Scottish Independence 2016?

[Lamadia III]

If I continue this discussion someone somewhere will bring up the gold.

Yes indeed. I know Cameron's govt. did rack up a lot of debt to cure the deficit, but still, they had a tough job. I still think a Thatcherite fiscal policy is the most ideal.

Please join me on the UK Politics thread!
viewtopic.php?t=383612&f=20&view=unread#unread

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

Yes indeed. I know Cameron's govt. did rack up a lot of debt to cure the deficit, but still, they had a tough job. I still think a Thatcherite fiscal policy is the most ideal.

Please join me on the UK Politics thread!
viewtopic.php?t=383612&f=20&view=unread#unread

You need to brief me about what's going on there. I am confused.

[Lamadia III]

Please join me on the UK Politics thread!
viewtopic.php?t=383612&f=20&view=unread#unread

You need to brief me about what's going on there. I am confused.

A Left Wing group who are dismissing patriotism as a thing of the past, and lecturing us on the absurd notion that being proud of being British is a bad thing.

[Wolfmanne2]

You need to brief me about what's going on there. I am confused.

A Left Wing group who are dismissing patriotism as a thing of the past, and lecturing us on the absurd notion that being proud of being British is a bad thing.

I've never said this before.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

You need to brief me about what's going on there. I am confused.

A Left Wing group who are dismissing patriotism as a thing of the past, and lecturing us on the absurd notion that being proud of being British is a bad thing.

I am not from Britain nor do I live there, but from an outsider's point of view, I think all Brits must be proud of their nation for it is the greatest in the world, and has left the deepest impression on the developed world.

[The Huskar Social Union]

A Left Wing group who are dismissing patriotism as a thing of the past, and lecturing us on the absurd notion that being proud of being British is a bad thing.

I've never said this before.

Surprised?

[Wolfmanne2]

I've never said this before.

Surprised?

Honestly I don't know anymore. Either I'm a Blairite traitor or a lefty out of touch with the mainstream of British society.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Surprised?

Honestly I don't know anymore. Either I'm a Blairite traitor or a lefty out of touch with the mainstream of British society.

Welcome friend! Today and forever you are either part of the Venomous "Left!" or a treacherous member of the "Right!"

In both cases the apparent scum of mankind because fuck middleground.

[The Two Jerseys]

You need to brief me about what's going on there. I am confused.

A Left Wing group who are dismissing patriotism as a thing of the past, and lecturing us on the absurd notion that being proud of being British is a bad thing.

If they're supporting Scottish independence, I will laugh.

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

Scotland had a vote on independence two years ago, and the Scottish people chose to remain in the United Kingdom. They should not be allowed to have anther vote on the matter every time the UK as a whole takes an action that the Scots do not like. I don't doubt that Scotland has the capability to survive as a country outside of the UK, however, Scottish Nationalists are deluding themselves if they believe that Scotland wouldn't be poorer for leaving.

True that there should not be a "Neverendum", but one of the big arguments made by Westminster and the No campaign in the IndyRef was the only way to guarantee membership of the EU was to remain in the UK. That point was hammered home again and again, and polls showed that caused a significant number of No votes, more than the margin by which the No campaign won.

Therefore the UK leaving the EU is not just one more policy decision that a lot of Scots don't like, but a fundamental change to the type of nation the UK is to be. So unless Westminster is going to come up with some arrangement where (a) English & Welsh voters get their wish to leave the EU and (b) the Scots and Northern Irish get their wish to remain in the EU, it's a significant enough change to justify IndyRef2.

Of course, one logical solution would be to split the UK with Scotland & NI forming one state ("Dalriada" perhaps) while England & Wales form another ("the United Kingdom of Britain" perhaps). That would require a UK wide referendum, not just a Scottish one, and arguably should have a "national veto" for each constituent nation - though the same applies there to the Brexit vote which didn't get such a veto applied either. In such an arrangement there would be no need to trigger Art.50, simply Dalriada would be the successor state to the UKoGB&NI of the EU treaties, and UKoB would not (although it might be a successor state to other treaties- that would all form part of the separation arrangements).

Also you are quite right that most Scottish Nationalists do not consider that, at the very least in the short term, independent Scotland would have financial hardships and that should really be addressed by anyone proposing independence. Although any argument that the Scottish economy is too fragile to cope with being independent just begs the question "If that is true, why stick with an arrangment that has caused such poor economic development?". The truth is the Scottish economy could survive, either using it's share of the UK assets to cover its share of the UK debt, or have no share of the UK assets or debts and leveraging it's natural resources (including people).

Of course, the "Leave" campaigners didn't address that the UK would face financial hardships leaving the EU either. Chalk it up to the era of "post fact politics".

The real question in both cases are "Do you consider the financial price worth paying in terms of other consequences achieved?" and "Can you improve the situation in the long term more in the new arrangement that in the current one?"

[Herskerstad]

In recent months, since the UK voted in favour of Brexit, there has been a lot of talk of Scotland having a second referendum, because Scotland voted to remain 62% to 38%. The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said that "the UK we voted for in 2014 doesn't exist anymore". This comes after many Scottish voters voted to stay in the UK because of an assurance that the UK would remain in the EU during the campaign in the Scottish referendum.

Which assurance are you talking about? I mean they did know a vote would be coming up on it.

[Vassenor]

In recent months, since the UK voted in favour of Brexit, there has been a lot of talk of Scotland having a second referendum, because Scotland voted to remain 62% to 38%. The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said that "the UK we voted for in 2014 doesn't exist anymore". This comes after many Scottish voters voted to stay in the UK because of an assurance that the UK would remain in the EU during the campaign in the Scottish referendum.

Which assurance are you talking about? I mean they did know a vote would be coming up on it.

Apart from the fact that the EU referendum wasn't announced until a year after the Indyref. And only happened in the first place because the Conservatives were worried by the growth in UKIP's share of the vote. It was not a certainty when the Scots voted to stay.

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

Which assurance are you talking about? I mean they did know a vote would be coming up on it.

No, there were absolutely no public proposals in 2014 that the UK would have a referendum on leaving the EU.

[Herskerstad]

Which assurance are you talking about? I mean they did know a vote would be coming up on it.

No, there were absolutely no public proposals in 2014 that the UK would have a referendum on leaving the EU.

Under pressure from many of his MPs and from the rise of UKIP, in January 2013, Cameron announced that a Conservative government would hold an in–out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017.

Scotland can't expect both to leave the union and influence it's independence vote.

[The Archregimancy]

Which assurance are you talking about? I mean they did know a vote would be coming up on it.

No, there were absolutely no public proposals in 2014 that the UK would have a referendum on leaving the EU.

This is simply not true.

Here's the text of the draft referendum bill published by the Conservative Party in early 2013:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... rendum.pdf


Here's a BBC news story from May 2013 on the referendum becoming formal Conservative Party policy, including discussion of Conservative Party members attempt to force the referendum into the Queen's Speech that same year - which was impossible given the objections of the Liberal Democrats in their capacity as junior coalition partners:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22530655


By 2014 it was therefore clear that should the next UK general election in 2015 return a Conservative majority government, a referendum would be held. There was a very public draft bill indicating this to be the case.

It would be reasonable to object that few people in 2014 expected the 2015 general election to return a Conservative majority government, with most UK voters expecting a continued hung Parliament, and that it therefore wasn't certain that there would be a referendum. But it is simply untrue to claim that there 'were absolutely no public proposals in 2014 that the UK would have a referendum on leaving the EU'.

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

No, there were absolutely no public proposals in 2014 that the UK would have a referendum on leaving the EU.

Under pressure from many of his MPs and from the rise of UKIP, in January 2013, Cameron announced that a Conservative government would hold an in–out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017.

Scotland can't expect both to leave the union and influence it's independence vote.

A speech by the leader of the Tories to his party does not constitute a "public proposal". It was at most a statement of policies to be put into the party manifesto prior to the General Election 2 years later.

Whereas both goverment Ministers and the "Better Together" official Indyref No campaign repeatedly stated that a Yes vote would cause Scotland to be outside the EU and the only way to guarantee Scotland remaining in the EU was to vote to remain in the UK. JK Rowling is one of the most high profile individuals who actively campaigned (in fact substantially bankrolled) the Better Together side who, after Brexit, confirmed remaining in the EU had been a substantial reason for her support.

Your final sentence doesn't make sense. Scotland didn't leave the UK, in part because voters were convinced that only by remaining in the UK could they guarantee also remaining in the EU. If Scotland remains in the UK, of course it should expect its views to influence UK decisions (not sure what "independence vote" you refer to).

[The Archregimancy]

Under pressure from many of his MPs and from the rise of UKIP, in January 2013, Cameron announced that a Conservative government would hold an in–out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017.

Scotland can't expect both to leave the union and influence it's independence vote.

A speech by the leader of the Tories to his party does not constitute a "public proposal".

Are you also going to argue that the May 2013 draft referendum bill issued by the senior coalition party also doesn't count as a "public proposal"?

If so, one wonders whether the definition of 'public proposal' is, in this particular case, 'whatever I need it to be to dig myself out of this unfortunate rhetorical hole'.

I repeat from my previous post that it would be entirely reasonable to object that few people in 2014 expected the 2015 general election to return a Conservative majority government, with most UK voters expecting a continued hung Parliament, and that it therefore wasn't certain that there would be a referendum. But it is simply untrue to claim that there 'were absolutely no public proposals in 2014 that the UK would have a referendum on leaving the EU'. By 2014, it was unambiguously Conservative Party policy to hold an EU referendum no later than 31 December 2017, as outlined in the draft bill issued by that party in May 2013.

[Herargon]

The nationalists want to keep the monarchy though.

But the British monarchy is cool.

Then why not make a Scottish monarchy? Independent and monarchy, now that is cool.

How, precisely, is the poll defining 'Scottish citizen'?

Does it refer to:

A) People who define themselves as ethnically Scottish regardless of where they live?

B) People who live in Scotland, regardless of their ethnicity?

C) People with the right to vote in Scotland, regardless of their ethnicity?

D) People who would be eligible for a Scottish passport should Scotland achieve independence, regardless of residency or ethnicity?

E) Other.

Regardless, the OP's grasp of the term 'Scottish citizen' seems curiously ill-defined.

Eh, it's Europe, not the US. Ethnic nationalism is a bigger thing here than racial or X-(country)ian nationalism like being Irish-American — those two things aren't even a concept within Europe.

I think that someone would be a Scottish citizen if the Scottish seems to find him or her Scottish.

That and the same if you're a resident from another country, then they'd see you as Scottish if you're embracing Scottish culture and mindset, traditions and progressions, drinking, haggis, sports, language... Basically, becoming an ethnical Scottish.

[Risottia]

E) Other.

Those who can throw a log weighing more than two tron stones at a distance greater than five ells after quaffing one mutchkin of whisky.

[Herskerstad]

E) Other.

Those who can throw a log weighing more than two tron stones at a distance greater than five ells after quaffing one mutchkin of whisky.

I think it would be much more funny if anyone with a convincing freedom cry could qualify.

[Herargon]

Those who can throw a log weighing more than two tron stones at a distance greater than five ells after quaffing one mutchkin of whisky.

I think it would be much more funny if anyone with a convincing freedom cry could qualify.

Alba gu bràth!

[Community Values]

Everyone that votes no should get paid to move and live in England. It's only fair.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

Everyone that votes no should get paid to move and live in England. It's only fair.

By the SNP

[HMS Vanguard]

How, precisely, is the poll defining 'Scottish citizen'?

Does it refer to:

A) People who define themselves as ethnically Scottish regardless of where they live?

B) People who live in Scotland, regardless of their ethnicity?

C) People with the right to vote in Scotland, regardless of their ethnicity?

D) People who would be eligible for a Scottish passport should Scotland achieve independence, regardless of residency or ethnicity?

E) Other.

Regardless, the OP's grasp of the term 'Scottish citizen' seems curiously ill-defined.

This is a general problem with any referendum on Scottish independence. Who exactly is the demos here?

In 2014 the government elided these problems by simply letting the SNP gerrymander the electorate as much as they liked in the knowledge that they would lose anyway, and have fewer grounds for delegitimising the result afterwards. This resulted in the ridiculous situation of foreigners voting on the territorial integrity of our country.

[Ifreann]

But the British monarchy is cool.

Then why not make a Scottish monarchy? Independent and monarchy, now that is cool.

I am willing to accept the heavy burden of being King of Scotland.