Indyref 2

[marinello59]

I have hesrd from pollsters thst this is a myth. Yes were already losing, due to major economic uncertainty.

The vow made no differrnce to votes supposedly

The vow made little difference. There has been at least one academic study ( ignored) that "proved " this. The only people who have gone on about the vow not being delivered are those who voted Yes. If we do have another referundum we need to recognise that and deal with the real reasons we failed.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You are right, you can't void the vote - but you can vote again - given that people now have quite a different understanding than they did then...let the people choose again, now they have a fuller understanding


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, and im not against another vote per se. But i think shed overplaying her hand.

I voted yes last time, i dont think i would if another votr was held in the near future

[bigwheel]

Yeah, and im not against another vote per se. But i think shed overplaying her hand.

I voted yes last time, i dont think i would if another votr was held in the near future

I hope you have the chance to make that vote...let the people decide...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[High-On-Hibs]

The vow made little difference. There has been at least one academic study ( ignored) that "proved " this. The only people who have gone on about the vow not being delivered are those who voted Yes. If we do have another referundum we need to recognise that and deal with the real reasons we failed.

Except it isn't just the "vow" that hasn't been delivered, every other broken promise as well. It would be interesting to see what an academic study shows this time round, based on "all" of the lies that were told.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I hope you have the chance to make that vote...let the people decide...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, maybe.

Here's question... if we voted yes and it turned out that aftertwo years something promised by the yes side hadnt materialised, would you advocate a referendum to rejoin the uk?

[High-On-Hibs]

She is ignoring the fact that our uk parliament would have to vote for a further referendum.

No she isn't. I'm pretty sure she has a better understanding of how this process works compared to yourself. She just knows that it would be abhorrently stupid for them to deny a 2nd referendum if the polls are showing consistent demand for one.

[Arch Stanton]

I have hesrd from pollsters thst this is a myth. Yes were already losing, due to major economic uncertainty.

The vow made no differrnce to votes supposedly

Yet a week before the vote the pollsters had it all square and the pound had already started to tumble - maybe your pollsters were in the pub at the time.

It kind of begs the question though why sterling started in freefall when England was getting rid of a lame duck partner - it should have risen surely?

Any old lie in a storm I suppose - G Brown was shipped up to peddle his fictional assurances.

[High-On-Hibs]

Yeah, maybe.

Here's question... if we voted yes and it turned out that aftertwo years something promised by the yes side hadnt materialised, would you advocate a referendum to rejoin the uk?

If something isn't delivered by the democratically elected government in an independent Scotland, we can vote them out. We can't do that within the UK, when we're let down on matters out of our own hands.

[bigwheel]

Yeah, maybe.

Here's question... if we voted yes and it turned out that aftertwo years something promised by the yes side hadnt materialised, would you advocate a referendum to rejoin the uk?



as a matter of principle, if a material point turned out not to be true, the people should have the choice to vote. It would be more likely to vote on who governs our country though, rather than rejoining the UK. As I don't see that being a reversible decision...in the same way I don't see an EU exit being reversible either...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Except it isn't just the "vow" that hasn't been delivered, every other broken promise as well. It would be interesting to see what an academic study shows this time round, based on "all" of the lies that were told.

I agree lies during campaigns are a bad thing - sajid javid was squairming on anderw marr show this morning.

But all sides do it, including the snp and yes. In fact the 600 page independence manifesto was full of supposition, half truths and willfull misinterpretation.

Agree its a huge problem in politics, particularly when fairly irreversible constitutional questions are being decided upon that you cant revisit innfive years.

But what can be done about that? Because be under no illusion, the snp will be doing this in another indy campaign.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No she isn't. I'm pretty sure she has a better understanding of how this process works compared to yourself. She just knows that it would be abhorrently stupid for them to deny a 2nd referendum if the polls are showing consistent demand for one.

Which they are not. Yet she is already pressingg ahead?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yet a week before the vote the pollsters had it all square and the pound had already started to tumble - maybe your pollsters were in the pub at the time.

It kind of begs the question though why sterling started in freefall when England was getting rid of a lame duck partner - it should have risen surely?

Any old lie in a storm I suppose - G Brown was shipped up to peddle his fictional assurances.


But thats what im telling you, the polls were not saying it was neck and neck - only one poll had yes ahead, the others consistently had no ahead.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If something isn't delivered by the democratically elected government in an independent Scotland, we can vote them out. We can't do that within the UK, when we're let down on matters out of our own hands.

Not necessarily.

I live in Edinburgh. If edinburgh doesnt want something to happen, i cant veto the rest of scotland wanting it.

We can contribute to voting a government out - we jusy do so as part of a wider country.

You are being obtuse.

[Pretty Boy]

But thats what im telling you, the polls were not saying it was neck and neck - only one poll had yes ahead, the others consistently had no ahead.

Better Togethers internal polling had Yes ahead with 8 days to go.

That came straight from the Grassroots Coordinator of Better Together if you want my source.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

as a matter of principle, if a material point turned out not to be true, the people should have the choice to vote. It would be more likely to vote on who governs our country though, rather than rejoining the UK. As I don't see that being a reversible decision...in the same way I don't see an EU exit being reversible either...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fair enough. So if a marerial point like the oil price proved to be wrong after a yes vote, you would be happy with indyref 3?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Better Togethers internal polling had Yes ahead with 8 days to go.

That came straight from the Grassroots Coordinator of Better Together if you want my source.

Well i dont doubt your info.

I am saying what i was told by someone from a polling organisation.

[Arch Stanton]

I agree lies during campaigns are a bad thing - sajid javid was squairming on anderw marr show this morning.

But all sides do it, including the snp and yes. In fact the 600 page independence manifesto was full of supposition, half truths and willfull misinterpretation.

Agree its a huge problem in politics, particularly when fairly irreversible constitutional questions are being decided upon that you cant revisit innfive years.

But what can be done about that? Because be under no illusion, the snp will be doing this in another indy campaign.

"In fact the 600 page independence manifesto was full of supposition, half truths and willfull misinterpretation."

Now I know your at it - every utterance by Yes came under minute scrutiny and if that wasn't enough, heavyweight debaters like Jeremy Paxman were sent in to score as many debating points as could be made (that on a BBC salary as well!!).

[Pretty Boy]

Well i dont doubt your info.

I am saying what i was told by someone from a polling organisation.
I'm not doubting your info either. The polling in the indyref was all over the place.

Whether it made any difference or not, and I don't believe it did, there was a definite increase in urgency and wheeling out of the big guns from BT on the back of both the public poll that had Yes ahead and their own internal polling.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[easty]

Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't be doing her job if she wasn't talking about an IndyRef2, as far as I'm concerned.

She's the First Minister of Scotland, she should be putting Scotland first, and she'll do just that. It doesn't matter that it was a UK wide vote, those who turned out and voted in Scotland, voted to remain within the EU, we know this for a fact. This referendum was a far from a trivial matter, and if Nicola Sturgeon, and the SNP, want to put the question to the people of Scotland, "do we want to remain part of the UK, outside the EU?", then how can anyone argue that's not democratic? She's not going to force anyone to vote yes or no, she's giving us the option. Decide for yourself.

[bigwheel]

Fair enough. So if a marerial point like the oil price proved to be wrong after a yes vote, you would be happy with indyref 3?

As I said, I don't think Independence is reversible...if the economic forecasts are not met, then the people would make their choice at the government elections....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

The point is she won't be vetoing anything, the thought of her doing so is laughable. She likely knows this and when she's told in no uncertain circumstances that it won't happen, she will use it as a further argument for another independence referendum.

You miss the point.

It's Parliament that make the decisions, and not the FM. I think what's laughable in the whole debacle is that the only person with some semblance of what the ****s going on is Sturgeon, but you seem to see it differently.

Any ideas where the Chancellor is?:greengrin

[MyJo]

2014 - Scotland votes to remain part of the U.K.
2015 - Scotland votes 56 SNP MP's into the UK parliament on the back of a anti-Tory & anti-austerity manifesto including this statement:

Opposing withdrawal from the European Union
At least 330,000 Scottish jobs – around one in seven of all jobs - are dependent on our membership of the single market. That is why we will oppose a referendum on membership of the EU. Being part of Europe is good for business and it supports jobs in Scotland and across the UK.
If an in/out EU referendum does go ahead, we will seek to amend the legislation to ensure that no constituent part of the UK can be taken out of the EU against its will. We will propose a 'double majority' rule - meaning that unless England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each vote to leave the EU, the UK would remain a member state.
Scotland votes in 1 conservative MP and ends up with a majority conservative government in Westminster promising an EU referendum.

2016 - Scotland votes SNP back into power in the Scottish government on the back of a manifesto with these pledges:

The SNP believes Scotland should be in charge of its own future.
In 2014 we held a referendum that got people across the country talking about what kind of nation we want to be and how we want to be governed.
This has changed Scotland for the better. We are more confident in our views, of our place in the world and more involved in how our country is governed.
We did not get independence for our nation, but we did get more powers for the Scottish Parliament. This means more decisions are made closer to home.
How will we change Scotland’s future?
• We will use our new powers to change the benefits system, spend more money on public services and protect people on low incomes.
• We will do all we can to protect Scotland from Tory cuts and attacks on welfare, trade unions and public services.
• We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if it is clear that more than half of the people in Scotland want independence.
• In the next parliament, we will try to get the Scottish people to agree that being an independent country is the best option for our country. We will listen to the people who voted No in 2014 and we hope to change their minds.

We believe it is best for Scotland to stay part of the EU (European Union). We think that people in Scotland and across the UK will vote to stay part of the EU. But we will campaign positively for an “in” vote, to remain in the EU

2016 - Significant majority of Scottish voters choose to remain part of the EU but overall UK vote results in us having to leave the EU anyway.

In the votes that have taken place since the independence referendum, with the exception of the Scottish Parliament elections, the wishes of the majority of Scottish voters have been overridden by the choices of the rest of the U.K. We have a majority Tory government that the Scottish people did not want and a decision to leave the EU that it's clear we did not want based on our decision to elect the pro-EU SNP as our representatives and the actual result of Scottish Voting in the referendum.

If there is evidence from polls that more than 50% of Scottish people would choose to be independent now then the SNP have a mandate to hold a second referendum as it was in the manifesto we voted for in the Scottish elections.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

"In fact the 600 page independence manifesto was full of supposition, half truths and willfull misinterpretation."

Now I know your at it - every utterance by Yes came under minute scrutiny and if that wasn't enough, heavyweight debaters like Jeremy Paxman were sent in to score as many debating points as could be made (that on a BBC salary as well!!).

At it?

Did you read it?

Of course they did, and it is why so many of their arguments unravelled.

And what about that legal advice again...oh yeah, salmond lied about that.

Dont pretend one side is any better or worse. They were and are all at it.

[Arch Stanton]

You miss the point.

It's Parliament that make the decisions, and not the FM. I think what's laughable in the whole debacle is that the only person with some semblance of what the ****s going on is Sturgeon, but you seem to see it differently.

Any ideas where the Chancellor is?:greengrin

To be fair the BBC are matter-of-factly reporting it as a veto when she said no such thing. When asked if she would recommend 'not' passing the required legislation she said she would and that was as far as she went.

So, it seems that it would be undemocratic of her to offer an opinion on the matter.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

2014 - Scotland votes to remain part of the U.K.
2015 - Scotland votes 56 SNP MP's into the UK parliament on the back of a anti-Tory & anti-austerity manifesto including this statement:

Scotland votes in 1 conservative MP and ends up with a majority conservative government in Westminster promising an EU referendum.

2016 - Scotland votes SNP back into power in the Scottish government on the back of a manifesto with these pledges:



2016 - Significant majority of Scottish voters choose to remain part of the EU but overall UK vote results in us having to leave the EU anyway.

In the votes that have taken place since the independence referendum, with the exception of the Scottish Parliament elections, the wishes of the majority of Scottish voters have been overridden by the choices of the rest of the U.K. We have a majority Tory government that the Scottish people did not want and a decision to leave the EU that it's clear we did not want based on our decision to elect the pro-EU SNP as our representatives and the actual result of Scottish Voting in the referendum.

If there is evidence from polls that more than 50% of Scottish people would choose to be independent now then the SNP have a mandate to hold a second referendum as it was in the manifesto we voted for in the Scottish elections.

You make fair arguments.

The only thing i would say is that we would be relying on a minority party in parliament to vote it through. The snp (and rheir promise) didnt get enough votes to succeed on its own.

[bigwheel]

At it?

Did you read it?

Of course they did, and it is why so many of their arguments unravelled.

And what about that legal advice again...oh yeah, salmond lied about that.

Dont pretend one side is any better or worse. They were and are all at it.

True. But there is a difference between spin and outright lies..and I think the leave campaign was on the wrong side at times of that boundary....

at least there was a 600 page manifesto to debate...this time people have voted for no plan, no strategy...and we are left in this mess of uncertainty...that is what a "leave" vote has created...

This is the "leave" reality...

people can't complain that those who wanted to continue with some stability in the EU, are up in arms as the reality of this mess starts to emerge...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This is a good debate, and something else has struck me.

Surely any indyref 2 should wait until after the negotiations have been concluded - so that we all know what thw choice is between i.e.

Indy scotland in EU, euro eyc
UK with whayever is negotiated

Then its an informed vote?

[#FromTheCapital]

You miss the point.

It's Parliament that make the decisions, and not the FM. I think what's laughable in the whole debacle is that the only person with some semblance of what the ****s going on is Sturgeon, but you seem to see it differently.

Any ideas where the Chancellor is?:greengrin

Na not got a clue what you're on about here. We seem to be agreeing that any sort of block from Scotland on Brexit is not possible. I know fine well that it's parliament that make the decisions, not sure why that's relevant to this argument? It's just another reason why a veto is not possible which was my point.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

True. But there is a difference between spin and outright lies..and I think the leave campaign was on the wrong side at times of that boundary....

at least there was a 600 page manifesto to debate...this time people have voted for no plan, no strategy...and we are left in this mess of uncertainty...that is what a "leave" vote has created...

This is the "leave" reality...

people can't complain that those who wanted to continue with some stability in the EU, are up in arms as the reality of this mess starts to emerge...

But we werent being asked about a plan - referendums are not about policy decisions, that is a matter for parliament and government.

We voted for a principle.

I agree talking about extra funding for nhs etc was disingenuous, as was the punishment budget.

But yes also talked about free childcare, protecting the nhs when that was nothing to do with indy.

Like i say they are all at it.

[Colr]

This is a good debate, and something else has struck me.

Surely any indyref 2 should wait until after the negotiations have been concluded - so that we all know what thw choice is between i.e.

Indy scotland in EU, euro eyc
UK with whayever is negotiated

Then its an informed vote?

You can't have an indyref unless there is a concrete proposal on the table that Scotland will be in the EU. If thatmeans using the Euro, sobeit but the route to EU membership must be absolutely clear.

[bigwheel]

But we werent being asked about a plan - referendums are not about policy decisions, that is a matter for parliament and government.

We voted for a principle.

I agree talking about extra funding for nhs etc was disingenuous, as was the punishment budget.

But yes also talked about free childcare, protecting the nhs when that was nothing to do with indy.

Like i say they are all at it.

What's happening now is the reality of a leave vote - the implications and impact are deep and scary for many ...so it's good to know some politicians are taking consideration of options - that's what I'd hope they would do ....

[MyJo]

You make fair arguments.

The only thing i would say is that we would be relying on a minority party in parliament to vote it through. The snp (and rheir promise) didnt get enough votes to succeed on its own.

SNP & Greens who are both pro-EU and pro-independence form a cooperative majority within the parliament.

Both parties would much rather have an independent Scotland in the EU and would work together to achieve this like they did during our referendum.

Nicola sturgeon and Patrick Harvie are two of the most competent politicians we have and will work in the best interests of Scotland.

[ronaldo7]

To be fair the BBC are matter-of-factly reporting it as a veto when she said no such thing. When asked if she would recommend 'not' passing the required legislation she said she would and that was as far as she went.

So, it seems that it would be undemocratic of her to offer an opinion on the matter.

:agree: Some want to make it a thing about her/veto's/blocks though.:greengrin

[bigwheel]

Actually guys, in these mad times - regardless of your views - thanks to those who engaged on here today...was interesting reading people's opinions....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

SNP & Greens who are both pro-EU and pro-independence form a cooperative majority within the parliament.

Both parties would much rather have an independent Scotland in the EU and would work together to achieve this like they did during our referendum.

Nicola sturgeon and Patrick Harvie are two of the most competent politicians we have and will work in the best interests of Scotland.


True.

But it does mean a fringe, often extreme party will be deciding scotlands future. And that the snp are relying on said fringe / extreme party to deliver for them

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Actually guys, in these mad times - regardless of your views - thanks to those who engaged on here today...was interesting reading people's opinions....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agree, and some of the arguments put forward have changed my views on it.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not read everything from about7pm, but, a wee thought, 2014 Scottish indyref allowed 16+17 year old the vote and all residents registered to vote but the EU ref was over18s and only UK and Ireland national a vote. Just wondering if the results would have been different if the same demographics had been allowed to vote.

[High-On-Hibs]

Which they are not. Yet she is already pressingg ahead?

She has quite clearly stated that she is looking to explore all possible options to ensure the democratic will of the Scottish people is met. She isn't simply "pressing ahead" for independence. To think so is extremely naive and a poor understanding of the circumstances.

[Peevemor]

She has quite clearly stated that she is looking to explore all possible options to ensure the democratic will of the Scottish people is met. She isn't simply "pressing ahead" for independence. To think so is extremely naive and a poor understanding of the circumstances.

I'm a Sturgeon/SNP supporter and IMO, she's 100% gearing up for indyref 2 even though she's yet to say so in as many words.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

She has quite clearly stated that she is looking to explore all possible options to ensure the democratic will of the Scottish people is met. She isn't simply "pressing ahead" for independence. To think so is extremely naive and a poor understanding of the circumstances.

She has instructed her officials to start drafting legislation.

Shes pressing ahead

[marinello59]

She has instructed her officials to start drafting legislation.

Shes pressing ahead

Dje has to have the legislation in place as a referundum is an option. She really doesn't want to have one though, the timing is wrong.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

She has quite clearly stated that she is looking to explore all possible options to ensure the democratic will of the Scottish people is met. She isn't simply "pressing ahead" for independence. To think so is extremely naive and a poor understanding of the circumstances.

You accuse me of being naive, yet you take everything that sturgeon, a seasoned politician says, as gospel.

I suspect that you are one of the new generation of post indyref snp supporters who seem to think that they are sonehow different to every other party.

If you believe she is not pressing ahead, i wpuld respectfully suggest it is you that is being naive. And you also dont understand the snp very well.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Dje has to have the legislation in place as a referundum is an option. She really doesn't want to have one though, the timing is wrong.

Not necessarily, she could wait until it was firmly agreed.

I agree that the polls aren't great at the moment, and i said earlier i think she is overplaying her hand. But she has said there will be an indyref2, even if not is so many words.

For example, surely remaining in the uk post EU is also an option, but i havent heard her say that she is working on what a post eu uk should look like, and what positions the negotiation team should be working on.

I think she needs to be careful she doesnt cross the line into political opportunism.

[ronaldo7]

Not necessarily, she could wait until it was firmly agreed.

I agree that the polls aren't great at the moment, and i said earlier i think she is overplaying her hand. But she has said there will be an indyref2, even if not is so many words.

For example, surely remaining in the uk post EU is also an option, but i havent heard her say that she is working on what a post eu uk should look like, and what positions the negotiation team should be working on.

I think she needs to be careful she doesnt cross the line into political opportunism.

She said indy2 was on the table. Its an option. Shes also working on other options to try and keep Scotland in the EU as 62% of those who voted in Scotland wanted.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

She said indy2 was on the table. Its an option. Shes also working on other options to try and keep Scotland in the EU as 62% of those who voted in Scotland wanted.

But i dont think there are any other options?

And if there are (second ref, some other political fudge, uk general election) then they will come from the UK government.

Im not saying sturgeon is wrong to play the game, of course not. But lets not pretend thats that not what she is doing.

[High-On-Hibs]

You accuse me of being naive, yet you take everything that sturgeon, a seasoned politician says, as gospel.

I suspect that you are one of the new generation of post indyref snp supporters who seem to think that they are sonehow different to every other party.

If you believe she is not pressing ahead, i wpuld respectfully suggest it is you that is being naive. And you also dont understand the snp very well.

She is following through on the manifesto in which the SNP were voted in on a large mandate in the Scottish Elections.

The manifesto clearly states: We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

That's what people in this country have voted for. The only people that are complaining are those who don't believe in democracy.

[High-On-Hibs]

But i dont think there are any other options?

And if there are (second ref, some other political fudge, uk general election) then they will come from the UK government.

Im not saying sturgeon is wrong to play the game, of course not. But lets not pretend thats that not what she is doing.

She said she would explore all options. If there are no other options, then it's not her fault. She can only take the best possible action available to her to ensure that the Scottish vote is represented. It's her job as the First Minister of Scotland.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

She is following through on the manifesto in which the SNP were voted in on a large mandate in the Scottish Elections.

The manifesto clearly states: We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

That's what people in this country have voted for. The only people that are complaining are those who don't believe in democracy.

Well no, they lost seats remember and now have a minority government. And the pro-union tories gained seats. What did the greens and lib dems say about it in their manifestos?

Plus you are shifting your argument. You said she isnt pressing on with a ref, now you are claiming that she is and has a mandate to do it?

Im confused?

[High-On-Hibs]

Well know, minority government. What did the greens and lib dems say about it?

Plus you are shifting your argument. You said she isnt pressing on with a ref, now you are claiming that she is and has a mandate to do it?

Im confused?

I'm not shifting my argument at all. She has made it clear that she will explore "all possible options". You're the one stating that there are no other options. So assuming you're correct, she can only take the one possible option that is available to her.

The Scottish Greens have been very open about their support for Scottish Independence. The Lib Dems are saying absolutely nothing at the moment. Labour continue to take their orders from London Headquarters, but you can tell that their heart isn't really in the argument any more, so they may well change their official position before they completely disappear into the abyss.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

She said she would explore all options. If there are no other options, then it's not her fault. She can only take the best possible action available to her to ensure that the Scottish vote is represented. It's her job as the First Minister of Scotland.

Agreed on the first bit, but on the second bit i disagree.

It emphatically and fundentally is NOT her job. Ot is the job of our prime minister to do that, and our elected MPs in the parliament which has jurisdiction over these, reserved matters.

The first ministers job extends to areas of devolved power, which does not include this.

Also, she didnt seem so keen in pursuing the scottish peoples interests, expressed emphatically in the 2014 ref, when they didnt coincide with her own party's interests, bit thats probably a different argument.

The scottish parliament has no ppwer to hold referendums, or to veto acts of the uk parliament and the wishes of the entire country, however much you might not like them.

Of course the politics of the situation muddy those waters slightly, and she is deliberately adding to that, bitnif it foes to legal advice and court, im fairly sure she would lose.

[JeMeSouviens]

Na not got a clue what you're on about here. We seem to be agreeing that any sort of block from Scotland on Brexit is not possible. I know fine well that it's parliament that make the decisions, not sure why that's relevant to this argument? It's just another reason why a veto is not possible which was my point.

I don't think Sturgeon has said she has a veto or that she (or the SP as a body) can block a Brexit.

What she has said is that legislative consent will be sought from the SP and that the SP will most probably vote against it. And why wouldn't they? To do otherwise would not be representing their constituents.

It's up to Westminster to then override that if they want (which they will).

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'm not shifting my argument at all. She has made it clear that she will explore "all possible options". You're the one stating that there are no other options. So assuming you're correct, she can only take the one possible option that is available to her.

The Scottish Greens have been very open about their support for Scottish Independence. The Lib Dems are saying absolutely nothing at the moment. Labour continue to take their orders from London Headquarters, but you can tell that their heart isn't really in the argument any more, so they may well change their official position before they completely disappear into the abyss.

Possibly all true, but it still shows that parliament did not vote a majority to hold a second ref if eu vote went different way from the snp position - thats my point.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't think Sturgeon has said she has a veto or that she (or the SP as a body) can block a Brexit.

What she has said is that legislative consent will be sought from the SP and that the SP will most probably vote against it. And why wouldn't they? To do otherwise would not be representing their constituents.

It's up to Westminster to then override that if they want (which they will).


Perhaps, although im not sure why they would need a legislative consent motion?

I stand to be corrected on that though.

[High-On-Hibs]

Well no, they lost seats remember and now have a minority government. And the pro-union tories gained seats. What did the greens and lib dems say about it in their manifestos?

Plus you are shifting your argument. You said she isnt pressing on with a ref, now you are claiming that she is and has a mandate to do it?

Im confused?

The Scottish Greens are openly pro-EU, surely you know that? They campaigned on a "green in" platform during the EU referendum. So it would be absolutely no shock to their voters if they propped up an SNP Government on the issue of protecting Scotland's membership of the EU.

If my calculations are correct. The SNP won't even need support from the Liberal Democrats or Labour. The Scottish Greens would take their support up to 65 seats, which is enough for a majority.

[Moulin Yarns]

Possibly all true, but it still shows that parliament did not vote a majority to hold a second ref if eu vote went different way from the snp position - thats my point.

SNP + Greens is a majority for IndyRef2. Also supported by LibDems so there is an overall majority in parliament. Even Kez is considering it.

[JeMeSouviens]

Agreed on the first bit, but on the second bit i disagree.

It emphatically and fundentally is NOT her job. Ot is the job of our prime minister to do that, and our elected MPs in the parliament which has jurisdiction over these, reserved matters.

The first ministers job extends to areas of devolved power, which does not include this.

Also, she didnt seem so keen in pursuing the scottish peoples interests, expressed emphatically in the 2014 ref, when they didnt coincide with her own party's interests, bit thats probably a different argument.

The scottish parliament has no ppwer to hold referendums, or to veto acts of the uk parliament and the wishes of the entire country, however much you might not like them.

Of course the politics of the situation muddy those waters slightly, and she is deliberately adding to that, bitnif it foes to legal advice and court, im fairly sure she would lose.

It is actually. She has not said the SP can block Brexit. She has said that in order to implement Brexit, Westminster will have to remove some areas of EU law from Scots law. To do that will require the consent of the SP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Consent_Motion

... and that if a LCM turns up in due course, the SP will vote against it.

Westminster can then override that it it wants.

[JeMeSouviens]

Perhaps, although im not sure why they would need a legislative consent motion?

I stand to be corrected on that though.

https://constitution-unit.com/2016/06/15/brexit-devolution-and-legislative-consent-what-if-the-devolution-statutes-were-left-unchanged-after-brexit/

[High-On-Hibs]

It is actually. She has not said the SP can block Brexit. She has said that in order to implement Brexit, Westminster will have to remove some areas of EU law from Scots law. To do that will require the consent of the SP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Consent_Motion

... and that if a LCM turns up in due course, the SP will vote against it.

Westminster can then override that it it wants.

:agree:

Which proves how fundamentally unprotected devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament are. The same applies to the legislation which is supposed to cement the Scottish Parliament in UK politics. It can be whipped away at any time.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The Scottish Greens are openly pro-EU, surely you know that? They campaigned on a "green in" platform during the EU referendum. So it would be absolutely no shock to their voters if they propped up an SNP Government on the issue of protecting Scotland's membership of the EU.

If my calculations are correct. The SNP won't even need support from the Liberal Democrats or Labour. The Scottish Greens would take their support up to 65 seats, which is enough for a majority.

I do know that yes, as is every party in the Scottish parliament.

But it is a political slight of hand to then say that being proeu equates to a mandate to hold a second ref because their side lost a vote, and then claim that the parliament has a majority to do so.

I will admit im wrong if it does actually state that in the green manifesto though.

Leaving aside the political manoeuvring the way i see the favts are - only one party stated in its manifesto that it wpuld seek indyref2 if they losy eu vote. That party lost seats and does not have a majority.

Anti indyref party gained seats and is now offixial opposition.

So the snp would need to rely on votes of an extreme fringe party to get enougj votes in parliament (this could pf cpurse change)

The scottish parliament has no legal basis fpr holding a referendum, it has no competency on eu membership and foreign affairs.

Scotland is not, and has never been a member state of the eu therefore cannot 'remain' a member, anymore than london or derry could.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It is actually. She has not said the SP can block Brexit. She has said that in order to implement Brexit, Westminster will have to remove some areas of EU law from Scots law. To do that will require the consent of the SP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Consent_Motion

... and that if a LCM turns up in due course, the SP will vote against it.

Westminster can then override that it it wants.


Ok, fair enough - i dont know enough about the mechanics of amending scots law etc

Bit could they not just leave law unamended,and when challenged in court interpretations would be made judges etc

Again, law is not my area of expertise so i bow to others superior knowledge

[JeMeSouviens]

But i dont think there are any other options?

And if there are (second ref, some other political fudge, uk general election) then they will come from the UK government.

Im not saying sturgeon is wrong to play the game, of course not. But lets not pretend thats that not what she is doing.

I'm 99% sure you're right. However there is one precedent for a part in, part out country. Greenland and the Faroes are still part of the Kingdom of Denmark but both are outside the EU.

In practise, this has been achieved by absolutely as max as you can get devo-max, ie. Denmark only has control of defence and foreign affairs.

So it's just about barely conceivable that a Devo-max Scotland could stay in the EU. (But imo highly unlikely).

[High-On-Hibs]

I do know that yes, as is every party in the Scottish parliament.

But it is a political slight of hand to then say that being proeu equates to a mandate to hold a second ref because their side lost a vote, and then claim that the parliament has a majority to do so.

I will admit im wrong if it does actually state that in the green manifesto though.

Leaving aside the political manoeuvring the way i see the favts are - only one party stated in its manifesto that it wpuld seek indyref2 if they losy eu vote. That party lost seats and does not have a majority.

Anti indyref party gained seats and is now offixial opposition.

So the snp would need to rely on votes of an extreme fringe party to get enougj votes in parliament (this could pf cpurse change)

The scottish parliament has no legal basis fpr holding a referendum, it has no competency on eu membership and foreign affairs.

Scotland is not, and has never been a member state of the eu therefore cannot 'remain' a member, anymore than london or derry could.

What side "lost the vote"? If you're talking about the SNP failing to gain an overall majority in the Scottish Election. It can hardly be considered "losing the vote". Nobody "loses" in an election, they just have different shares of representation in the parliament. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the Scottish Greens propping up the SNP to push them over a majority. That's how it works in Scotland and it's how it works in the rest of the UK as well in minority government situations. If minority governments were never propped up by other parties, then nothing would get done and a re-election would need to be triggered. Somehow I don't see that happening.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'm 99% sure you're right. However there is one precedent for a part in, part out country. Greenland and the Faroes are still part of the Kingdom of Denmark but both are outside the EU.

In practise, this has been achieved by absolutely as max as you can get devo-max, ie. Denmark only has control of defence and foreign affairs.

So it's just about barely conceivable that a Devo-max Scotland could stay in the EU. (But imo highly unlikely).

I didnt know that.

Does that also apply to uk overseas territories? Channel islands etc? If so that might be interesting.

Inwould think though that the 'mother state' would habe to be a member and them not, not sure if it would work the other way around?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What side "lost the vote"? If you're talking about the SNP failing to gain an overall majority in the Scottish Election. It can hardly be considered "losing the vote". Nobody "loses" in an election, they just have different shares of representation in the parliament. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the Scottish Greens propping up the SNP to push them over a majority. That's how it works in Scotland and it's how it works in the rest of the UK as well in minority government situations. If minority governments were never propped up by other parties, then nothing would get done and a re-election would need to be triggered. Somehow I don't see that happening.

Lost the referendum vote i meant.

You are right, but it does then chew away at the legitimacy of claiming a mandate existed prior to the fact.

Engineering a mandate (or being percieved to have done so) makes ot easier for others to ignore and question the legitimacy of the claim and any subsequent scottish parliamrnt referendum.

[High-On-Hibs]

Lost the referendum vote i meant.

You are right, but it does then chew away at the legitimacy of claiming a mandate existed prior to the fact.

Engineering a mandate (or being percieved to have done so) makes ot easier for others to ignore and question the legitimacy of the claim and any subsequent scottish parliamrnt referendum.

In that case. Your assertion than "the SNP lost the vote" is somewhat inaccurate. As it would suggest that the entire YES campaign was built around the SNP and no other parties and groups.

Did the SNP "engineer" this mandate? How can they engineer something based on UK wide events that they have no control over? Or are you honestly suggesting that they engineered a NO vote across the United Kingdom?

The SNP simply laid out the circumstances in which they believed would give them a mandate to trigger another referendum. Sure, it's true that they failed to get an overall majority by 2 MSPs. But as i've already pointed out, this won't prove to be much of a barrier.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

In that case. Your assertion than "the SNP lost the vote" is somewhat inaccurate. As it would suggest that the entire YES campaign was built around the SNP and no other parties and groups.

Did the SNP "engineer" this mandate? How can they engineer something based on UK wide events that they have no control over? Or are you honestly suggesting that they engineered a NO vote across the United Kingdom?

The SNP simply laid out the circumstances in which they believed would give them a mandate to trigger another referendum. Sure, it's true that they failed to get an overall majority by 2 MSPs. But as i've already pointed out, this won't prove to be much of a barrier.

Their side of the argument lost then.

Of course im not saying that. Im saying that she is reacting to events, and is trying to engineer a mandate to hold indyref2. As you yourself said, they didnt win a mandate for that position just 6 weeks ago.

You could be right and it might not be difficult.

But as i said, it erodes the legitimacy of the argument and makes it easier to dismiss.

[JeMeSouviens]

I didnt know that.

Does that also apply to uk overseas territories? Channel islands etc? If so that might be interesting.

Inwould think though that the 'mother state' would habe to be a member and them not, not sure if it would work the other way around?

1st part, yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_dependencies#Relationship_with_the_EU

2nd part, no, neither am I. I suspect when NS says she's exploring all options then this and Indyref2 are the only possibilities.

[Hibbyradge]

I don't think Sturgeon has said she has a veto or that she (or the SP as a body) can block a Brexit.



She might, she might not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36635012

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

She might, she might not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36635012

I think its fair to say it was implied.

[JeMeSouviens]

Apparently the Sunday Post have done an indyref2 poll.

59% yes for independence
32% no for independence
9% Don't know

Poll is Scotland only, 1700 people. No other info yet

Getting back to this. There have now been 3 polls on Indy, post-Brexit:

- Scotpulse in the Sunday Post, 65Y 35N
- Panelbase in the Sunday Times, 52Y, 48N
- Survation in the Daily Record, 54Y 46N

Of the 3,

- Scotpulse is a very new pollster (owned by STV) and by all accounts has no track record in political polls, doesn't seem to be a member of the BPC and may be applying questionable methodology, so I wouldn't put much store in it.

- The Panelbase one had a very small sample size (620), presumably to get it done for Sunday publication, so I wouldn't put huge store in it either, but it's a straw in the wind.

- Survation is a normal sample and part of a regular series, so we have a direct comparison. Their last directly comparable poll was end of April, 48Y 52N. So they are suggesting a 6% swing to Yes.

[McD]

She is following through on the manifesto in which the SNP were voted in on a large mandate in the Scottish Elections.

The manifesto clearly states: We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

That's what people in this country have voted for. The only people that are complaining are those who don't believe in democracy.


But not everyone in Scotland voted SNP, so if NS believes we are being taken out of the EU against our will, why doesn't the same logic apply to the general election votes, that a large proportion of Scotland is now being driven in this direction against their will?

The SNP don't make up 100% of the Scottish Parliament, therefore it's reasonable to make the same assertion. Perhaps there should be a referendum on whether there should be a second independence referendum?

[High-On-Hibs]

But not everyone in Scotland voted SNP, so if NS believes we are being taken out of the EU against our will, why doesn't the same logic apply to the general election votes, that a large proportion of Scotland is now being driven in this direction against their will?

The SNP don't make up 100% of the Scottish Parliament, therefore it's reasonable to make the same assertion. Perhaps there should be a referendum on whether there should be a second independence referendum?

"The SNP don't make up 100% of the Scottish Parliament". So what? democracy doesn't require you to have 100% support. The UK has just voted brexit on 52% of the overall vote, yet it still stands.

Why would we have a referendum on having another referendum, when we can look at polling data instead?

[Future17]

Perhaps there should be a referendum on whether there should be a second independence referendum?

What would be gained from that?

[Moulin Yarns]

Getting back to this. There have now been 3 polls on Indy, post-Brexit:

- Scotpulse in the Sunday Post, 65Y 35N
- Panelbase in the Sunday Times, 52Y, 48N
- Survation in the Daily Record, 54Y 46N

Of the 3,

- Scotpulse is a very new pollster (owned by STV) and by all accounts has no track record in political polls, doesn't seem to be a member of the BPC and may be applying questionable methodology, so I wouldn't put much store in it.

- The Panelbase one had a very small sample size (620), presumably to get it done for Sunday publication, so I wouldn't put huge store in it either, but it's a straw in the wind.

- Survation is a normal sample and part of a regular series, so we have a direct comparison. Their last directly comparable poll was end of April, 48Y 52N. So they are suggesting a 6% swing to Yes.


You missed the one in the Sunday Herald. http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/greengrin2.gif

79% Yes vote

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14578842.Vote_in_the_Sunday_Herald_s_IndyRef2_poll/?ref=mr&lp=19

[Moulin Yarns]

Nice to know someone wants us

https://www.change.org/p/european-let-s-welcome-scotland-in-the-european-union?utm_source=embedded_petition_view#delivered-to

[McD]

"The SNP don't make up 100% of the Scottish Parliament". So what? democracy doesn't require you to have 100% support. The UK has just voted brexit on 52% of the overall vote, yet it still stands.

Why would we have a referendum on having another referendum, when we can look at polling data instead?


Re. The first paragraph, that's correct - but the democracy of the 52% doesn't see, to be deterring people from demanding a second Indy referendum - so why should we ignore the democracy of the EU referendum?

The second point was made in jest, apologies I should have added a smiley to show that.

[Moulin Yarns]

Re. The first paragraph, that's correct - but the democracy of the 52% doesn't see, to be deterring people from demanding a second Indy referendum - so why should we ignore the democracy of the EU referendum?

The second point was made in jest, apologies I should have added a smiley to show that.

52% of the vote, but not 52% of the electorate. #justsaying

[steakbake]

She said she would explore all options. If there are no other options, then it's not her fault. She can only take the best possible action available to her to ensure that the Scottish vote is represented. It's her job as the First Minister of Scotland.

No matter which party the FM is from, I would fully expect them in these circumstances, to seek out what can be salvaged from the situation.

With Osbourne et al posted pretty much missing since the decision and Labour deciding that now is the time to self destruct, even the most hardened critics of Sturgeon would have to admit that she is the only person who seems to be trying to take control of events that seem increasingly out of control of others.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No matter which party the FM is from, I would fully expect them in these circumstances, to seek out what can be salvaged from the situation.

With Osbourne et al posted pretty much missing since the decision and Labour deciding that now is the time to self destruct, even the most hardened critics of Sturgeon would have to admit that she is the only person who seems to be trying to take control of events that seem increasingly out of control of others.

Take control or take advantage? I think that is the concern

[steakbake]

Take control or take advantage? I think that is the concern

Some and probably dwindling numbers will see it as taking advantage - but I think they're the kind of people who could never possibly see an SNP FM doing right. What would Kezia do? What would Ruth do?

Priority 1 looks like securing some kind of relationship within or associated to the EU, without that constituting an independent state.

Priority 2 may be that that is only possible through being an independent state OR as a successor state but within the UK - a bit like the much vaunted Faroe/Greenland situation in reverse. Hence, there is work underway to explore each of those options.

I have to say, that the alternative is to sit on our hands and watch Scotland being dragged out of EU, against the wishes of the voters and contrary to the stated public position of each one of our main party leaders. Do you think Boris and Co will factor in Scotland's wishes? I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Geo_1875]

Take control or take advantage? I think that is the concern

I'd be happy to see the First Minister take advantage of the situation for the benefit of Scotland. I don't see a down side to that.

[ronaldo7]

Some and probably dwindling numbers will see it as taking advantage - but I think they're the kind of people who could never possibly see an SNP FM doing right. What would Kezia do? What would Ruth do?

Priority 1 looks like securing some kind of relationship within or associated to the EU, without that constituting an independent state.

Priority 2 may be that that is only possible through being an independent state OR as a successor state but within the UK - a bit like the much vaunted Faroe/Greenland situation in reverse. Hence, there is work underway to explore each of those options.

I have to say, that the alternative is to sit on our hands and watch Scotland being dragged out of EU, against the wishes of the voters and contrary to the stated public position of each one of our main party leaders. Do you think Boris and Co will factor in Scotland's wishes? I wouldn't hold my breath.

https://t.co/NVQS14GJmQ


The starting point for those discussions is not independence, it is protecting our position in the European Union, that is my priority. However if it becomes clear that independence is the best way to do that then that option will be on the table and it will be a decision for the people of this country to take.

[Just Alf]

https://t.co/NVQS14GJmQ


The starting point for those discussions is not independence, it is protecting our position in the European Union, that is my priority. However if it becomes clear that independence is the best way to do that then that option will be on the table and it will be a decision for the people of this country to take.
Cant argue with that...



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Cant argue with that...



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

We'll see. Theirs a motion going to the Parliament tomorrow. I wonder which parties will support/abstain/vote against.

[Just Alf]

We'll see. Theirs a motion going to the Parliament tomorrow. I wonder which parties will support/abstain/vote against.
Cant get that on the phone... can you give a wee summary?

Please :-)

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'd be happy to see the First Minister take advantage of the situation for the benefit of Scotland. I don't see a down side to that.

Yeah youre right.

I just think she has to be careful.

FwIw, i dont see us staying in, we are part of the uk wherher people like it or not.

The only way will be the indyref2.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Cant get that on the phone... can you give a wee summary?

Please :-)

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


It says as you would expect, nothing earth shattering.

I think lab and libdem will abstain, Tories against and nats and greens for

[Just Alf]

It says as you would expect, nothing earth shattering.

I think lab and libdem will abstain, Tories against and nats and greens for
Ta for that..

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Cant get that on the phone... can you give a wee summary?

Please :-)

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

That the Parliament welcomes the overwhelming vote of the people of Scotland to remain in the EU.
Affirms to other European citizens living here that they remain welcome and their contribution is valued.
mandates the Scottish Government to have discussions with the UK Gov, other devolved administrations, the Eu institutions and other member states to explore options for protecting Scotland's relationship with the EU, Scotland's place in the single market, and the social, employment, and economic benefits that come from that. Blah Blah.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ta for that..

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Sorry not best summary ever, but it isnt on this phone

[NAE NOOKIE]

Not read everything from about7pm, but, a wee thought, 2014 Scottish indyref allowed 16+17 year old the vote and all residents registered to vote but the EU ref was over18s and only UK and Ireland national a vote. Just wondering if the results would have been different if the same demographics had been allowed to vote.

The general consensus is that 'young people' were much more inclined to vote in .... in view of that allowing 16 & 17 year olds to vote would probably have resulted in an even bigger margin of victory for the remain vote last Thursday.

On your second point ....... I doubt it can be denied that many EU nationals who voted in the Indy Ref voted 'no' because of scaremongering that Scotland would be booted out of the EU and they might have lost their right of residence ...... If they had known what was about to happen I wonder how many of them would have voted 'yes'

[JeMeSouviens]

Yeah youre right.

I just think she has to be careful.

FwIw, i dont see us staying in, we are part of the uk wherher people like it or not.

The only way will be the indyref2.

I agree but interesting that SLabour are active in pursuing a Scotland in eu and uk. Imo next to no chance but could potentially be a great deal for Scotland. It would have to be devo max and would be the last stepping stone to independence.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/27/scottish-labour-seeks-possibility-federal-uk-brexit-aftermath

[ronaldo7]

Saw on Facebook the other day.

Easy solution to England and Wales wanting to Brexit.

All they have to do is secede from the UK, and they can leave.

Leaving Scotland and Norn Irn to stay in the EU.

We are all equal in this family of nations aren't we.

[Dinkydoo]

I voted Yes

I voted Remain

...but I'm not sure I'd vote Yes and Remain again right now, given the opportunity. Brexit seems to have kicked off a chain of events in Europe where it's made some of the other larger members consider their position within the EU. I'd rather wait and see where we are a year from now once the hysteria has subsided and we've got a fair idea of what an EU without the UK looks like, before casting my vote again. Do we really want to knee-jerk back into something that's potentially falling apart, as an independant country?

[steakbake]

I agree but interesting that SLabour are active in pursuing a Scotland in eu and uk. Imo next to no chance but could potentially be a great deal for Scotland. It would have to be devo max and would be the last stepping stone to independence.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/27/scottish-labour-seeks-possibility-federal-uk-brexit-aftermath

Devi max is a fiction - Labour wouldn't have the bravery to propose something really meaningful.

[Moulin Yarns]

Devi max is a fiction - Labour wouldn't have the bravery to propose something really meaningful.

See the front page of tomorrow National

[steakbake]

See the front page of tomorrow National

I can't wait - what's it saying?

[Moulin Yarns]

I can't wait - what's it saying?

Kez seeking federal Scotland

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Kez seeking federal Scotland

Potentially a sensible solution to the indy question. Im not sure how it helps with the EU issue though..

[JeMeSouviens]

Analysis from the Unionist side, Alex Massie in the Spectator:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/brexit-beginning-end-britain/

Pretty decent summary although obv I'm not so sad. :na na:

[High-On-Hibs]

Kezia getting torn into Ruthie. :greengrin

Changed times.

[Geo_1875]

I voted Yes

I voted Remain

...but I'm not sure I'd vote Yes and Remain again right now, given the opportunity. Brexit seems to have kicked off a chain of events in Europe where it's made some of the other larger members consider their position within the EU. I'd rather wait and see where we are a year from now once the hysteria has subsided and we've got a fair idea of what an EU without the UK looks like, before casting my vote again. Do we really want to knee-jerk back into something that's potentially falling apart, as an independant country?

It wouldn't be kneejerk and we wouldn't be going back into anything.

[High-On-Hibs]

Conservatives taking a roasting from all angles inside the Scottish Parliament. Ruth looks almost dazed and confused.

[JeMeSouviens]

I voted Yes

I voted Remain

...but I'm not sure I'd vote Yes and Remain again right now, given the opportunity. Brexit seems to have kicked off a chain of events in Europe where it's made some of the other larger members consider their position within the EU. I'd rather wait and see where we are a year from now once the hysteria has subsided and we've got a fair idea of what an EU without the UK looks like, before casting my vote again. Do we really want to knee-jerk back into something that's potentially falling apart, as an independant country?

Really? It's given succour and a bit of encouragement to other right wing loonballs like Le Pen and the Dutch gadgie. The big difference in the UK was that major figures (and most of the base) of the governing party were willing to join in the loonballery.

Once the hysteria has subsided, I doubt very much else will happen. If anything, it seems to have strengthened the resolve of the big players to keep the European project alive.

[High-On-Hibs]

What a slaver that Oliver Mundell is. Comparing the number of votes for Brexit in Scotland with the amount of votes the SNP won in the Scottish Elections.

[Kato]

Really? It's given succour and a bit of encouragement to other right wing loonballs like Le Pen and the Dutch gadgie. The big difference in the UK was that major figures (and most of the base) of the governing party were willing to join in the loonballery.

Once the hysteria has subsided, I doubt very much else will happen. If anything, it seems to have strengthened the resolve of the big players to keep the European project alive.

It won't be reported as such by our media who will dwell on those who want to stir the EU pot further.

[Dinkydoo]

Really? It's given succour and a bit of encouragement to other right wing loonballs like Le Pen and the Dutch gadgie. The big difference in the UK was that major figures (and most of the base) of the governing party were willing to join in the loonballery.

Once the hysteria has subsided, I doubt very much else will happen. If anything, it seems to have strengthened the resolve of the big players to keep the European project alive.

Let's hope so. Right wing loonballery seems to be pretty popular in Europe right now, though.

It wouldn't be kneejerk and we wouldn't be going back into anything.
All this talk of IndyRef2 is reactionary to Brexit. It's a bit kneekerk.

[Bristolhibby]

Saw on Facebook the other day.

Easy solution to England and Wales wanting to Brexit.

All they have to do is secede from the UK, and they can leave.

Leaving Scotland and Norn Irn to stay in the EU.

We are all equal in this family of nations aren't we.

That's brilliant!

J

[steakbake]

Let's hope so. Right wing loonballery seems to be pretty popular in Europe right now, though.

All this talk of IndyRef2 is reactionary to Brexit. It's a bit kneekerk.

Is it a reaction or a response? I think the ScotGov have made it pretty clear that it is not the top priority just now. Finding some way to keep Scotland in is. If the only way to do that is through independence, then they will likely have to seek that mandate and they'll need to be legislatively prepared for it.

Folks will fling numbers around till the cows come home about what actual percentage of the electorate voted what. Fact is, across Scotland it is empirically clear, that the majority of people who voted, want to stay in the EU.

[JeMeSouviens]

The headline overdoes it a little :rolleyes: but ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/brexit-may-be-scotlands-chance-to-steal-london-finance-crown/


Mr Garnier, a Conservative member of the Parliament’s Treasury Committee, says that a so-called Brexit might make it worthwhile for Scots to go it alone to usurp London’s position.

"If I was Nicola Sturgeon trying to find an alternative purpose and role for Scotland, you could do an awful lot by trying to snaffle that financial services hub from London,” Mr Garnier, a former banker, said in an interview.

“That’s exactly what I would be trying to do in terms of trying to build a financial services hub that would be the natural successor to London by leaving the union of the United Kingdom and staying within the European Union."


Add to that the possibilities of attracting inward investment as an English speaking outpost of the EU single market and seamless EU membership for Scotland is a big prize!

[JeMeSouviens]

US bank JP Morgan has said it now expects Scotland to vote for independence and introduce its own currency before Britain leaves the European Union in 2019.
JP Morgan economist Malcolm Barr said in a note to clients:
"Our base case is that Scotland will vote for independence and institute a new currency at that point (2019)"

[marinello59]

US bank JP Morgan has said it now expects Scotland to vote for independence and introduce its own currency before Britain leaves the European Union in 2019.
JP Morgan economist Malcolm Barr said in a note to clients:

Let's hope he is right. :greengrin

[AndyM_1875]

US bank JP Morgan has said it now expects Scotland to vote for independence and introduce its own currency before Britain leaves the European Union in 2019.
JP Morgan economist Malcolm Barr said in a note to clients:

No great surprise. Lots of the UK Financial Services sector are feeling utterly betrayed over Brexit.
The big clearing banks need to have an EU base. That's something that is non negotiable.

[Hibbyradge]

Nick Eardley ✔ @nickeardleybbc

Spanish PM Rajoy says if the UK leaves the EU, so does Scotland.

1:37 PM - 29 Jun 2016

[High-On-Hibs]

Nick Eardley ✔ @nickeardleybbc

Spanish PM Rajoy says if the UK leaves the EU, so does Scotland.

1:37 PM - 29 Jun 2016

If we remain part of the UK, then obviously we'd have to leave as well. The argument is whether an independent Scotland could effectively continue within the EU, without needing to reapply. We've already had Verhofstadt coming out and saying he wouldn't expect it to be any great obstacle. All they're saying at the moment is that the current negotiations are UK wide negotiations that can't be started until article 50 is triggered.

[RyeSloan]

US bank JP Morgan has said it now expects Scotland to vote for independence and introduce its own currency before Britain leaves the European Union in 2019. JP Morgan economist Malcolm Barr said in a note to clients:

And if we were to look to do that then I would be much more interested in the Indy case. I've said all along that the last offer from the SNP was a muddled half way house. If the next offer was rather more bold in its ambitions for a truly independent nation with its own currency then that would be something worth considering! I'm not totally sold on immediately jumping into the EU but I think the benefits or otherwise of that may be getting discussed elsewhere already ;-)

[pacoluna]

Nick Eardley ✔ @nickeardleybbc

Spanish PM Rajoy says if the UK leaves the EU, so does Scotland.

1:37 PM - 29 Jun 2016

Its obvious why they take this view, they see Scotland smoothly joining the EU as an example or a platform for hope for Catalonia!

[Hibbyradge]

Its obvious why they take this view, they see Scotland smoothly joining the EU as an example or a platform for hope for Catalonia!

Yes, but it doesn't help the case much.

Heck of a long way to go, of course. They may not veto an independent Scotland, if the electorate want one.

[Hibbyradge]

US bank JP Morgan has said it now expects Scotland to vote for independence and introduce its own currency before Britain leaves the European Union in 2019.
JP Morgan economist Malcolm Barr said in a note to clients:

That'll be the Smackerooney. :greengrin

[Bristolhibby]

If we remain part of the UK, then obviously we'd have to leave as well. The argument is whether an independent Scotland could effectively continue within the EU, without needing to reapply. We've already had Verhofstadt coming out and saying he wouldn't expect it to be any great obstacle. All they're saying at the moment is that the current negotiations are UK wide negotiations that can't be started until article 50 is triggered.

To soothe the Spanish we stress that Scotland is the successor state.
Spain on the other hand will never leave the EU so Catelonia is different.

IMHO their is no difference and I argues this in 2014, we (Scotland) would have never left the EU then so would never need to "reapply", same with Catelonia.
EU citizenship is vested in its citizens, not the state.

J

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

To soothe the Spanish we stress that Scotland is the successor state.
Spain on the other hand will never leave the EU so Catelonia is different.

IMHO their is no difference and I argues this in 2014, we (Scotland) would have never left the EU then so would never need to "reapply", same with Catelonia.
EU citizenship is vested in its citizens, not the state.

J

Would be interesting to see such a case go to court.

The eu are certainly not above changing the rules as they go though, so it might fly, although i dount it

[High-On-Hibs]

The Spanish Government can only appeal against Scotland's case of joining the European Union if we leave it in the first place. However, if a case is made that Scotland made the democratic decision to "remain" within the European Union, then there is nothing the Spanish Government can do to prevent us from doing so, as it wouldn't be a new application for entry.

[mmmmhibby]

Heres an article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/nicola-sturgeons-hopes-of-keeping-scotland-in-eu-dashed-by-spani/

[mmmmhibby]

The Spanish Government can only appeal against Scotland's case of joining the European Union if we leave it in the first place. However, if a case is made that Scotland made the democratic decision to "remain" within the European Union, then there is nothing the Spanish Government can do to prevent us from doing so, as it wouldn't be a new application for entry.

If we go for the new application approach, would we fulfill the financial obligations for entry? Also will the EU be intact when and if we apply? Big year for EU in 2017 as France and Germany have elections. The whole project could be doomed.

[High-On-Hibs]

Heres an article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/nicola-sturgeons-hopes-of-keeping-scotland-in-eu-dashed-by-spani/

What the torygraph doesn't tell you is that whether Scotland "remains" in the EU or not has nothing to do with the Spanish PM. He would have the power to refuse Scotland entry into the European Union if we were putting in a fresh application to join. He can't however prevent Scotland from continuing our membership in the EU if we are able to do so.

[High-On-Hibs]

If we go for the new application approach, would we fulfill the financial obligations for entry? Also will the EU be intact when and if we apply? Big year for EU in 2017 as France and Germany have elections. The whole project could be doomed.

Yes. IF we go for a new application approach. But that approach may well be avoidable. What the Spanish PM says at this stage is irrelevant drivel. He doesn't decide whether Scotland gets continued membership or not.

[Hibrandenburg]

That'll be the Smackerooney. :greengrin

:greengrin You voted "Boaty Mcboatface" didn't you?

[Bristolhibby]

What the torygraph doesn't tell you is that whether Scotland "remains" in the EU or not has nothing to do with the Spanish PM. He would have the power to refuse Scotland entry into the European Union if we were putting in a fresh application to join. He can't however prevent Scotland from continuing our membership in the EU if we are able to do so.

This

[RyeSloan]

Yes. IF we go for a new application approach. But that approach may well be avoidable. What the Spanish PM says at this stage is irrelevant drivel. He doesn't decide whether Scotland gets continued membership or not.

So who does decide? And how? And would the Spanish have any influence on that decision...you bet they would...can you see the EU deciding Scotland can continue as a member when that would almost certainly undermine Spain and its Catalonia issue. Naw.

There is plenty irrelevant drivel being spouted but I would suggest it's not coming from the Spanish PM.

[High-On-Hibs]

So who does decide? And how? And would the Spanish have any influence on that decision...you bet they would...can you see the EU deciding Scotland can continue as a member when that would almost certainly undermine Spain and its Catalonia issue. Naw.

There is plenty irrelevant drivel being spouted but I would suggest it's not coming from the Spanish PM.

The Catalonia issue is an internal issue within Spain. Why you think this would give the Spanish PM some kind of special privilege to deny a nations continued membership within the European Union, I don't know.

He can go to Brussels and whinge about it all he wants, but he does not have the power to prevent a nations continued membership within the European Union.

[snooky]

Nick Eardley ✔ @nickeardleybbc

Spanish PM Rajoy says if the UK leaves the EU, so does Scotland.

1:37 PM - 29 Jun 2016

Maybe because he's still filling his pants re. the Catalonia situation.
Move along, nothing to see here. :cool2:

(Apologies to pacoluna who has already made the same point above - just noticed his post)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yes. IF we go for a new application approach. But that approach may well be avoidable. What the Spanish PM says at this stage is irrelevant drivel. He doesn't decide whether Scotland gets continued membership or not.

No its not - if scotland remains, then the eu are effectively making rules as they go. In this instance the spanish PMs thoughts may or may not have a formal place, but they will definitely have an informal place and influence.

You cant just dismiss people (the leader of obe of the biggest eu member states!) because you dont agrre with what they say

Scotland, in this context at least, is not a nation and has never been a membr state. 'Remaining' will requirr some political gymnastics, and in this context PMs of large member states are very relevant

[Bristolhibby]

So who does decide? And how? And would the Spanish have any influence on that decision...you bet they would...can you see the EU deciding Scotland can continue as a member when that would almost certainly undermine Spain and its Catalonia issue. Naw.

There is plenty irrelevant drivel being spouted but I would suggest it's not coming from the Spanish PM.

How does it though? The key difference we have is Spain is not deciding to leave the EU, England and Wales are.
We just never leave, Catelonia would have to leave Spain (and in Spain's eyes) the EU.

However this has never been tested. How could Spain veto a member who's country never left?

J

[Hibbyradge]

Maybe because he's still filling his pants re. the Catalonia situation.
Move along, nothing to see here. :cool2:

France saying the same now.

[RyeSloan]

How does it though? The key difference we have is Spain is not deciding to leave the EU, England and Wales are. We just never leave, Catelonia would have to leave Spain (and in Spain's eyes) the EU. However this has never been tested. How could Spain veto a member who's country never left? J

Because Scotland is not a member as it stands. It's pretty damn clear that the EU could make an exception if it wanted to and allow an Indy Scotland to continue as per the treaties signed by the the UK...it's also just as clear that there is no precedent of this happening nor any formal mechanism that ensures that would happen therefore the EU horse trading would go into full swing and if it's Spain v Scotland with a Scotland win resulting in the destabilisation of Spain I'm 99% sure you will find that the dice will not fall Scotland's way.

[johnbc70]

Yes. IF we go for a new application approach. But that approach may well be avoidable. What the Spanish PM says at this stage is irrelevant drivel. He doesn't decide whether Scotland gets continued membership or not.

So who does decide and why would they not take Spains views into account?

[RyeSloan]

The Catalonia issue is an internal issue within Spain. Why you think this would give the Spanish PM some kind of special privilege to deny a nations continued membership within the European Union, I don't know. He can go to Brussels and whinge about it all he wants, but he does not have the power to prevent a nations continued membership within the European Union.

Aye whatever, show me where Scotland is a signatory on any of the EU treaties and you can come back with the above.

The issue is clearly open to interpretation...the same arguments were made in Indy1 and the outcome was quite clear in that it would require quite a bit of bending of definitions to determine Scotland as an existing nation state in legal terms when it comes to the EU treaties.

Therefore it's blindingly obvious that Spain and others would have plenty to say and plenty of influence as to the outcome, to pretend that their view would only be treated as drivel or whinging is just daft.

[High-On-Hibs]

Because Scotland is not a member as it stands. It's pretty damn clear that the EU could make an exception if it wanted to and allow an Indy Scotland to continue as per the treaties signed by the the UK...it's also just as clear that there is no precedent of this happening nor any formal mechanism that ensures that would happen therefore the EU horse trading would go into full swing and if it's Spain v Scotland with a Scotland win resulting in the destabilisation of Spain I'm 99% sure you will find that the dice will not fall Scotland's way.

Spain is already destabilized. The only reason Catalonia hasn't left yet is because of the sheer refusal from the Spanish Government to give them a legitimate referendum. Even if Scotland becomes independent and is allowed to remain in the European Union. The undemocratic Spanish Government will still not allow a legitimate referendum on the Catalonia issue. So nothing will change there regardless.

[RyeSloan]

Spain is already destabilized. The only reason Catalonia hasn't left yet is because of the sheer refusal from the Spanish Government to give them a legitimate referendum. Even if Scotland becomes independent and is allowed to remain in the European Union. The undemocratic Spanish Government will still not allow a legitimate referendum on the Catalonia issue. So nothing will change there regardless.

Ahh such certainty, your crystal ball must be almost worn out after the last few days...so you are saying the Spanish have no interest in this issue at all now cause nothing would change there anyway? Dream on...they are very reluctant for the Catalans to get any encouragement and that is what they would get if they saw Scotland break from the UK and auto retain its EU status.

[High-On-Hibs]

Ahh such certainty, your crystal ball must be almost worn out after the last few days...so you are saying the Spanish have no interest in this issue at all now cause nothing would change there anyway? Dream on...they are very reluctant for the Catalans to get any encouragement and that is what they would get if they saw Scotland break from the UK and auto retain its EU status.

Why would the Spanish Government change their position on the Catalonia independence issue, when they already have all the encouragement they need to leave? They would already romp a referendum if they were offered one tomorrow. So the case with Scotland and the EU really doesn't make any difference in the scheme of things. The Spanish Government have made it clear that they will reject any calls for independence in Catalonia, regardless of the demand for one.

[JeMeSouviens]

Aye whatever, show me where Scotland is a signatory on any of the EU treaties and you can come back with the above.

The issue is clearly open to interpretation...the same arguments were made in Indy1 and the outcome was quite clear in that it would require quite a bit of bending of definitions to determine Scotland as an existing nation state in legal terms when it comes to the EU treaties.

Therefore it's blindingly obvious that Spain and others would have plenty to say and plenty of influence as to the outcome, to pretend that their view would only be treated as drivel or whinging is just daft.

This is key, imo. What Spain and France have said is that they won't negotiate with a non-sovereign bit of a state (and that state hasn't even begun the formal process of leaving anyway). Seems fair enough to me and predictable.

The mood music from the EU institutions is positive, imo (compare Juncker giving Sturgeon a hearing with Barrosso's pro-UK interventions in 2014). But there's no denying individual member governments could cause havoc for us if they want to.

[Bristolhibby]

Because Scotland is not a member as it stands. It's pretty damn clear that the EU could make an exception if it wanted to and allow an Indy Scotland to continue as per the treaties signed by the the UK...it's also just as clear that there is no precedent of this happening nor any formal mechanism that ensures that would happen therefore the EU horse trading would go into full swing and if it's Spain v Scotland with a Scotland win resulting in the destabilisation of Spain I'm 99% sure you will find that the dice will not fall Scotland's way.

Scotland and its citizens are members now, and will continue to be until 2 years after Article 50 is enacted.

All that would happen in effect is that one set of the U.K. citizens would leave, and Scotland would continue to remain an EU member. This would have to happen simultaneously with independence. This could actually work quite well for an Independent Scotland, in one fell swoop, outflanking the new member argument.

J

[Hibbyradge]

I doubt the EU will offer any encouragement to Scotland at all.

They'll be hoping for the decision to be reversed and the best way for UK politicians to do that would be with a second referendum.

Giving Scotland a node and a wink about staying in the EU would almost guarantee a Yes vote and taking Scotland out of that referendum would decrease the chances of a Remain result.

I may have misread that, but the EU don't want the UK to leave so they won't do anything to help it do so.

If we go for indy2, it will feature the same unknowns as we had in EU1.

[RyeSloan]

Scotland and its citizens are members now, and will continue to be until 2 years after Article 50 is enacted. All that would happen in effect is that one set of the U.K. citizens would leave, and Scotland would continue to remain an EU member. This would have to happen simultaneously with independence. This could actually work quite well for an Independent Scotland, in one fell swoop, outflanking the new member argument. J

Of course that's a possible scenario but it's not a very likely one for the reasons I and others have already pointed out.

[RyeSloan]

Why would the Spanish Government change their position on the Catalonia independence issue, when they already have all the encouragement they need to leave? They would already romp a referendum if they were offered one tomorrow. So the case with Scotland and the EU really doesn't make any difference in the scheme of things. The Spanish Government have made it clear that they will reject any calls for independence in Catalonia, regardless of the demand for one.

Jeez it's nothing to do with if they would change their position on a referendum.

Letting Scotland remain in the EU as a member state would materially change the rules of becoming a member. If you can't see how the Spanish would very much like that precedent to be avoided then yer really blind.

[High-On-Hibs]

Jeez it's nothing to do with if they would change their position on a referendum.

Letting Scotland remain in the EU as a member state would materially change the rules of becoming a member. If you can't see how the Spanish would very much like that precedent to be avoided then yer really blind.

There are no current rules on the matter to be materially changed. This situation has never occurred before.

[BroxburnHibee]

That'll be the Smackerooney. :greengrin

Surely it's the poond. :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

There are no current rules on the matter to be materially changed. This situation has never occurred before.

Unless I'm mistaken I believe there are rules for joining the EU, none of which address the Indy Scotland scenario, which is exactly my point! This would break new ground, ground the Spanish in particular don't want opened up.

[High-On-Hibs]

Unless I'm mistaken I believe there are rules for joining the EU, none of which address the Indy Scotland scenario, which is exactly my point! This would break new ground, ground the Spanish in particular don't want opened up.

There are rules for joining the EU it's true. However, you're assuming that we'll be forced to leave in which there are currently no rules to suggest that we must leave in the event of the UK leaving, as article 50 has never been triggered before.

[Stax]

Unless Spain are thinking of Spaixiting the EU I don't see any relevance. Their stance has always been the same (for obvious reasons) so no great surprise today. Long way off but Scotland getting independence before a brexit would be unprecedented. Who can be sure what would happen but Spain would then be dealing with a democratically formed country already in the EU. You'd then have to question why they'd veto this on the grounds it might noise up the Catalunyans.

[#FromTheCapital]

Unless Spain are thinking of Spaixiting the EU I don't see any relevance. Their stance has always been the same (for obvious reasons) so no great surprise today. Long way off but Scotland getting independence before a brexit would be unprecedented. Who can be sure what would happen but Spain would then be dealing with a democratically formed country already in the EU. You'd then have to question why they'd veto this on the grounds it might noise up the Catalunyans.

I think it's more likely that a newly Independant Scotland will need to apply to join the EU. And if successful, then there's your precedent that Spain would hope to avoid.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think it's more likely that a newly Independant Scotland will need to apply to join the EU. And if successful, then there's your precedent that Spain would hope to avoid.

Spain doesn't even have a Eurosceptic movement let alone a likelihood of leaving the EU, so where's the precedent?

Our best chance of smooth EU accession is to take over the current UK membership. Problem with that aiui is we need rUK to agree to it as part of its exit negotiations. They may spite us I suppose.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

There are rules for joining the EU it's true. However, you're assuming that we'll be forced to leave in which there are currently no rules to suggest that we must leave in the event of the UK leaving, as article 50 has never been triggered before.

No not forced to leave. We voted to leave, that is the point.

There is no more scope for scotland to inherit the uks swat as rhere woyld be for Manchester or yorkshire to do so

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Unless Spain are thinking of Spaixiting the EU I don't see any relevance. Their stance has always been the same (for obvious reasons) so no great surprise today. Long way off but Scotland getting independence before a brexit would be unprecedented. Who can be sure what would happen but Spain would then be dealing with a democratically formed country already in the EU. You'd then have to question why they'd veto this on the grounds it might noise up the Catalunyans.

That's hifhly debateable - im fairly sure scotland cannot remain a member of the eu, as it has never been a member.

Do people who think we will just inherit a place think that scotland will also het a seat on the un security council and we will be automatically members of nato?

[Hibbyradge]

That's hifhly debateable - im fairly sure scotland cannot remain a member of the eu, as it has never been a member.

Do people who think we will just inherit a place think that scotland will also het a seat on the un security council and we will be automatically members of nato?

Is the UK giving up its UN seat and it's membership of NATO ?

[Stax]

That's hifhly debateable - im fairly sure scotland cannot remain a member of the eu, as it has never been a member.

Do people who think we will just inherit a place think that scotland will also het a seat on the un security council and we will be automatically members of nato?
The fact we're the base of the most deployable nuclear threat in Western Europe might come into play. Wether we continue in that role might be revisited mind..

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Is the UK giving up its UN seat and it's membership of NATO ?

No it's not.

But just leaving an membershio organization doesnt mean that someone else can just claim it surely?

If the uk did give up its nato seat, do you think scotland could just claim it?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The fact we're the base of the most deployable nuclear threat in Western Europe might come into play. Wether we continue in that role might be revisited mind..

True!

Not if our government gets its way though

[High-On-Hibs]

That's hifhly debateable - im fairly sure scotland cannot remain a member of the eu, as it has never been a member.

Do people who think we will just inherit a place think that scotland will also het a seat on the un security council and we will be automatically members of nato?

It's not that your sure Scotland can't remain part of the EU. It's just you hoping that we can't.

[#FromTheCapital]

Spain doesn't even have a Eurosceptic movement let alone a likelihood of leaving the EU, so where's the precedent?

Our best chance of smooth EU accession is to take over the current UK membership. Problem with that aiui is we need rUK to agree to it as part of its exit negotiations. They may spite us I suppose.

If my scenario of Independant Scotland having to apply for EU membership happens, then Spain's apparent lack of desire to leave the EU is irrelevant. If we were successful, the precedent would be a newly Independant nation joining the EU and therefore takes that argument away from a potential 'Remain in Spain' campaign. The same argument that was (rightly or wrongly) used by better together in 2014 regarding the uncertainty of EU membership for an Independant Scotland.

Lots of ifs and buts but I don't think it would be as easy as simply taking the Uk's current membership. Not least for the reason you mention.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's not that your sure Scotland can't remain part of the EU. It's just you hoping that we can't.

Ok. You got me. I hate scotland and everything about it.

Thats such an snp zealot response. How long have you been a nat member? Oct 2014 by any chance?

I bet you were a 'socialist' befoe that too.
Nothing like the zeal of the convert eh.

[RyeSloan]

There are rules for joining the EU it's true. However, you're assuming that we'll be forced to leave in which there are currently no rules to suggest that we must leave in the event of the UK leaving, as article 50 has never been triggered before.

I'm not sure that even makes any sense.

The point is a straight forward one. Scotland as a country has no legal membership of the EU only the UK has. So the UK leaving by default results in Scotland leaving as Scotland is (currently) part of the U.K.

Therefore as the rules stand an independent Scotland post Brexit will almost certainly need to be accepted into the EU through their joining mechanism unless new rules or routes are created.

Even assuming that Scotland became independent before Brexit it would still have no legal agreement to be part of the EU. So for it to join without having to go through the existing joining process it would require new rules and a new precedent to be set.

Spain does not want to see a newly formed Independent country from within an existing EU country (or an ex EU country!) given special passage as it has clear implications on what the Catalans would aspire to and expect. They will therefore be quite entrenched in their opposition to Scotland getting a back door route in.

I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept to understand?

[Stax]

I'm not sure that even makes any sense.

The point is a straight forward one. Scotland as a country has no legal membership of the EU only the UK has. So the UK leaving by default results in Scotland leaving as Scotland is (currently) part of the U.K.

Therefore as the rules stand an independent Scotland post Brexit will almost certainly need to be accepted into the EU through their joining mechanism unless new rules or routes are created.

Even assuming that Scotland became independent before Brexit it would still have no legal agreement to be part of the EU. So for it to join without having to go through the existing joining process it would require new rules and a new precedent to be set.

Spain does not want to see a newly formed Independent country from within an existing EU country (or an ex EU country!) given special passage as it has clear implications on what the Catalans would aspire to and expect. They will therefore be quite entrenched in their opposition to Scotland getting a back door route in.

I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept to understand?
Catalunya is not a country.

[NAE NOOKIE]

There is a point to be made that this vote may well create a domino affect around Europe .... there is probably more Euro scepticism in the likes of France and funnily enough Poland than there has been previously. The EU may not break up, but the pressure for it to reform and become more directly accountable to the elected governments of its member states will grow, especially under the threat of more countries demanding their own referendums encouraged by the UK one. This may well lead to the reforms the Brexiters say could never happen.

As for Indy ref 2

From my point of view it comes down to how you see Scotland's place in the world. Are we as part of the union in an equal partnership of nations, or are we merely a region of what is in effect greater England?

Scotland has 1 ( one ) Conservative MP out of 59 and yet is run by a Tory government. Scotland voted 62% to 38% to remain part of the EU and yet we will no longer be part of it ....... If Scotland really is a country in the true meaning of the word, its a strange one indeed that allows its peoples views on political and social issues to be ridden roughshod over by another country whose views are so politically and in many cases socially at odds with its own.

If that is the state of affairs we are happy to live with then fine, but in that case in my opinion we have no more right to call ourselves a country than Yorkshire or Cornwall ..... Its the ability and will to conduct your affairs on the world stage with your approach to those affairs determined by your peoples outlook and attitudes that makes you a country ...... If at every turn Scotland's attitudes and approach can only ever be those of England as far as our dealings with the rest of the world goes then we are nothing more than a troublesome English region.

None of this is England's fault, none of this is due in any part to an anti Scottish attitude from England .... It is merely the unavoidable consequence of a country of 5 million people being in partnership with a country of 60,000,000

The only way Scotland will ever be able to allow its peoples unique outlook and attitudes to determine its dealings with the world will be if it is an independent country ..... If the people of Scotland do not want it to be independent then we must resign ourselves to being nothing more than England's largest geographical region in all but name ........ that's the reality and no amount of outward chest thumping and flag waving will change it.

To quote Sheldon Cooper's mum from the Big Bang Theory .......... "my cat can give birth to kittens in the oven, it doesn't make them biscuits"


Catalunya is not a country.

This is why I have multi quoted your post with my previous one.


This is what Scotland has become ... in the eyes of Spain and just about anywhere else Scotland has fallen to the status of nothing more than a 'region' of the UK ... or as far as they are concerned a region of England. They do not recognise Scotland as a PARTNER in a union of separate nation states .. which is what it actually is ... they see it as a troublesome region of England which will encourage their own REGIONS to look for separation.

In short ...... The other countries of the world do not consider Scotland to be a country ... merely a region of the UK or England. That is modern day Scotland ........... it will never be otherwise unless we decide one day to take our place in the world as a 'proper' country.

[Hibrandenburg]

This is why I have multi quoted your post with my previous one.


This is what Scotland has become ... in the eyes of Spain and just about anywhere else Scotland has fallen to the status of nothing more than a 'region' of the UK ... or as far as they are concerned a region of England. They do not recognise Scotland as a PARTNER in a union of separate nation states .. which is what it actually is ... they see it as a troublesome region of England which will encourage their own REGIONS to look for separation.

In short ...... The other countries of the world do not consider Scotland to be a country ... merely a region of the UK or England. That is modern day Scotland ........... it will never be otherwise unless we decide one day to take our place in the world as a 'proper' country.

:applause:

[snooky]

Surely it's the poond. :greengrin

The Poond Stirling shirley :cool2:

[snooky]

France saying the same now.
Daa-Raa! Nobody expects the French Resistance.

[#FromTheCapital]

Catalunya is not a country.

They would be if they separated from Spain.

[Stax]

This is why I have multi quoted your post with my previous one.


This is what Scotland has become ... in the eyes of Spain and just about anywhere else Scotland has fallen to the status of nothing more than a 'region' of the UK ... or as far as they are concerned a region of England. They do not recognise Scotland as a PARTNER in a union of separate nation states .. which is what it actually is ... they see it as a troublesome region of England which will encourage their own REGIONS to look for separation.

In short ...... The other countries of the world do not consider Scotland to be a country ... merely a region of the UK or England. That is modern day Scotland ........... it will never be otherwise unless we decide one day to take our place in the world as a 'proper' country.
Agree 100% and I hope we're taking in our place as we should be in the near future.

[steakbake]

Som folks seem delighted with Spain's position. I just don't understand the mentality.

It's looking more and more likely that independence will be required.

[#FromTheCapital]

It's looking more and more likely that independence will be required.

Will be required for what? Being in th EU? Of course it will be. The whole idea of remaining part of the UK and staying an EU member is a non starter, unless the UK somehow does a U- turn on Brexit (very unlikely). Sturgeon has one thing on her mind here and all this pish about trying to find other ways to stay in the EU is just that - pish.

[AndyM_1875]

Will be required for what? Being in th EU? Of course it will be. The whole idea of remaining part of the UK and staying an EU member is a non starter, unless the UK somehow does a U- turn on Brexit (very unlikely). Sturgeon has one thing on her mind here and all this pish about trying to find other ways to stay in the EU is just that - pish.

I wouldn't count that out. Many Tories are now realising what a bad deal all round Brexit is. It's a plan free recipe for absolute chaos and Boris Johnson never wanted to leave in the first place. They know it puts the future of the UK in peril.

Brexit has to be ratified by Parliament (both houses). It can be thrown back and the get out clause is the "non-binding" nature of the Referendum. Parliament can insist on a binding decision which means another Referendum, this time binding.

Even if it gets past that stage, then they have to deal with the UK Devolved Administrations who have EU law written into their constitutions. That can't just be overturned without a huge legal quagmire and constitutional nightmare.

[High-On-Hibs]

I wouldn't count that out. Many Tories are now realising what a bad deal all round Brexit is. It's a plan free recipe for absolute chaos and Boris Johnson never wanted to leave in the first place. They know it puts the future of the UK in peril.

Brexit has to be ratified by Parliament (both houses). It can be thrown back and the get out clause is the "non-binding" nature of the Referendum. Parliament can insist on a binding decision which means another Referendum, this time binding.

Even if it gets past that stage, then they have to deal with the UK Devolved Administrations who have EU law written into their constitutions. That can't just be overturned without a huge legal quagmire and constitutional nightmare.

Would the Conservatives sacrifice themselves in place of UKIP in order to pull off a U-Turn though? The utter outrage that wound be generated from the bigoted far right if they U-Turn or come out with a deal which is pretty much all of the things they hate about the EU with even less of the positives will be cataclysmic.

[JeMeSouviens]

I wouldn't count that out. Many Tories are now realising what a bad deal all round Brexit is. It's a plan free recipe for absolute chaos and Boris Johnson never wanted to leave in the first place. They know it puts the future of the UK in peril.

Brexit has to be ratified by Parliament (both houses). It can be thrown back and the get out clause is the "non-binding" nature of the Referendum. Parliament can insist on a binding decision which means another Referendum, this time binding.

Even if it gets past that stage, then they have to deal with the UK Devolved Administrations who have EU law written into their constitutions. That can't just be overturned without a huge legal quagmire and constitutional nightmare.

You're spot on there. :agree: Crispin Blunt, the Brexiteer Tory chairman of the Foreign Affairs select committee was on Newsnight last night. A pompous start about the strength of the UK's negotiating position, completely disintegrated under even the warm up questions from Evan Davis. Pitiful.

Still, never mind, it's not like the economic future of the country is at stake or anything. :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

This is why I have multi quoted your post with my previous one.


This is what Scotland has become ... in the eyes of Spain and just about anywhere else Scotland has fallen to the status of nothing more than a 'region' of the UK ... or as far as they are concerned a region of England. They do not recognise Scotland as a PARTNER in a union of separate nation states .. which is what it actually is ... they see it as a troublesome region of England which will encourage their own REGIONS to look for separation.

In short ...... The other countries of the world do not consider Scotland to be a country ... merely a region of the UK or England. That is modern day Scotland ........... it will never be otherwise unless we decide one day to take our place in the world as a 'proper' country.

We, the Scottish electorate, endorsed that in 2014. The UK Is a unitary state, there's never been any such thing as a partnership in the union, or "family of nations" or whatever the latest formula of cuddly Unionist pish is.

[#FromTheCapital]

I wouldn't count that out. Many Tories are now realising what a bad deal all round Brexit is. It's a plan free recipe for absolute chaos and Boris Johnson never wanted to leave in the first place. They know it puts the future of the UK in peril.

Brexit has to be ratified by Parliament (both houses). It can be thrown back and the get out clause is the "non-binding" nature of the Referendum. Parliament can insist on a binding decision which means another Referendum, this time binding.

Even if it gets past that stage, then they have to deal with the UK Devolved Administrations who have EU law written into their constitutions. That can't just be overturned without a huge legal quagmire and constitutional nightmare.

Has Boris Johnson actually said he never wanted to leave? Think a few people are jumping to conclusions on that one.

I do agree that it has been a disaster thus far and further problems are in the pipeline re Brexit in the short term at least, but I just can't envisage a complete U-turn.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I wouldn't count that out. Many Tories are now realising what a bad deal all round Brexit is. It's a plan free recipe for absolute chaos and Boris Johnson never wanted to leave in the first place. They know it puts the future of the UK in peril.

Brexit has to be ratified by Parliament (both houses). It can be thrown back and the get out clause is the "non-binding" nature of the Referendum. Parliament can insist on a binding decision which means another Referendum, this time binding.

Even if it gets past that stage, then they have to deal with the UK Devolved Administrations who have EU law written into their constitutions. That can't just be overturned without a huge legal quagmire and constitutional nightmare.

Nothing is written into constitutions, but overall i agree with your point - it wouldnt surprise me.

Maybe our unelected upper house coyld do it. Wouldnt that be ironic!!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

We, the Scottish electorate, endorsed that in 2014. The UK Is a unitary state, there's never been any such thing as a partnership in the union, or "family of nations" or whatever the latest formula of cuddly Unionist pish is.

Agree, and this is the big problem for those arguing we can remain.

Scotland is a region of the uk, in the way as yorkshire, wales etc. This state of affairs was ratified very recently with a hige mandate.

Some of us might not like it, but it is the way it is.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Agree, and this is the big problem for those arguing we can remain.

Scotland is a region of the uk, in the way as yorkshire, wales etc. This state of affairs was ratified very recently with a hige mandate.

Some of us might not like it, but it is the way it is.

I agree mate ....... A state of affairs that makes Scotland a country in the same way as Narnia or Mordor ...... our capital might as well be Brigadoon.

[snooky]

I agree mate ....... A state of affairs that makes Scotland a country in the same way as Narnia or Mordor ...... our capital might as well be Brigadoon.

Hey NN, living in Brigadoon isny a' that bad. It was only four years ago we last won the Scottish. :wink:

[steakbake]

Agree, and this is the big problem for those arguing we can remain.

Scotland is a region of the uk, in the way as yorkshire, wales etc. This state of affairs was ratified very recently with a hige mandate.

Some of us might not like it, but it is the way it is.

No, but there is divergence. Yorkshire does not have its own parliament, legal system, political system and devolved responsibility for a raft of government operations. Wales has less devolution than Scotland but voted to Leave.

I can see your view of it, but I don't think people will see it holds much water. Legally speaking, you might have something of a case if we completely ignore devolution.

I don't know how anyone can seriously say that if every local authority area in Scotland voted to remain, that we have a Scottish parliament responsible for a certain amount of our own legislation, different elections, electoral system, political structure and so on, that we just ignore that we have voted to stay in Europe.

If even one area had voted to leave, I think the argument would have been undermined to an extent. But that did not happen - people like cutting the numbers, but it's all about who turns up on the day. In this case, Remain got a resounding endorsement.

Scottish politicians would not be doing their jobs if they didn't see the challenge in that.

[AndyM_1875]

Has Boris Johnson actually said he never wanted to leave? Think a few people are jumping to conclusions on that one.

I do agree that it has been a disaster thus far and further problems are in the pipeline re Brexit in the short term at least, but I just can't envisage a complete U-turn.

Before his ambitions ran ahead of him He was quoted saying about how we needed to be in to give businesses access to the single market & for certainty. He also quoted Churchill's support for Europe coming together .

But he Is a politician whose views obviously change depending on what is the best opportunity for him rather than the country.

[Bristolhibby]

Agree, and this is the big problem for those arguing we can remain.

Scotland is a region of the uk, in the way as yorkshire, wales etc. This state of affairs was ratified very recently with a hige mandate.

Some of us might not like it, but it is the way it is.

Except unlike Wales or Yorkshire have a parliament.

J

[MyJo]

Agree, and this is the big problem for those arguing we can remain.

Scotland is a region of the uk, in the way as yorkshire, wales etc. This state of affairs was ratified very recently with a hige mandate.

Some of us might not like it, but it is the way it is.

The vote for independence included EU citizens living in scotland who were targeted with messages of vote No to stay in the EU and being told they would have to leave the country if Scotland was to be independent.

These very same people were excluded from voting in this referendum that now sees us being taken out of the EU anyway.

If the same demographics that voted in the independence referendum were allowed to vote in the EU referendum IMO it would have been an even higher margin of victory for the remain side in scotland.

If indyref2 happens with the question being should scotland become an independent country and remain in the EU? then I think there would be a significant swing towards a Yes vote if there could be a robust plan agreed with the EU for our continuing membership pending independence before any referendum.

[One Day Soon]

Before his ambitions ran ahead of him He was quoted saying about how we needed to be in to give businesses access to the single market & for certainty. He also quoted Churchill's support for Europe coming together .

But he Is a politician whose views obviously change depending on what is the best opportunity for him rather than the country.


Boris Johnson was enthusiastically pro-EU until he saw an opening to head the Leave campaign and position himself to oust David Cameron. He imagined himself hugely profiled during the campaign, coming close enough to winning (but not actually winning) so that Cameron's authority would be eroded and then Boris would walk into No 10 as the darling of the Tory Party.

Instead he unexpectedly pulled it off, but the process and the consequence is the political equivalent of a machine gun fight in a crystal factory. He is responsible for toxic division within the country and his party, he's done some pretty serious damage to pensions, share values, the £ and foreign investment - and he's almost certainly responsible for what will be a UK recession in 2017. Never mind the vile racism that all of this has let out of the bag again.

In my book he is now the dictionary definition of the term 'charlatan'. Lord Heseltine did him bang to rights today and left him, rightly, without a name. Johnson thinks of himself as a present day Churchill. Instead he's an over privileged Etonian halfwit incapable and uncaring of knowing the difference between personal self interest and the interest of the country. I cannot think of any politician in my lifetime that I have a lower opinion of - including Thatcher and Salmond - and I really despise those two.

[JeMeSouviens]

Heseltine filleted him!

Remember this time last week? A long time in politics ... Lolz (or tears or both).

[One Day Soon]

Heseltine filleted him!

Remember this time last week? A long time in politics ... Lolz (or tears or both).


You're not kidding JMS. TBF Heseltine is a class act who always had a cutting turn of phrase. He clearly detests Johnson. Just not as much as I do.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The vote for independence included EU citizens living in scotland who were targeted with messages of vote No to stay in the EU and being told they would have to leave the country if Scotland was to be independent.

These very same people were excluded from voting in this referendum that now sees us being taken out of the EU anyway.

If the same demographics that voted in the independence referendum were allowed to vote in the EU referendum IMO it would have been an even higher margin of victory for the remain side in scotland.

If indyref2 happens with the question being should scotland become an independent country and remain in the EU? then I think there would be a significant swing towards a Yes vote if there could be a robust plan agreed with the EU for our continuing membership pending independence before any referendum.

Theres a definite chance of that.

It would all depend on terms of membership. If it was losing the uk opt outs, adoptinf the euro eyc, then im nor sure.

If it was on rhe same terms as now, i think almost certainly yes.

I think thats whu sturgeon is tryong so hatd to 'remain' rarher than join - she knows convincing people to vote for indy, then giving more power away to eu than previously wouls be a hard sell

[JeMeSouviens]

Theres a definite chance of that.

It would all depend on terms of membership. If it was losing the uk opt outs, adoptinf the euro eyc, then im nor sure.

If it was on rhe same terms as now, i think almost certainly yes.

I think thats whu sturgeon is tryong so hatd to 'remain' rarher than join - she knows convincing people to vote for indy, then giving more power away to eu than previously wouls be a hard sell

Apols in advance but ...

NOBODY HAS TO JOIN THE ****ING EURO!!!!

[#FromTheCapital]

Apols in advance but ...

NOBODY HAS TO JOIN THE ****ING EURO!!!!

Ok the pound it is...oh wait.

[High-On-Hibs]

Ok the pound it is...oh wait.

Why is it that any country in the world (with the exception of Scotland) can use it's own currency if it wishes to do so? :confused:

It's like people in this country have convinced themselves that Scotland couldn't possibly have it's own central banking system and monetary system for reasons never explained. Bizarre.

[#FromTheCapital]

Why is it that any country in the world (with the exception of Scotland) can use it's own currency if it wishes to do so? :confused:

It's like people in this country have convinced themselves that Scotland couldn't possibly have it's own central banking system and monetary system for reasons never explained. Bizarre.

You make it sound so simple. Or is it just that you don't have a clue like the vast majority of your posts suggest?

You're right about people convincing themselves about that though. Even the SNP don't seem convinced or they would've just opted for that in 2014 instead of covering their ears and screaming every time the word currency was mentioned. Please tell me more about this new currency and central banking system though, seeing as you have all the answers.

[HappyAsHellas]

A new currency system that guarantees success is alarmingly simple: take for example the dollar. Faced with a certain civil war Mr Lincoln goes to the banks and explains he is going to need a bucketload of cash. They agree to lend him the cash but at 30% interest. After pondering the situation he comes up with the idea of printing the legitimate currency, but the flip side of these new notes are green (hence greenback) and are charged at 0% interest for business. The result? The economy flourishes and everyone is happy. Apart from the bankers. Mr Lincoln is assassinated as was Ceasar before him and anyone else who tried to take on the financial powers that have dictated to us since time immemorial. Does Sturgeon have the balls to do something similar? Take on the banks and give financial freedom to the masses? No, she will answer to the same parasites that have been amassing their fortunes and kow tow to them because it makes sense to any arse sucking politician you could mention. The answer is there, all we need is someone with balls. Don't hold your breath...............

[ronaldo7]

Nice article from a pro Indy Scotland in the EU. :aok:

https://t.co/RFmW4oQpPR

[ronaldo7]

You make it sound so simple. Or is it just that you don't have a clue like the vast majority of your posts suggest?

You're right about people convincing themselves about that though. Even the SNP don't seem convinced or they would've just opted for that in 2014 instead of covering their ears and screaming every time the word currency was mentioned. Please tell me more about this new currency and central banking system though, seeing as you have all the answers.

https://t.co/RFmW4oQpPR

JP Morgan seem to think it can be done, but who are we to think otherwise eh.:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Sorry, wrong like from post above.

I'll try and get the other one back.:greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Apols in advance but ...

NOBODY HAS TO JOIN THE ****ING EURO!!!!

Maybe, but it would surely depend on the negotiations?

If, as many are saying, this is indeed uncharted territory and we are all feeling our way, then that cuts both ways. Bad things could be introduced (eurozone) as well as good things (taking the exiting uk slot).

Yes suporters are very bad at dismissing anything that doesnt suit their world view - its perhaps why they lost the referendum in the first place

[High-On-Hibs]

You make it sound so simple. Or is it just that you don't have a clue like the vast majority of your posts suggest?

You're right about people convincing themselves about that though. Even the SNP don't seem convinced or they would've just opted for that in 2014 instead of covering their ears and screaming every time the word currency was mentioned. Please tell me more about this new currency and central banking system though, seeing as you have all the answers.

Yeah, that's what I said right enough. I have all the answers and expect it to be oh so easy. :rolleyes:

For goodness sake. If other countries can successfully establish their own monetary system and currency, then it's obviously not so hard that it can't be done. But yet again, people who oppose Scottish Independence seem to hold the belief that we're some how dimmer than every other country and can't manage the challenges that they do. How sad. What was the saying? "We're not genetically programmed to make decisions?" or some horse **** across those lines.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why is it that any country in the world (with the exception of Scotland) can use it's own currency if it wishes to do so? :confused:

It's like people in this country have convinced themselves that Scotland couldn't possibly have it's own central banking system and monetary system for reasons never explained. Bizarre.

We also have a strong and well established financial sector that employs tens of thousands of people, not least in edinburfh.

Changing currency to some new scottish pound would not be helpful for them

[High-On-Hibs]

We also have a strong and well established financial sector that employs tens of thousands of people, not least in edinburfh.

Changing currency to some new scottish pound would not be helpful for them

We DID have a strong well established financial sector. Tens of thousands of people are about to lose their jobs anyway.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

https://t.co/RFmW4oQpPR

JP Morgan seem to think it can be done, but who are we to think otherwise eh.:greengrin

The banks also all thought there was no chance of a leave vote!

I dont know lots about currency, i suspect everything is possible, but irs what is optimal.

Most countries that become independent are not stable, well established, financially successful countries, so adding a new currency is maybe not so disruptive? Plus our huge financial services sector based mostly on sterling.

Just some suggestions, others seem to know more than i do in this.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

We DID have a strong well established financial sector. Tens of thousands of people are about to lose their jobs anyway.

Are they?

I dont knoe about that.

You seem to be an expert in lots of things though, so maybe you know more.

Ill be sure and tell all my family members who work in it that rhey might as well just quit now, becauae they are all goosed

[marinello59]

We DID have a strong well established financial sector. Tens of thousands of people are about to lose their jobs anyway.

We STILL have a strong well established financial sector. It now faces severe challenges but to suggest it's finished is just bonkers.

[High-On-Hibs]

The banks also all thought there was no chance of a leave vote!

I dont know lots about currency, i suspect everything is possible, but irs what is optimal.

Most countries that become independent are not stable, well established, financially successful countries, so adding a new currency is maybe not so disruptive? Plus our huge financial services sector based mostly on sterling.

Just some suggestions, others seem to know more than i do in this.

The UK has voted for independence. So by your understanding, we're already going to be unstable, poorly established and financially unsuccessful. At least if we gain our independence from the UK, we can at least control how it's going to effect Scotland as a nation, as currently, it's completely out of our own hands.

[High-On-Hibs]

Are they?

I dont knoe about that.

You seem to be an expert in lots of things though, so maybe you know more.

Ill be sure and tell all my family members who work in it that rhey might as well just quit now, becauae they are all goosed

Jobs are already being cut and lost. New jobs that were going to be created and no longer being created. It will all come out in the next employment report.

[ronaldo7]

The banks also all thought there was no chance of a leave vote!

I dont know lots about currency, i suspect everything is possible, but irs what is optimal.

Most countries that become independent are not stable, well established, financially successful countries, so adding a new currency is maybe not so disruptive? Plus our huge financial services sector based mostly on sterling.

Just some suggestions, others seem to know more than i do in this.

Theirs an opperchancity for our Financial areas within Scotland. Imagine England and Wales leaving the EU and Scotland remaining. All those jobs flowing north.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The UK has voted for independence. So by your understanding, we're already going to be unstable, poorly established and financially unsuccessful. At least if we gain our independence from the UK, we can at least control how it's going to effect Scotland as a nation, as currently, it's completely out of our own hands.


You make some incredible leaps - where do i possibly say that?

What i meant is that most newly independent states are born out of civil war or post socialist economies.

I cant think of many newly independent states who carved off from one od thee G7 then started their own currency?

Ifnyoy think leaving the EU is so disastrous, why do you think unpicking 300 years of union, and unravelling our entire financial system would be so easy?

[marinello59]

Theirs an opperchancity for our Financial areas within Scotland. Imagine England and Wales leaving the EU and Scotland remaining. All those jobs flowing north.

There is a real chance for us to come out of this stronger if the right decisions are made.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Theirs an opperchancity for our Financial areas within Scotland. Imagine England and Wales leaving the EU and Scotland remaining. All those jobs flowing north.

Agree.

But losing the pound would further complicate that i reckon

[#FromTheCapital]

Yeah, that's what I said right enough. I have all the answers and expect it to be oh so easy. :rolleyes:

For goodness sake. If other countries can successfully establish their own monetary system and currency, then it's obviously not so hard that it can't be done. But yet again, people who oppose Scottish Independence seem to hold the belief that we're some how dimmer than every other country and can't manage the challenges that they do. How sad. What was the saying? "We're not genetically programmed to make decisions?" or some horse **** across those lines.

What are you on about now? You suggested we start our own currency like its the best option we have on that front. So go on, convince me and others why this is the best option. Simply saying that other countries have their own currency doesn't quite cut it.

[AndyM_1875]

You're not kidding JMS. TBF Heseltine is a class act who always had a cutting turn of phrase. He clearly detests Johnson. Just not as much as I do.

Heseltine is an old school One Nation Tory.
He knew the best option for the country is to stay in the EU. A one nation Tory would never put the future of the UK at risk for the sake of political ambition. They would never have stood on a platform with a rabble rousing, bottom feeding spoofer like Farage.

They would anticipate the problems ahead a leave vote would bring both in Northern Ireland which in a worst case scenario could end up regressing to sectarian violence and in Scotland which is now very likely to begin moves to break away if/when Article 50 is activated.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Jobs are already being cut and lost. New jobs that were going to be created and no longer being created. It will all come out in the next employment report.

Are they? Given that rhe vore was only last week, i dont know any companies that make redundancies in a week?

So why are these jobs being lost?

[marinello59]

Are they? Given that rhe vore was only last week, i dont know any companies that make redundancies in a week?

So why are these jobs being lost?

It's tens of thousands of jobs. Apparently.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What are you on about now? You suggested we start our own currency like its the best option we have on that front. So go on, convince me and others why this is the best option. Simply saying that other countries have their own currency doesn't quite cut it.

Exactly.

And what people have to remember is that ee are the 5th or 6th biggest economy in rhe whole world. We are starting from a very high point ( which is prob not the norm with newly independent countries) so we have a greater potential to fall than to rise, or at least a greater risk.

[JeMeSouviens]

Maybe, but it would surely depend on the negotiations?

If, as many are saying, this is indeed uncharted territory and we are all feeling our way, then that cuts both ways. Bad things could be introduced (eurozone) as well as good things (taking the exiting uk slot).

Yes suporters are very bad at dismissing anything that doesnt suit their world view - its perhaps why they lost the referendum in the first place

Jesus wept.

For the umpteenth time - no new EU member states are obliged to enter the Eurozone: none, nada, zilch, not a single one.

They are obliged to accept in principle that when they meet the convergence criteria they will join the Eurozone. In practice, they can simply choose not to enter ERM2 and thus they can't join the Euro.

There are 7 EU member states in this position:

Sweden - since the start of the Euro in 1999
Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic - since 2004
Bulgaria & Romania - since 2007
Croatia - since 2014

They all have free floating currencies. They are all theoretically signed up to the Euro. None of them have a stated intention or timetable to actually do so.

Is that clear enough?

If I read once more that Scotland "would be forced to join the Euro" I am going to explode. :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

There is a real chance for us to come out of this stronger if the right decisions are made.


:agree:

https://t.co/1omJOLuoWe

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Jesus wept.

For the umpteenth time - no new EU member states are obliged to enter the Eurozone: none, nada, zilch, not a single one.

They are obliged to accept in principle that when they meet the convergence criteria they will join the Eurozone. In practice, they can simply choose not to enter ERM2 and thus they can't join the Euro.

There are 7 EU member states in this position:

Sweden - since the start of the Euro in 1999
Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic - since 2004
Bulgaria & Romania - since 2007
Croatia - since 2014

They all have free floating currencies. They are all theoretically signed up to the Euro. None of them have a stated intention or timetable to actually do so.

Is that clear enough?

If I read once more that Scotland "would be forced to join the Euro" I am going to explode. :greengrin

Ok, fair enough.

But signing up to the intention to join would still not play well in a ref.

But given that we are looking for a huge favour of the eu to manoeuvre us in to the uk slot, inthink they just might ask for some stuff in return.

What that might be is of course open to debate, but it is surely not betond the realms of possibility that guarentees around the euro could be one?

And also, it remains a huge problem for the nats, once again going into a ref but saying we will keep the pound.

Currency is still a huge problem for the nats

[Moulin Yarns]

Agree.

But losing the pound would further complicate that i reckon


What makes you think we will lose the pound?? :confused:

For what it's worth, an independent Scotland can't be forced to use the Euro. There is precedent, not least the UK, but also Denmark and Sweden


Denmark and the United Kingdom received opt-outs from the Maastricht Treaty and do not have to join the euro until they choose to do so; Sweden has not received an opt-out, yet deliberately doesn't live up to the requirements for joining for now. Two referendums have been held on the issue up to now, both of which rejected accession:
Denmark – 53.2% against, turnout 87.6% on 28 September 2000
Sweden – 56.1% against, turnout 81.2% on 14 September 2003

[ronaldo7]

Ok, fair enough.

But signing up to the intention to join would still not play well in a ref.

But given that we are looking for a huge favour of the eu to manoeuvre us in to the uk slot, inthink they just might ask for some stuff in return.

What that might be is of course open to debate, but it is surely not betond the realms of possibility that guarentees around the euro could be one?

And also, it remains a huge problem for the nats, once again going into a ref but saying we will keep the pound.

Currency is still a huge problem for the nats

https://t.co/G9wYTXVfpY

[JeMeSouviens]

You make it sound so simple. Or is it just that you don't have a clue like the vast majority of your posts suggest?

You're right about people convincing themselves about that though. Even the SNP don't seem convinced or they would've just opted for that in 2014 instead of covering their ears and screaming every time the word currency was mentioned. Please tell me more about this new currency and central banking system though, seeing as you have all the answers.

Not directed at me but as a non-expert economic dummy I certainly wouldn't understimate the challenges of getting the macroeconomics of an independent Scotland right.

Before iref1 the Scottish government put together a Fiscal Commission to consider this (including 2 economics Nobel prize winners so you'd like to think they knew what they were on about) and you can read their deliberations regarding currency here:

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/02/3017/10


New Scottish Currency

7.10 The creation of a new currency would give policy makers in Scotland maximum policy flexibility, subject to any practical constraints associated with establishing and operating a credible and sustainable currency.

7.11 The economic area of Scotland is sufficiently large to support its own currency.

7.12 In the long run, the creation of a new Scottish currency would represent a significant increase in economic sovereignty, with interest rate and exchange rate policy being two new policy tools and adjustment mechanisms to support the Scottish economy.

7.13 In the short-run there would however, be a number of practical challenges associated with moving to a new currency, including the not insignificant steps required to re-denominate contracts and maintain intra-UK supply chains.

7.14 Ultimately the value of a Scottish currency would depend upon Scotland's balance of payments position. The handling of currency receipts from the North Sea - including the extent to which such transactions were denominated in Scottish currency - would be important both for managing the balance of payments and exchange rate movements. In the short-run, the credibility of any new currency as a medium of exchange would be a key determinant of its value.

7.15 There would be a choice regarding whether to adopt a fixed or flexible exchange rate.

7.16 The currency could 'float', adjusting automatically in value in response to changes in the demand and supply for the Scottish currency.

7.17 Alternatively it could be pegged to another currency or a basket of currencies. This is the case for a number of countries which have their own currency. An obvious option would be to aim to peg 1:1 with Sterling.

7.18 Within this, one possibility is establishing a currency board. This is the strictest form of currency peg and aims to maintain a permanently fixed rate of exchange between one currency and a "reserve currency" supported by full convertibility. It requires sufficiently large reserves of the pegged currency (e.g. Sterling) at the legally enforceable rate [86].

7.19 Under each of these scenarios, new institutions would need to be developed - the principal one being a Scottish Central Bank. It would be responsible for delivering monetary policy (either to target inflation or to peg the value of the currency), providing liquidity to the financial sector and ensuring the credibility of the currency as a medium of exchange.

Apols if you know all this already. If you haven't read it, it's a very interesting document. Ultimately they argue that a Sterling zone is best for iScotland and rUK but they certainly didn't rule out a Scots currency as impossible.

[JeMeSouviens]

Ok, fair enough.

But signing up to the intention to join would still not play well in a ref.

But given that we are looking for a huge favour of the eu to manoeuvre us in to the uk slot, inthink they just might ask for some stuff in return.

What that might be is of course open to debate, but it is surely not betond the realms of possibility that guarentees around the euro could be one?

And also, it remains a huge problem for the nats, once again going into a ref but saying we will keep the pound.

Currency is still a huge problem for the nats

Yes, you're right.

I tend to think (as you allude) that like the last iref it's more of a political problem than an economic one. The trouble is that Scotland would need rUK and European partners to have the goodwill to help us get up and running. I absolutely think that post a Yes vote they would. I also think that pre a Yes vote the rUK in particular will say they won't and the Europeans may just choose to stay out of it.

[snooky]

Yes, you're right.

I tend to think (as you allude) that like the last iref it's more of a political problem than an economic one. The trouble is that Scotland would need rUK and European partners to have the goodwill to help us get up and running. I absolutely think that post a Yes vote they would. I also think that pre a Yes vote the rUK in particular will say they won't and the Europeans may just choose to stay out of it.

It gives the EU a big political lever if we do go to them for help in setting up a currency though.
If we vote to be out of the UK, wouldn't the EU have us over a barrel on that issue? :dunno:

[JeMeSouviens]

It gives the EU a big political lever if we do go to them for help in setting up a currency though.
If we vote to be out of the UK, wouldn't the EU have us over a barrel on that issue? :dunno:

Please, please, please don't let this be another "we'll be forced to join the Euro" post. :pray:

Why do you think the EU would want us "over a barrel"?

The ECB would certainly not want another member of the Eurozone unless it was completely convinced we could safely and successfully stay within its parameters. The last thing they want is more Eurozone turmoil. They have made no effort to push any of the countries I listed above to hurry up and join.

[McD]

Yeah, that's what I said right enough. I have all the answers and expect it to be oh so easy. :rolleyes:

For goodness sake. If other countries can successfully establish their own monetary system and currency, then it's obviously not so hard that it can't be done. But yet again, people who oppose Scottish Independence seem to hold the belief that we're some how dimmer than every other country and can't manage the challenges that they do. How sad. What was the saying? "We're not genetically programmed to make decisions?" or some horse **** across those lines.


Perhaps I've missed the comments that demonstrate this (and I mean clearly demonstrate it, specifically making this point), but making comments like this are not going to convince previous 'No' voters to change their thoughts.

People had many reasons for choosing to vote the way they did, I'm quite sure of that. To lump them all under this one banner in a derogatory manner is not going to encourage anyone to change their thoughts, nor does it foster an inclusive environment.

[JeMeSouviens]

Daniel Broby of the Business School at Strathclyde University:


A break from the United Kingdom, if managed properly whilst maintaining Scotland’s access to the single market, could see 50,000 financial jobs finding their way to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

http://www.engage-sbs.com/scotlands-financial-sector-faces-a-two-edged-brexit-sword/

[steakbake]

Perhaps I've missed the comments that demonstrate this (and I mean clearly demonstrate it, specifically making this point), but making comments like this are not going to convince previous 'No' voters to change their thoughts.

People had many reasons for choosing to vote the way they did, I'm quite sure of that. To lump them all under this one banner in a derogatory manner is not going to encourage anyone to change their thoughts, nor does it foster an inclusive environment.

Anyone who changes their thoughts and seeks to join Yes, will be forced to join the Euro....

I totally agree with this by the way. There is movement the way of Yes from the No vote. This should be a warm welcome to Yes.

[JeMeSouviens]

Perhaps I've missed the comments that demonstrate this (and I mean clearly demonstrate it, specifically making this point), but making comments like this are not going to convince previous 'No' voters to change their thoughts.

People had many reasons for choosing to vote the way they did, I'm quite sure of that. To lump them all under this one banner in a derogatory manner is not going to encourage anyone to change their thoughts, nor does it foster an inclusive environment.

The specific bit you highlighted is a misreading of Johann Lamont's quote from Indyref1.

From the context, she clearly meant that Scots didn't have genetic programming to make better decisions than anyone else. It was seized upon literally to beat her with. What her detractors should've been saying was that she was quite right, we don't have genetic programming to make better decisions but we do have local interest and knowledge to make better decisions for Scotland.

[Kavinho]

We also have a strong and well established financial sector that employs tens of thousands of people, not least in edinburfh.

Changing currency to some new scottish pound would not be helpful for them




It really wouldn't make that much difference to be honest. A view supported by ex BoE chairman Mervyn King shortly after he was finally allowed speak out freely after sept 14.

[Kavinho]

There is a real chance for us to come out of this stronger if the right decisions are made.


Right according to who though?

[snooky]

The specific bit you highlighted is a misreading of Johann Lamont's quote from Indyref1.

From the context, she clearly meant that Scots didn't have genetic programming to make better decisions than anyone else. It was seized upon literally to beat her with. What her detractors should've been saying was that she was quite right, we don't have genetic programming to make better decisions but we do have local interest and knowledge to make better decisions for Scotland.


Johann probably did mean it the way you say but she obviously put her foot on something that caused her a lot of grief.
That minefield of ambiguity. Best avoided.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Right according to who though?

According to what outcones they achieve surely?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It really wouldn't make that much difference to be honest. A view supported by ex BoE chairman Mervyn King shortly after he was finally allowed speak out freely after sept 14.

I bow to superior knowledge on this, im no expert.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

https://t.co/G9wYTXVfpY

Interesting article - i wouldnt take itnas gospel necessarily.

I have no idea how it would work, would three years be enough to set up a new currency from scratch?

[Kavinho]

According to what outcones they achieve surely?

my point is simply if one deems "the right " decisions have been are made, it would be predicated on which side or the argument you are on whether they are indeed the right, or the wrong outcomes!


Get yer head roond that yin!!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

my point is simply if one deems "the right " decisions have been are made, it would be predicated on which side or the argument you are on whether they are indeed the right, or the wrong outcomes!


Get yer head roond that yin!!

Very true.

I suspect most people would use fairly crude measure of current economic (relative) stability and success, and current social situation as a baseline. If people get poorer or high-on-hibs financial services apocolypse happens, that would not be success. If we get richer, it would be.

It is very subjective though!!

[Kavinho]

Very true.

I suspect most people would use fairly crude measure of current economic (relative) stability and success, and current social situation as a baseline. If people get poorer or high-on-hibs financial services apocolypse happens, that would not be success. If we get richer, it would be.

It is very subjective though!!


A currency is in its most basic terms a means to transfer good and services around a society, and a step up from basic banter exchanges of goods.

As as long as the faith of all who use it remains, you could indeed use the "Bridges Indy urgency" - smackeroonies, or anything else.

What is it that creates faith in a currency? Knowledge that the government, through its financial service providers, will redeem it if called upon to do so. (See the reaction in the currency markets to Mark Carney stating the BoE stands ready to support the currency)

Quite often, this is the through the currency users central bank having huge reserves, or alternatively, 'creating' new money (QE). The important thing for Scotland would be ensuring that they have the reserves, or linking to Sterling (or just as easily the euro) to provide central bank support - for a period of time until Scotland can manage it without external support.


Here's an article worth reading, and the quote from Adam Bown, Exc Dirctor of the Adam Smtih Institute..

http://stv.tv/news/politics/1346145-independent-scotland-can-use-the-pound-unofficially-says-former-bank-chief/

[steakbake]

Interesting article - i wouldnt take itnas gospel necessarily.

I have no idea how it would work, would three years be enough to set up a new currency from scratch?

Yes, but even if not, I think as long as there was an interim plan, that would also work.

The BoE will not want the £ to fall even further by 10% of the currency area no longer using it: currencies do become less powerful. The yen has been challenged recently by the yuan and other strong regional currencies, for example - Singapore Dollar etc.

In much of this, the shoe is now very much on the other foot since 2014.

Brexit is England's Darien.

[Kavinho]

Yes, but even if not, I think as long as there was an interim plan, that would also work.

The BoE will not want the £ to fall even further by 10% of the currency area no longer using it: currencies do become less powerful. The yen has been challenged recently by the yuan and other strong regional currencies, for example - Singapore Dollar etc.

In much of this, the shoe is now very much on the other foot since 2014.

Brexit is England's Darien.


Definitely something to mull over, that thought. Could be very prescient !

[stantonhibby]

We DID have a strong well established financial sector. Tens of thousands of people are about to lose their jobs anyway.

I work in the financial sector....please tell me where these tens of thousands of job losses are going to happen?

[High-On-Hibs]

I work in the financial sector....please tell me where these tens of thousands of job losses are going to happen?

There are companies the length and breadth of the country that rely on EU subsidies to help fund their staffing. Those staff are now going to be lost, because the money isn't coming from anywhere else. If you really do work in the financial sector and weren't even aware of this, then I can only assume that you're either new to the job, or just not very good.

[stantonhibby]

There are companies the length and breadth of the country that rely on EU subsidies to help fund their staffing. Those staff are now going to be lost, because the money isn't coming from anywhere else. If you really do work in the financial sector and weren't even aware of this, then I can only assume that you're either new to the job, or just not very good.

Insults and accusing me of lying..... quality response. You implied that tens of thousands of people in the financial sector in Scotland would lose their jobs. You didn't mention other companies. To my mind the only two financial companies who could shed that amount of folk are RBS or LBG and they have already gone through the bulk of their cost cutting.

[High-On-Hibs]

Insults and accusing me of lying..... quality response. You implied that tens of thousands of people in the financial sector in Scotland would lose their jobs. You didn't mention other companies. To my mind the only two financial companies who could shed that amount of folk are RBS or LBG and they have already gone through the bulk of their cost cutting.

I didn't say tens of thousands of jobs would be lost specifically in Scotland. So who's lying there? I also didn't say that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost specifically to one company. So why you're pointing out RBS and LBG, I really don't know.

It's small local based companies that are going to lose out the most. But if you don't share that view, then that's fine. Time reveals everything.

[stantonhibby]

I didn't say tens of thousands of jobs would be lost specifically in Scotland. So who's lying there? I also didn't say that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost specifically to one company. So why you're pointing out RBS and LBG, I really don't know.

It's small local based companies that are going to lose out the most. But if you don't share that view, then that's fine. Time reveals everything.

You responded to a post about the Edinburgh financial sector to say that tens of thousands of job losses were coming. So you weren't specifically talking about Scotland or the financial sector?. FWIW I agree with your last paragraph.

[PeeJay]

I work in the financial sector....please tell me where these tens of thousands of job losses are going to happen?

He may be referring to the so-called "passporting facility" that enables the UK to conduct cross-border trade with countries IN the EU? Many jobs could be on the line now if the facility is - as it will most likely be - revoked ...

[degenerated]

While we're talking about finance industry perhaps someone could explain what this actually means.

https://youtu.be/WGpayte7KTE

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

[johnbc70]

Not sure about any job losses, but I know many financial firms have put all recruitment on hold. Business will look to control costs very tightly now and one instant way to do that is halt recruitment. So the result is having an immediate impact on the job market, companies hate uncertainty and that's what we have for the next few years.

[Hibrandenburg]

Not sure about job losses but my firm has announced its intention to move it's operations centre to Europe. It makes sense because up until now it needed only one agreement to operate and now it will need 27 different agreements. Moving to Europe means it only has to have a European licence and 1 agreement with the UK.

[ronaldo7]

Patrick Harvie having a go at the Dug. It looks like Slab are going to be better together with the Tories again.

https://t.co/VBqxdHFjUo

[steakbake]

Patrick Harvie having a go at the Dug. It looks like Slab are going to be better together with the Tories again.

https://t.co/VBqxdHFjUo

The Bain Doctrine never quite washes away. There must be folks in the Labour and even some of the Tory ranks, who will be thinking carefully what to do IF a second Indy ref is called.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The Bain Doctrine never quite washes away. There must be folks in the Labour and even some of the Tory ranks, who will be thinking carefully what to do IF a second Indy ref is called.

I think IF there is a viable, simple EU alternative it may make a lot of people think.

But they will still have to convince lots of people that gaining independence is a good thing, but that being outsiddle the EU is a bad thing - quite a difficult message to get right IMO