Scotland Indyref 2

I quoted a post that I thought displayed it, I responded to it.

 My big worry is that independence would create two smaller, poorer, less viable countries, and I wouldn’t want that for either nation.

“Smaller” is only relative. IndyScot would slot in-between Finland and Singapore and would actually be about average sized.

[/url]

molgrips
Full Member
I quoted a post that I (wrongly) thought displayed it, I responded to it.

Fixed that for ye.

Out of interest, since you obviously think (wrongly) that it’s a driving factor behind the independence movement, what percentage of the Scottish population do you believe is anti-English?

“Smaller” is only relative. IndyScot would slot in-between Finland and Singapore and would actually be about average sized.

I’m not sure Scotland – or the RUK – would be able to match the economy of either, to achieve the day to day benefits people may want independence to bring them (accepting that being free of Whitehall = priceless!)

Out of interest, since you obviously think (wrongly) that it’s a driving factor behind the independence movement

Whoah, I made no claims about numbers. I’m just commenting on the words I see here. But I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a factor to greater or lesser extent in many minds.

Well…Not a lot I can do about your irrational prejudices I guess.

No? A group of countries co-operating economically to make a larger economy?

Yes, that is what Scotland would like to return to*.

*whether that means full EU membership, EFTA membership, or some other arrangement.

BruceWee
Full Member

Yes, that is what Scotland would like to return to*.

Well mibbe, we’ll need to have a discussion about that…

Well mibbe, we’ll need to have a discussion about that…

Sure, but if we really want to pursue the North Korea option we might as well stay with rUK.

@molgrips I think you’re trying to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye.

*whether that means full EU membership, EFTA membership, or some other arrangement

Buy land near Gretna, they have to put those lorry parks somewhere….

Not for the first time on this thread either. There’s a persistent pattern from one or two posters of deliberately seeking to misrepresent this as motivated by an ‘anti-English’ attitude which, for the most part, it quite clearly isn’t.

I just love all the posts after this that are just so, “civic”

errs big_n_daft looking for a bite. 😆

Why doesn’t the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?

Let’s pick a current one, it’s maintains NATO’s strength

Why?

Firstly there is no guarantee that iS will apply to join NATO and if it did the non-nuclear policy of the SNP is incompatible with membership.
The SNP defence plans for iS have inadequate resources for territorial waters and airspace, are rUK jets expected to scramble everytime the Russians test the airspace? What anti-submarine capabilities do the SNP propose? Etc etc

The UK occupies a strategic position and by it’s size and investment a strategic capability that the smaller members of NATO are net beneficiaries of. Ireland just freeloads in the knowledge that it’s geography means the UK does the work or it can rely on fishermen to try and disrupt Russian Martine military training

The SNP proposal is to make up for this by providing the field hospitals for the dead and injuried casualties of other NATO members https://www.thenational.scot/news/19762944.snp-mps-call-independent-scotland-world-leader-military-medicine/

Or iS may stay out of NATO after diminishing one of its key members
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independent-scotland-should-not-join-26397712

But don’t worry about the Russian mapping of Aberdeen and Dundee

Military maps show how the German and Russian armies knew all about Aberdeen

Remember to stay “civic” when you tell me I’m wrong

What? The man your team would have made the president of an independent Scotland has been busy taking Russian money for years. Less corrupt? Aye right.

1. The policy of “his team” is not to have a president.
2. Out of interest way he taking money from the Russians when he was First Minister? I only associate it with his time after that.
3. The point of indy is not to appoint one person, or even party as “prime minister” but rather to give the people of scotland a better say in who that person is every 5 yrs.

I’m yet to be convinced that Scotland can actually become wealthier post-independence despite being a smaller economy.

the point you are missing though is many people in Scotland aren’t focused on Wealth (or at least financial wealth). Are there enough of them to trump those who are all about the money and afraid of the financial risks? Who knows… …that’s kind of the point of having a referendum so people can discuss and decide for themselves, there are relatively few people who say Indy is guaranteed to bring bountiful riches and a land of milk and honey so it is to some extent a vote on ideals v’s risks.

No. I’m just prompting people to think if they really really really aren’t anti-English on some level.

My views on Indy would likely be different if UK was saying they would become a republic, within the EEA where the representatives in the HOC were elected proportionately and a massively reformed HOL. Likewise, if the flavour of Scotland on offer was an entirely undermocratic/meritocratic second chamber + FPTP parliament that ruled out EU/EEA ties I’d be saying No. So does that mean I hate the English? I don’t think so – although I do hate that the English voters and politicians don’t see these issues as important enough to fix.

There’s a good percentage that do, and lots of unhappy couples stay together because of finances and the effect it would have on the family.

And it may well be an entirely legitimate decision to do so, of course often one party is manipulating the other to stay and any impartial friend would tell the other to escape. Certainly nobody would suggest that if you decided a few years ago to put up with it that you should never again be allowed to reconsider your position.

See this piece of rhetoric as well. Why do couples get divorced? Often because they have come to hate each other, so yeah one side will definitely be anti- the other.

Clearly you will take every example and try to turn it into hate. Obviously some people hate their husband/wife but others get divorced because they just don’t love each other anymore, because their interests and values are no longer aligned because what they want from life had changed enormously since they got in bed donkey’s years ago, because they quite fancy that fun, culturally diverse European along the road etc. I’d say of the divorcees I know the happy ones still care deeply for their ex’s and get along well – the ones who really resent each other are the ones where one party really didn’t want the other to go and tried to manipulate them to stay, often by throwing out language like “do you hate me” and when invited to listen to the reasons they are considering leaving respond “well that’s who I am so basically you hate me” or “I don’t want to be like that either, but I can’t change – it’s your problem that you can’t tolerate it as well as I do”.

On the above, would you go to a job interview without knowing the pay and conditions, or the role and what it entails, would you accept it if successful without still knowing the pay and conditions, with only a ‘we think it’ll be better than you are on currently’ as comfort?

I’m not sure its a particularly good analogy – not least because I don’t think anyone is suggesting having a vote without a prospectus or discussion about the pro’s and con’s. Of course lots of people do jump jobs even with uncertainty, perhaps they are more inclined to when their current job makes them feel they can’t thrive, or they don’t like the ethos of their current employer. Many people have changed jobs for better money only to regret it – because money isn’t the be all and end all. Equally virtually anyone who took a job with a performance bonus, commission or share options took a something uncertain. Some do it under the aspirational belief that they would get rich (or at least stood a good chance of it) but others looked at the total package and said, well even if those aspirations come to nothing the other attractions still seem worth it. The other reason its a bad analogy though – is it is usually fairly easily to leave a new employer if it doesn’t go to plan – returning to the Union is unlikely to be an option if things get messy.

Remember to stay “civic” when you tell me I’m wrong

Only if you promise to keep up the wee digs? 😆

Big and daft – many of us want no part of NATO, want to be a neutral / demilitarized country.

Many of us have no wish to go parading around the world pretending to be billy big baws

Well that has convinced me;this year the Ukraine; next Aberdeen and the ‘shire. Keep trying to piss into the tent. I wonder where they are going to put their nuclear subs? ( Once they have compensated Scotland for our share of them of course) I mean; the MP for Portsmouth said there were too many people close by for them to be located on the South Coast. Look on the bright side, they could make it a tourist attraction; an opportunity sadly under utilised here by everybody except CND.
It is strange just like last time all arguments against independence are absolutes. Yet we have a Tory government who have made it up as they went along for the last 2 years; usually a month late. For all their failings I know who I would rather have had in charge.

I think that Scotland should just be allowed to get on with it, then the SNP can start planning for Indyref3 then in 2030. This is never going away. I know there are lots of different polls, but the numbers in things like this don’t change dramatically. So, Indyref2 will be bloody close around the 50% mark each way in reality (give or take 5% like last time). So, about half a chance of leaving – and genuinely good luck to Scotland if so – and about half a chance of keeping it is at is. Which means another couple of terms of the SNP demanding a third ref.

Whatever happens, I hope the terms of the ref are very clearly laid out with the pros and cons of each side and an actual commitment for how long it will be until the next one. The last two referendums in this country haven’t really been very successful in making big political decisions…

Big and daft – many of us want no part of NATO, want to be a neutral / demilitarized country.

A fine ambition, I wish the whole world could be, but you know, Putin etc

Many of us have no wish to go parading around the world pretending to be billy big baws

I would say we are the opposite, the lack of ability to parade around like Billy Big Bawes is what is getting everyone excited. I think the Ukrainian people want to be friends with a Billy to get help throwing out Vlad hence their despair at the lack of action

In a similar crisis would Sturgeon be on TV saying she’s going to do something or insisting others do it. As a neutral country demilitarised what help would iS be able to give? Would there be any concerns about how a key member of NATO was reduced in capabilities etc etc

I know there are lots of different polls, but the numbers in things like this don’t change dramatically.

Actually, from the time the first ref was announced to when it actually happened, support for Yes went from 30% to 50% and then back down to 45% after the Vow (although, of course, the Vow had nothing to do with it).

Then, after the Brexit vote, 12-13% of Yes voters went to No and 12-13% of No voters went to Yes. That’s a full 25% of the population changing it’s mind.

There is a core support on both sides who will never change their minds. It wouldn’t surprise me if there wasn’t at least 50% of the population who would change their minds if the right conditions were met.

If there were a complete overhaul of the UK system of government that reduced the democratic deficit (which is where a lot of the support for indy is coming from, imo) then it wouldn’t surprise me if the question of Independence was put to bed for good.

So yeah, ball’s in your court.

Brexit has shown how hard it is to go it alone in the world.

Independence isn’t about turning our back on the world like Brexit is, which is why we didn’t vote for it.

And I’m more than happy to adopt a more demilitarised/neutral philosophy as a country, as opposed to the pretend patriots who still seem to think there’s an Empire.

Note, the Suez Crisis was nearly 70 years ago, that’s when the Empire ‘officially’ ended.

Like many other things, it’s probably worth looking at Norway and how they organise their military/foreign policy to get some ideas about what our priorities should be.

I’m not sure Scotland – or the RUK – would be able to match the economy of either, to achieve the day to day benefits people may want independence to bring them (accepting that being free of Whitehall = priceless!)

But, but, but… without having to subsidise Scotland, surely there are only sunlit uplands ahead for the rUK?

it’s probably worth looking at Norway

Too wee…

Too wee…

Too stupid as well. You know that instead of spending all the oil money on gold plated bath tubs they said that the revenue doesn’t belong to a single generation and should instead be used to benefit future generations.

Morons.

where they are going to put their nuclear subs? ( Once they have compensated Scotland for our share of them of course)

Hang on, I thought this was about ideals – you want rUK to pay you to take away the things you don’t want?

(Playing Devils Advocate)

Yes – 9% of those subs belongs to Scotland.  Of course the value would be a part of the negotiations same as any other joint asset

Big and Daft – Putin has really been deterred by scotland being in nato.  Of course he got his aim of weakening the EU by brexit.

Brexit is much worse for european security that iScotland not being in nato

In a similar crisis would Sturgeon be on TV saying she’s going to do something or insisting others do it.

as a neutral demilitarised country she should do very little bar ensuring dirty russian money is not used in Scotland

You just do not get it – we do not want to play at being billy big baws

Precisely what has Johnson done that an independent scotland could not have done?  Indeed I would want iScotland to do more but its a low barrier to beat

@Poly, not going to link as that’s getting quite long now!

The reason i focus on finances is that those who want independence for the reasons you mention, well they’re pretty much in the Yes camp, and have been for years. As per an earlier post, it’s the swing voters in the middle who will decide this, and they aren’t that interested in FPTP, choosing Scotlands own premier every 5 years or the likes, they will be the normal folk, lower middle class or whatever we call them these days, the ones who will be struggling at this point with stagnant wages, higher energy prices, etc, so any fear of more stress on their finances won’t go down well.

As for all the Norway discussions, that ship sailed a generation ago, an independent Scotland would start life with a proportion of the UK national debt and a lot of work ahead, i think most of the oil fields are leased out for years anyway, and again, to follow Norway requires a lot of initial funding. The focus needs to be a lot wider than that, or turning any IndyRef2 into some type of slagging match, learn from the mistakes of the Brexit vote, and the US election that Trump won, belittling some of the population hasn’t worked well in the last decade for elections!

As for all the Norway discussions, that ship sailed a generation ago, an independent Scotland would start life with a proportion of the UK national debt and a lot of work ahead,

Depending on the divorce agreement – this can go many ways although it would be prudent to allow for taking 9% of the debt

As for all the Norway discussions,

I mentioned Norway in relation to it’s defense policy (and a comment about a focus on building for future generations rather than purely our own selfish interests). Not sure how that ship has sailed .

The principles the Scandinavian countries are built on is very relevant to the discussion. Strongly capitalist (limiting crony capitalism wherever possible) coupled with a strong welfare state.

Even Scandinavian countries with no oil resources follow this model.

@argee

The reason i focus on finances is that those who want independence for the reasons you mention, well they’re pretty much in the Yes camp, and have been for years.

I think you are mostly right, people with strong views for fundamental reasons have already picked their side – although I think its wrong to assume that this doesn’t change over time. Demographics mean probably about 1/6th of the voters change every 10 yrs. I know quite a few people who voted no last time on economic reasons / the vow / actually wanting DevoMax, or worries about EU membership, who are now at least seriously considering Yes.

As per an earlier post, it’s the swing voters in the middle who will decide this, and they aren’t that interested in FPTP, choosing Scotlands own premier every 5 years or the likes, they will be the normal folk, lower middle class or whatever we call them these days, the ones who will be struggling at this point with stagnant wages, higher energy prices, etc, so any fear of more stress on their finances won’t go down well.

I’m not sure I agree who the swing voters are – but that might be about definitions of “lower middle class”. I’m not convinced (from those I’ve spoken to) that those who are genuinely struggling week to week / month to month are worried about wealth and ecconomoy of Indy, their personal finances never seem to track the GDP growth that gets mentioned in the media anyway. The people I’ve seen raise those concerns are comfortably off! However, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that financials aren’t an important part of the considerations for everyone – my point was that “the benefits” aren’t just about bottom-line cash in voters pockets as someone was saying. Even the most callous, tax dodging accountant will have a view on whether the cabal in London lining their mates pockets is a good use of “our taxes” and having some ability to boot out the corrupt and the liers. Even some Scottish Tory voters I’ve had discussions with say that the problem is Westminster politics are targeted at solving English issues – ultimately the “West Lothian Question” has had a different effect from Tam Dayell predicted, its not made Scottish MPs have undue influence, its made English politics dominate the UK.

Precisely what has Johnson done that an independent scotland could not have done?

Large scale supply of AT missiles (short and medium range) and training, supply and training on MANPADS, massive ISTAR resources, positioning of troops in vulnerable NATO countries from the top of my head, I’m sure there is lots more.

so why would iScotland not be able to do that?  9% of it obviously

Johnson of course has been slow to sanction oligarchs because they own him

Yes – 9% of those subs belongs to Scotland. Of course the value would be a part of the negotiations same as any other joint asset

If you are counting assets you need to count liabilities as well, so that is 9%of the decommissioning as well

Yes – and your point is?

so why would iScotland not be able to do that? 9% of it obviously

You can’t provide resources you don’t have. What defence capabilities will your paradigm for iS as a small neutral demilitarised country have?

You seem to have Schrödinger’s armed forces

Youare conflating two differnt things to sew confusion – what a suprise

Scotland can have whatever military set up it democratically decides.  the starting point is 9% of the UK assets.  Now on a straight 9% split then scotland could have offered 9% of the support Johhnson has done.

My preference is for a demilitariszed iScotland not acting outside its boarders.

Possibilities are infinite.  choices we make puts the limits on.  We can chose any path we want from a US style path to a costa rica type path

Morecashthandash….so was I

mind you a former forum member suggested just annexing the base as what were Scotland going to do about it? It also highlights the fact that there are so many variables and unknowns that anybody saying this or that will definitely happen is talking rubbish.My support for indy, (apart from OBVIOUSLY being anti-English) is because I see and visit other countries of a similar size who seem to be doing just fine,looking after their citizens and doing that even without nuclear weapons. So why should we not get rid of the broken system of Government that we are tied to if we are able?
If you want to kill the independence movement,give us Devo Max,a system of PR for Westminster elections,another ref on Europe and abolish the monarchy/tax the ex-members. Oh; and we have a weekly free lottery in which a lucky winner gets 5 mins in a dark room with Jacob R-Mogg.

Oh; and we have a weekly free lottery in which a lucky winner gets 5 mins in a dark room with Jacob R-Mogg.

I’m sold, and moving north….