be ( or would not have been) in the EU by default.  Unionists would have you believe they would be thrown out.  However is 100% clear that as Scotland would be in line with all EU laws and regs and that Scotland contains so much oil, fishing and energy resources plus the friendly noises coming from the EU plus the desire on the EU to remain 28 there would be absolutely no issue with continuing membership or a reapplication

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>mikewsmith
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

A Scotland in the EU and England out with a hard border would be a logistical nightmare, how much capacity is there in the closest ports to get goods in? Or will goods be shipped in, bonded and hauled up to the border?

Scotland actually has excess port capacity, a bunch of which is used to ship things south. So yes, a logistical nightmare combined with England’s ports not being able to handle the extra red tape of brexit

</div>

Cheers TJ.  Makes sense.

However is 100% clear that as Scotland would be in line with all EU laws and regs and that Scotland contains so much oil, fishing and energy resources plus the friendly noises coming from the EU plus the desire on the EU to remain 28 there would be absolutely no issue with continuing membership or a reapplication

There may be positive noises but I would imagine the process would be like the Estonian one.

Instant recognition of Scotland as a country.

In two-three years when the political machine is established (national bank, embassies, replication of non devolved departments from Whitehall, basic trade deals in place) an application to the EU can be made.

probably 4-7 years to cross over all the EU processes (might be quicker) in preparation for joining ERM

Scitland accepted then after approx 2 years transfer to the Euro.

I can’t see it taking less than 10 years just due to the time taken to create the political departments, staff them and demonstrate competence. During that time it leaves the country in a kind of limbo.

Mind you this is a limbo with a known end rather than a Brexit limbo with no idea

Or of course if rUK is leaving and iScotland staying iScotland simply becomes the successor state and remains in on the same terms under the same agreements.  thats the simplest way.

Cornholio – the difference than with Estonia is that scotland is already compliant will all EU law and processes.

Think how much the 27 would delight in rUKs embarrassment as well?  My guess – and we are talking hypothetical upon hypothetical is “successor state” would be used so in effect Scotland simply would never actually leave the EU

Problem with that is if we have (as still seems highly likely to me) a cliff edge brexit with no transition then the timetable works against that but I really cannot see the EU causing any difficulties whatsoever given Scotland wouldbe a net contributor still to the EU and has allthat oil gas and fishies

Even the Torygraph is spreading project fear

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/

Its frightening stuff that, the irony of the bus and promised money for nhs and Mays little Brexit nhs dividend ,looks like they’ll need it.

Roll on Brino

On the other hand the Observer is running today with how May’s definitely taking the centre ground

sorry Kimbers I lost my quotes whilst quoting you 🙂

Scotland would not be ( or would not have been) in the EU by default.  Unionists would have you believe they would be thrown out.  However is 100% clear that as Scotland would be in line with all EU laws and regs and that Scotland contains so much oil, fishing and energy resources plus the friendly noises coming from the EU plus the desire on the EU to remain 28 there would be absolutely no issue with continuing membership or a reapplication

It’s quite different now to when the indy ref took place – at that point Scotland wanted to split up the UK, something which countries like Spain and France (with their own restless provinces) would have resisted. This time round I have to agree with you, I can’t see the EU having any problem with it.

Aiming for it Northwind – I am not sure the Maybot is much good at navigation tho

Besides which, Spain no longer has to worry about the seperatist side, since they’ve tested the waters and discovered that they can send in the stormtroopers and smash everyone’s heads in and nobody bats an eyelid.

This time round I have to agree with you, I can’t see the EU having any problem with it.

I don’t think the EU compliance would be the issue that would cause any delay.

i think it would be the time taken for iScotland to disentangle form rUK and establish all the gaps that would be required to be an independent country. Treasury, banking set up (although they could use the Euro or USD instead of setting up a new currency for a few years) international relations etc.

I would guess the EU might want iScotland to demonstrate stability (balanced budgets etc.) for a period before entering the EU to avoid any finance issues.

even a quick entrance would still probably be 10 years

Scotland might well take 10 years to become eligalble to join the EU… but as a smaller country, EEA would come much quicker (and be politically much easier to sell to voters North of the border anyway… there are plenty who want independance from UK, but would prefer something like the Norway situation to EU membership).

I don’t want the Scots to break away, but a no deal Brexit really would be the UK government sticking two fingers up to voters, their devolved government, and the needs of Scotland generally. It would change things.

Or of course if rUK is leaving and iScotland staying iScotland simply becomes the successor state and remains in on the same terms under the same agreements.  thats the simplest way.

That’s just simplistic, but there’s nothing simple about it. Apart from technicalities (!?) like determining budget contributions, Scotland is entangled with rUK in a way that makes removing the UK from the EU look straightforward. I’d expect a lot of encouraging noises but a great deal would have to be sorted between Scotland and the rump before the EU could seriously consider Scotland as a member. I’d be surprised if it was done in less than a decade, which would have been a sensible time for Brexit done properly by a new treaty rather than the (intended as a deterrent) Article 50 route.

And amidst your enthusiasm for Fish! Oil! Fish Oil! you’re glossing over Scotland having to introduce barriers to trade with rUK, who currently take 64% of their exports. Whatever those barriers are (and if Scotland wants EU membership they won’t be up to Scotland to decide) they’ll be replacing the ABSOLUTELY NONE barriers that exist at present.

Besides which, Spain no longer has to worry about the seperatist side, since they’ve tested the waters and discovered that they can send in the stormtroopers and smash everyone’s heads in and nobody bats an eyelid.

Off topic but Rajoy got the boot for that move and they only smashed some select few heads. I think the Spanish/Catalan issue will go on for a long time to come but i wouldn’t trust either side to work in the interest of the public unfortunately.

Its rUK that would be totally stuffed without scotlands money and that does concern me.

I’m fairly certain that Scotland is a net drain to the UK, as is pretty much everywhere outside of London.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267

With an 84 percent share of the oil, you still end up short of your spending. So taxes would have to rise, which means less competitivesness with those south of the border.

To say that we’d be stuffed without a rapidly approaching obsolescent fuel source, that is prone to market volatility is quite frankly laughable. Scotland is at much greater risk of oil market volatility than we are.

I’m fairly certain that Scotland is a net drain to the UK, as is pretty much everywhere outside of London.

London and the SE sucks so much out of the economy too, it’s net wealth generating power is limited too.

Scotland has a lot more potential for renewable energy than England, hydro and wind, it also has offshore oil.

I’m pretty sure Scotland could be energy self sufficient and sell it to England for a lot more if they split and join the EU.

Good fishing too. Natural and farmed.

I wonder if the brexiters figured independent Scottish waters into the equation when spouting off about fishing areas.

I’m pretty sure Scotland could be energy self sufficient and sell it to England for a lot more of they split.

Or England can sell surplus nuclear to Scotland, I think that is how it works for non nuclear countries these days….

Or England can sell surplus nuclear to Scotland

The English nuclear that’s mostly French owned? The one where we buy the energy back?

Or is England building a new top secret nuclear power station?