|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Indyref2
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
So many stories flying around now, that May has blocked Indyref2, or has not blocked it, but only postponed it, but Scottish government don't want it now, in any case. What is going on?
If May is seriously blocking Indyref2, she is handing victory to the independence movement, isn't she?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Not necessarily - potentially it's more likely that the Scottish Nationalists would win a referendum now, than one where the smoke has cleared after the Brexit negotiations and we all know, for good or ill, what the stakes will be. And the Prime Minister is quite within her rights to say that the last thing the country needs at this juncture is another referendum with all the divisiveness and bitterness that they cause. I think that if she said, that as a point of principle, she favoured a ten year moratorium on their use, a lot of people would sympathise.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A ten year moratorium! Jesus H. Icecream. The SNP MPs could resign and fight 59 by-elections on an independence platform, and then declare UDI.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Just a further point, the Scottish govt has not suggested a referendum now, have they? They seem to be suggesting after Brexit? So what is May objecting to?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A ten year moratorium! Jesus H. Icecream. The SNP MPs could resign and fight 59 by-elections on an independence platform, and then declare UDI.
No chance of getting into the EU then though.
May hasn't said no outright, she's just turned down the Nat's timetable and kicked the can down the road. That'll either come back to haunt her later or make the issue go away. Depending on the outcome of the next election.
[ETA: Weren't the Nats originally asking for the vote next year? The shift to after Brexit came a few days later]
Tubbs
[ 16. March 2017, 15:24: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, May kept saying 'now is not the time', but nobody has suggested now, have they?
It is another Delphic pronouncement, which might turn out to be a complete miscalculation or a brave seizing of the initiative. Any bets?
It makes me wonder what 'after Brexit' means. Ten years hence?
[ 16. March 2017, 15:27: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A ten year moratorium! Jesus H. Icecream. The SNP MPs could resign and fight 59 by-elections on an independence platform, and then declare UDI.
Fifty-six, actually, and they might not win. Not everyone in Scotland thinks that having Independence Referenda every few years is a good idea. As it was, Sturgeon spent the last Holyrood election tacking cautiously between her ultras who want an independence referendum NOW! and those who thought that a period of calm was appropriate. And there isn't an exact match between "Remain" and "Yes" voters. If Ruth Davidson and her little chums run on a platform of "pissed off unionists who want a bit of piece and quiet" and nab a couple of seats off the SNP it would be, to say the least, embarrassing. There's precedent for this, btw, after the Anglo-Irish agreement the SDLP managed to take a constituency off the Unionists (and a random bloke who ran as the ROI Foreign Secretary in four seats, without campaigning, managed to save his deposit in three). The SNP speak for a large proportion of the population of Scotland but quite likely not a majority, and certainly not all of them.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There is the brilliant irony of May saying we have to wait until people understand Brexit. Oh babes, that is a killer driller from the chiller.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well I think May is playing an interesting game here. She seems content to allow the SNP to huff and puff about an Indy referendum whilst holding the keys to allow it. I'm not sure there is anything the SNP can do now except resign Westminster on mass - which would probably be self-destructive as it would just mean that the Tories have effectively a larger majority.
I imagine what May is doing is looking with an eye to the polls in Scotland, which suggest a highest ever level of support for both independence and euroscepticism.
So as far as the Tories go, I suppose they're thinking that holding off the call of the SNP for a referendum will give time for a deal to be worked out for Brexit (or not) at which point there might be no point in voting Indie if you want brexit anyway. If it is possible to show that (a) Scotland has no chance of getting back into the EU (b) most Scots don't want that and (c) they'd get a much better deal as part of the UK than alone outwith of both the EU and the UK then the whole independence question is largely moot - and, perhaps more importantly, the SNP begin to look like morons for keep pushing that agenda.
It feels a bit like both sides are being rather contradictory; if a single simple referendum question was wrong to get out of the EU, why is it not wrong for getting out of the UK? If the Scots can change their minds on independence, why can't Brits change their minds on the EU? If the EU led to the 48% getting held to ransom by the 52%, how is the Scottish referendum (which is likely to be very close as well) any different? What if parts of Scotland vote to Remain? Do we have ever decreasing sizes of referendum each time a larger area overrules the votes in a smaller area? What if Shetland votes to remain - do they get to stay and Scotland leave - and if not why not?
If Scotland voted to leave, I suspect pro-EU voters like Alan would get a nasty shock when the Scottish government decided not to pursue EU membership after all.
[ 16. March 2017, 16:09: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting point about 'now is not the time' - Nicola had suggested autumn 2018 or spring 2019. So presumably May is saying that Brexit details won't be known by 2019? Do you remember the 100 years war?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point about 'now is not the time' - Nicola had suggested autumn 2018 or spring 2019. So presumably May is saying that Brexit details won't be known by 2019? Do you remember the 100 years war?
If Article 50 is given by end March 2017, the 2 year period doesn't end until March 2019 - and the negotiations are likely to go right up to the wire, if not into overtime.
A referendum in autumn 2018 or spring 2019 wouldn't have the final negotiated settlement (during most of the campaign, if not actually by polling day).
Apart from anything else, May can say that she's focussed on the negotiation and doesn't need the distraction. Which in a sense is fair enough. Why encourage a distracting and wearying political campaign if she doesn't have to?
Tories are arses, but she's right on this.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Police knock on door.
Hello Sir, we would like to talk to you about your election expenses...
"Now is not the time"
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"Now is not the time"
Not really the same thing. There is a law about the way elections are to be conducted, as far as I know there is no law which says the Prime Minster has to allow the leader of a devolved authority to decide the date of an independence referendum.
[ 16. March 2017, 16:27: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"Now is not the time"
Not really the same thing. There is a law about the way elections are to be conducted, as far as I know there is no law which says the Prime Minster has to allow the leader of a devolved authority to decide the date of an independence referendum.
A referendum would, I imagine, require an Act of Parliament. Given that Mrs May has a small majority and is beholden to the DUP and the Tory headbangers to get things through the House of Commons, I'm not sure it's something that's actually in her power to grant. Granted, the SNP would all vote for a referendum, but a lot of Tories might not. If (admittedly big 'if' given the uselessness of the current Labour leader) Corbyn decided that he was opposed to another independence referendum a large swathe of the PCP might vote against. You can imagine what that would do for May's already fraying credibility.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Presumably the referendum legislation would require a lot of Westminster time that is not available due to the Brexit legislation. Another reason to dismiss it out of hand.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It feels a bit like both sides are being rather contradictory; if a single simple referendum question was wrong to get out of the EU, why is it not wrong for getting out of the UK?
Well, of course, in both cases a "simple referendum question" is wrong. Both the UK leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK are very complex issues, with a range of possible outcomes. Therefore, neither can be answered in a "simple referendum question".
Assuming IndyRef2 follows the pattern of IndyRef1, then there will have been decades of political discussion about the issue of Scottish independence across the whole of the nation, through several dozen election cycles with pro-Independence candidates regularly gaining seats. There would be a meaningful discussion in Parliament, resulting in a substantial white paper describing the preference for the Scottish government in what they want from Independence related negotiation, supported by the majority of MSPs in a series of votes in Parliament. And, then an extended campaign to convince the Scottish people to accept or reject this proposal.
That's compared to a few years of inflammatory language from a bunch of purple rosetted idiots who couldn't even find a distillary, much less organise a piss up there, and who can only get someone into Parliament if they convince someone already elected for a different party to defect. Then, a few hours debate in Parliament about whether to have a referendum with barely a mention of the complex issues that Brexit would present. A "manifesto" for Leaving the EU that's barely more than a slogan on the side of a bus, and that's a work of fiction. And, then a mad dash to a referendum before people have a chance to think about the issues at all.
Yes, those are entirely comparable. Not.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, those are entirely comparable. Not.
You seriously think that an Indy2 ref in less than 2 years time would be sufficient time to give voters a clear choice - even though it can't possibly be known then what it is that they're voting for/against wrt the British deal with the EU? I think you're so used to believing your own rhetoric that you've lost the ability to tell when it is complete bollocks.
[ 16. March 2017, 17:08: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on the degree of convergence between various countries, doesn't it? Hard Brexit seems to indicate no convergence of regulations, so you go back to paper documentation of goods, which are checked at frontiers - this sounds disastrous; hence the talk of 30 mile queues at Dover. It's hard to believe that anybody sensible wants this, but you never know with the headbangers, who seem to regard the single market as 'betrayal'.
As to trade between Scotland and England, the degree of convergence would have to be negotiated. I suppose it might also be 'hard', but this seems peculiar to me - so London wants commercial suicide all round?
If independent Scotland's to be in the EU, how could trade between rUK and Scotland be any easier or harder than between rUK and any other EU country? If there are border and customs checks between rUK and the EU generally, there will have to be the same between rUK and Scotland as well.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, those are entirely comparable. Not.
You seriously think that an Indy2 ref in less than 2 years time would be sufficient time to give voters a clear choice - even though it can't possibly be known then what it is that they're voting for/against wrt the British deal with the EU? I think you're so used to believing your own rhetoric that you've lost the ability to tell when it is complete bollocks.
Yes, I do. By this time next year, about when formal campaigning will kick off, there would have been an extensive Parliamentary debate drawing up a White Paper. Which, I see no reason to be much different from the 2014 White Paper - there would need to be revisions to the intent for Scotland to be an EU member as it would no longer be seeking to continue an existing membership, and will need to address the desired relationship with the rest of the UK (since that will no longer be covered under EU membership). That will give a clear indication of what the Scottish government would seek if given the go ahead by the electorate, which is one side of the choice.
Yes, there will be a small amount of uncertainty if the i's haven't been dotted and the t's crossed of the Brexit deal. But, do you expect Mrs May to suddenly change her mind about what she's seeking, especially after she triggers Article 50? We can be pretty certain that the flimsy White Paper they produced a few weeks ago will be approximately what the UK government is still seeking in a years time, or resigned to an even harder Brexit as the government seem to show no inclination to seek a Norway-like solution.
If we were starting from scratch, two years would indeed be insufficient time. But, we aren't starting from scratch. We're starting from decades of discussion about the issues, and in particular starting from the 2014 referendum campaign which has already worked through most of the issues.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
While we've all learned not to trust opinion polls, they can be used as a guide when elections are far off. So there is no evidence that the people of Scotland are clamouring for another referendum before Brexit. The PM is, therefore, quite justified in kicking this into the long grass until the dust from Brexit has settled and the people of Scotland know what they're voting for. I strongly suspect that Scotland will vote for independence even though I believe passionately in the union, but the FM's timetable was designed to cause the maximum disruption and chaos. She isn't the only person speaking for Scotland.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I don't think there's a general desire for a referendum. Most people would much prefer to wait until sometime after 2030. However, there's a recognition that circumstances have forced it upon us.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I do. By this time next year, about when formal campaigning will kick off, there would have been an extensive Parliamentary debate drawing up a White Paper.
Well, while actual events may yet pull the same thing forward, Sturgeon said this afternoon "is not proposing #scotref now… but when the terms of Brexit clear and before it is too late to choose an alternative path. "
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't think there's a general desire for a referendum. Most people would much prefer to wait until sometime after 2030. However, there's a recognition that circumstances have forced it upon us.
This may be what the First Minister and the SNP hardliners think, but where is the evidence that the majority of Scots feel the same? The FM talked up this situation with comments like "I'm not bluffing" to the point where she couldn't back out of making the call. Whatever any of us may think of the merits of staying in the Single Market, it was never going to be possible for the British Government to make a separate deal for Scotland while maintaining the UK union. The only thing they could have done to assuage Nicola would have been to fight for the whole UK to stay in the SM, which would alienate millions of English voters. This is the problem Jeremy Corbyn faces with Labour voters. So what the FM did was set the bar impossibly high to trip up the Government. Scotland hasn't been forced into this situation. The SNP has brought it on.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we were starting from scratch, two years would indeed be insufficient time. But, we aren't starting from scratch. We're starting from decades of discussion about the issues, and in particular starting from the 2014 referendum campaign which has already worked through most of the issues.
You are totally off-beam. Things are completely different to 2014; not least the dramatic reduction in the oil price, the decimation of the North Sea oil industry, the fact that May is triggering Article 50 etc and so on.
If you think that you can just recycle arguments from 2014 then you're madder than a bag of spanners.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The only thing they could have done to assuage Nicola would have been to fight for the whole UK to stay in the SM, which would alienate millions of English voters.
But, where is there evidence that there are "millions of English voters" who do not want the UK to remain in the Single Market? Remaining in the Single Market would be consistent with the June 2016 referendum result, which is as close as millions of English voters had had an opportunity to express their opinion on the subject.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
For 'millions of English voters' read 'key hard line MPs in the Tory party to allow May to continue crushing austerity measures that benefit key Tory donors' and you have the truth of the matter.
If there is any democratic mandate at all, it is to remain in the Single Market. 48% of the country voted for Single Market+ (EU membership) and at least one of the major Leave groups campaigned explicitly that a vote to Leave meant moving from full European Union membership to membership of the Single Market.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we were starting from scratch, two years would indeed be insufficient time. But, we aren't starting from scratch. We're starting from decades of discussion about the issues, and in particular starting from the 2014 referendum campaign which has already worked through most of the issues.
You are totally off-beam. Things are completely different to 2014; not least the dramatic reduction in the oil price, the decimation of the North Sea oil industry, the fact that May is triggering Article 50 etc and so on.
If you think that you can just recycle arguments from 2014 then you're madder than a bag of spanners.
Who said anything about recycling the arguments from 2014? All I said was that we had an extensive discussion leading upto 2014, and subsequently. And, although there are some significant changes in circumstance, there are also a lot of things which haven't changed in that time.
The issues relating to Scotland becoming a full member of the EU haven't changed, the Spanish objections are the same. The questions of what to do with the Trident fleet are the same, the vote to renew that capability has simply extended the period over which the fleet needs to be based elsewhere. The decision about currency haven't changed, although whether Scotland really wants to be tied to a weakened pound needs to be answered. The political dominance of Westmonster over Holyrood has barely changed, and the disregard of Scotland displayed by the Tories has highlighted that. The restrictions on immigration to keep the racists south of the border happy still hinder our economic growth. The desire of the people of Scotland to provide quality education and healthcare free at the point of need remains, in contrast to the English government desire to charge for education and healthcare.
Brexit has changed some things, in particular it's going to create difficulties in trade and movement across the border if England doesn't retain access to the Single Market. But, it's not the only issue by a long shot. Much as the English might wish the discussion to be all about them and their idiotic decision to leave the EU.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Who said anything about recycling the arguments from 2014? All I said was that we had an extensive discussion leading upto 2014, and subsequently. And, although there are some significant changes in circumstance, there are also a lot of things which haven't changed in that time.
Enough things have changed for it to take way way longer than 2 years to have a reasoned debate about the future of the nation, never mind the fact that the British deal won't even have been decided by then. You want people to make a decision before they even know what the options are.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
never mind the fact that the British deal won't even have been decided by then. You want people to make a decision before they even know what the options are.
The general picture of what the British government are seeking is already known, it was put in a short White Paper a few weeks ago. I guess we'll know quite soon after Mrs May triggers Article 50 whether it's going to be completely impossible, when we get responses from the EU. If that's the case then we'll be falling back on WTO rules. Otherwise there will be a deal similar to the white paper - even if the details take 18 months to sort out (which will be about the time of the earliest date suggested for Indyref2).
The UK government are showing no signs of the common sense to recognise that the majority of the UK electorate don't want the deal they're seeking. So, I'm not expecting a u-turn on this, no matter how quickly they u-turned on National Insurance.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Right, because you know exactly how the EU and the UK negotiators are going to end up even before they've got there.
Funny that. You're showing exactly the same kind of arrogance you loudly protested during the EU referendum campaign.
Personally, I don't think it is a given that the EU will let the UK walk away with WTO rules, and there is a glimmer of hope that it will be something better - if only because there would be a massive UK sized hole in the EU budget if there was no agreement.
But hey, you are a mind-reader and know better.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If you read what I read, you'll see that isn't what I'm saying. At present we have an outline of a plan from the UK government, and that has been known long enough for the EU to have had time to consider their response, and a statement that if the UK doesn't get something like that then they'll fall back on WTO terms. You've right, the EU will prefer something other than WTO terms and so are likely to put in an offer that is also somewhere between Single Market and WTO. We will find out what that is once Article 50 is triggered. I'm not sure what is so odd about that.
Of course, we won't know that EU position for a few weeks. I've never claimed to know that. But, we will know that, and that will further constrain the final deal after 18 months negotiation. That does mean that when the Scottish Parliament debates the options to produce a White Paper the terms of Brexit will be imprecise, but with the starting positions of both sides already stated and an expectation that the final deal will be somewhere between them. By the time the people of Scotland vote the Brexit negotiations will have concluded, and the deal will be going through the processes of getting it ratified by all the sovereign nations of the EU, and the UK Parliament.
I don't know what that final deal will be. But, by the time we vote in Autumn 2018 we probably will, and if the referendum is delayed until the spring of 2019 then there would have been a month or two to take that into consideration - though we'd have had 18 months with the broad picture already known.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, where is there evidence that there are "millions of English voters" who do not want the UK to remain in the Single Market? Remaining in the Single Market would be consistent with the June 2016 referendum result, which is as close as millions of English voters had had an opportunity to express their opinion on the subject.
I've never bought in to the argument that people didn't know what they were voting for last 23rd June. Andrew Marr has proved several times, by showing playbacks, that David Cameron and George Osborne both made it clear that a Leave vote would result in leaving the Single Market. One of the reasons why I have favoured an early General Election is that the question of whether or not the Prime Minister has a mandate for her style of Brexit would be answered. I believe she would receive an overwhelming endorsement of her position. Which is that Brexit inevitable removes us from the Single Market unless we make it something other than Brexit. The PM's understanding is that this is incompatible with granting Nicola Sturgeon's demands. But Nicola knows that and always has. Just as she knows that the PM won't agree to an early referendum. It's all manna from heaven for her agenda of driving as big a wedge as she can between Scotland and England to destroy the union. People should see her agenda for what it is.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I don't think Cameron's or Osborne's pre-referendum comments are remotely relevant. It's what the Leave campaigners said that matters.
How many times were we told to look at Norway as they were doing so well outside the EU? Apparently a Norway option is not compatible with the 'will of the people.' There is lots of polling data that shows a lot of people voted for less immigration but a big chunk of these voters only did so because they believed there would be no economic cost from doing so. This sector of the electorate would have voted the other way if they believed there would be a cost.
And don't tell me that the £350 million claim was irrelevant. That's the kind of nonsense you get from people who argue for unlimited spending on elections and at the same time tell you the spending is irrelevant as it's the people who decide. The following is anecdotal but I don't care. Last week in clinic when told how long our elective waiting list is, the father of our patient asked my boss (who happens to be German) if Brexit will improve things because we'll have more money... My boss was speechless. However as a huge amount of surgical equipment is German made no one should be surprised that the drop in the pound has just put a lot of prices up by 10%.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It's quite simple in economic terms really. An independent Scotland in the European single market with the rUK outside would be better off than Scotland remaining in Brexit Britain.
Why do you think so?
At the moment, while still in both the UK and the EU, Scotland does far more trade with the rest of the UK than with the rest of the EU, even though the latter is much larger. Scotland in the post-Brexit UK would encounter more friction in its EU trade; Scotland outside the UK (and in the EU, let's assume) would encounter more friction in its UK trade. Wouldn't adding friction to the larger share of trade (by leaving the UK) be worse economically than adding friction to the smaller share of trade (by staying in the UK)?
The competitive advantage combined with the ability to attract inward investment that would have otherwise gone to England would in the medium term make Scotland better off than if they stayed in the post Brexit UK. Obviously none of this is certain but it does change the equation.
here is someone who, unlike me, actually knows what he's talking about.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Andrew Marr has proved several times, by showing playbacks, that David Cameron and George Osborne both made it clear that a Leave vote would result in leaving the Single Market.
Ask yourself why Cameron and Osborne, leading Remain campaigners, were saying that. They were saying it because the Leave campaign (or, parts of it at least) were saying that the UK could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, pointing to nations like Norway to show this is possible. Cameron etal were saying that this would not be possible, which was a campaign tactic consistent with the "project fear" approach rather than necessarily a statement of fact.
What those statements from Cameron etal do confirm is that what Mrs May is proposing is significantly different from what a large proportion of the Leave campaign were seeking. Which isn't that surprising since May etal were not in the Leave campaign (some of her cabinet were, of course). It's what happens when you go into a referendum without first defining what the options are and then leave it up to someone else to decide that for you after the event.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you read what I read, you'll see that isn't what I'm saying. At present we have an outline of a plan from the UK government, and that has been known long enough for the EU to have had time to consider their response, and a statement that if the UK doesn't get something like that then they'll fall back on WTO terms. You've right, the EU will prefer something other than WTO terms and so are likely to put in an offer that is also somewhere between Single Market and WTO. We will find out what that is once Article 50 is triggered. I'm not sure what is so odd about that.
I'm not sure what is hard to understand about this: the negotiations with the EU will not finish until 2019. If there is a Scottish referendum before then, voters will not know what the options are.
Before the point of Brexit, Scotland can't even begin to negotiate with the EU, the EEA or whatever it is that the Scottish government wants today.
You'd be voting blind and without the information. This is not a controversial point except to those who already think they know the answer.
quote:
Of course, we won't know that EU position for a few weeks. I've never claimed to know that. But, we will know that, and that will further constrain the final deal after 18 months negotiation. That does mean that when the Scottish Parliament debates the options to produce a White Paper the terms of Brexit will be imprecise, but with the starting positions of both sides already stated and an expectation that the final deal will be somewhere between them. By the time the people of Scotland vote the Brexit negotiations will have concluded, and the deal will be going through the processes of getting it ratified by all the sovereign nations of the EU, and the UK Parliament.
Cloud cuckoo land. An independent Scotland may indeed be a better deal than in the UK, if it was able to get access to the Single Market. But that's quite a big question given that nobody currently has any idea whether that's possible, whether the UK will have access to the Single Market, whether an Independent Scotland would have access to the Single Market or whether even most Scots want to have access to the Single Market.
quote:
I don't know what that final deal will be. But, by the time we vote in Autumn 2018 we probably will, and if the referendum is delayed until the spring of 2019 then there would have been a month or two to take that into consideration - though we'd have had 18 months with the broad picture already known.
Bullshit. You are utterly delusional.
[ 17. March 2017, 07:54: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Erm sorry, I thought I was in hell.
Alan, apologies for getting personal. You are still very, very wrong.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure what is hard to understand about this: the negotiations with the EU will not finish until 2019.
Which is more or less what I've been saying, though it'll be late 2018 (there will need to be at least three months after the end of negotiations to get it agreed by all EU nations and UK Parliament) - assuming a triggering of Article 50 at the end of the month. But the main points of the negotiations will be known before then - we already know the opening negotiating position for the UK. Which is what the voters need to know in regard to the rUK relationship to the EU, the only relevant issues being what, if any, restrictions on trade will be in place between Scotland (in EU/EEA) and the UK. Many other aspects of those negotiations will be irrelevant to independent Scotland (eg: whether the UK will participate in EU research programmes, adhere to EU environmental policies etc).
quote:
If there is a Scottish referendum before then, voters will not know what the options are.
You're sounding like Mrs May, missing entirely the irony that Scottish voters in 18-24 months will have a lot more information on the options than the UK voters were permitted in June last year. There may be a few details still unclear, but broadly speaking the No to Independence option will be quite clear. Though I expect the Better Together will try and spin a series of fantasies about how the UK will be a great trading nation, an economic world power while not tied to the EU - the same nonsense that the Leave campaign were spouting last year. But, they'll still be saying that 10 years from now even as the evidence that it's not going to happen builds up. So, a referendum now or in 10 years won't be any different on that point.
quote:
Before the point of Brexit, Scotland can't even begin to negotiate with the EU, the EEA or whatever it is that the Scottish government wants today.
No, the Scottish government can't begin those negotiations before Independence. Once Scotland is free of English domination it can start negotiating our own relation to the EU independent of the rUK relation to the EU. If an independent Scotland can't negotiate with the EU until the rUK says we can, then we're not independent.
I don't see any reason why it makes any difference at all whether that point is before or after the rUK has left the EU - though, it will be afterwards just because the time between referendum and independence will exceed the time between referendum and Brexit. There's no way the negotiations and associated legislative paths through two Parliaments will be done within 6 months.
quote:
You'd be voting blind and without the information. This is not a controversial point except to those who already think they know the answer.
Again, apparently that was OK for the whole UK in relation to Leave or Remain in the EU. But, it's not OK for Scotland to vote for or against Independence?
quote:
An independent Scotland may indeed be a better deal than in the UK, if it was able to get access to the Single Market. But that's quite a big question given that nobody currently has any idea whether that's possible, whether the UK will have access to the Single Market, whether an Independent Scotland would have access to the Single Market or whether even most Scots want to have access to the Single Market.
Indeed, those are the questions that the people of Scotland will need to talk about over the next couple of years, and of course we have already discussed those 3 years ago. There's nothing in those questions which suggest we need an even longer conversation on these issues, such that we should delay the independence referendum beyond the Autumn 2018 - Spring 2019 proposed by the Scottish government. Much less that that delay should be at the insistence of the UK government rather than the wish of the Scottish Parliament.
Three years ago, the people of Scotland were largely (not universally, but what in politics is universally accepted) in favour of Scotland in the single market, and we had a whole load of "project fear" statements that this would not be possible. I'm not sure there's anything new there - the reasons why Scotland couldn't be in the EEA/EU are the same (whether the economy would qualify, whether Spain would veto it etc). There's a reversal of one argument - last time round there were questions about whether Scotland outside the Single Market would face trade barriers with the rUK inside, now it's whether Scotland inside would face trade barriers with rUK outside. The effects of that would be much the same.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
I don’t blame Scotland for wanting to leave this shit show, but the fact that Scotland can’t currently negotiate in its own right is nothing to do with the English. Scotland can’t negotiate with the EU / EEFTA until they say it can. The EU said no to special status and refused to allow them to negotiate separately. One deal for all and everyone leaves together. EEFTA says that Scotland can’t apply now as it doesn’t meet their criteria.
If Scotland votes for independence, it’ll have to negotiate its exit from r-UK before talking to anyone else about membership. If unravelling 40 years is going to take decades according to some, I wonder how long it’ll take to unravel 300+. The Nat’s time-time of 18 months looks a bit optimistic. I don’t think Spain and the others will veto but I think they’ll insist that every i is dotted and each t is crossed before the application processes. The Nats will have to address the fiscal questions that they’ve been dodging.
If I was May, which I’m not, I’d kick the can until after the next election. And insist the Nats get an outright majority as one of the pre-conditions of getting a yes. This might happen. But if the Unionist parties run on a platform of “putting the same commitment and passion into actually governing and solving Scotland’s issues as others are putting into trying to get independence” they might pick up a few more seats.
quote:
Though I expect the Better Together will try and spin a series of fantasies about how the UK will be a great trading nation, an economic world power while not tied to the EU - the same nonsense that the Leave campaign were spouting last year. But, they'll still be saying that 10 years from now even as the evidence that it's not going to happen builds up. So, a referendum now or in 10 years won't be any different on that point.
Both sides are pedalling fantasies. The Nats’ picture of a Scotland free from the English yoke of oppression, able to take its rightful place at the centre of the international stage is just a big spin. And sounds remarkably familiar.. You just have to choose which unicorn you like and hope it doesn’t bite you on the arse.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I don’t blame Scotland for wanting to leave this shit show, but the fact that Scotland can’t currently negotiate in its own right is nothing to do with the English. Scotland can’t negotiate with the EU / EEFTA until they say it can. The EU said no to special status and refused to allow them to negotiate separately. One deal for all and everyone leaves together. EEFTA says that Scotland can’t apply now as it doesn’t meet their criteria.
This. And for the time being the only organisation who has the authority to negotiate a change to this on behalf of the Scots is the UK government and its reps in the Brexit negotiations.
So this is a way of trying to make the UK Government look more unpopular in advance of a future referendum, simply for carrying out the role they are obliged to carry out. Another referendum after Brexit is entirely justified. But trying for one in the middle of the Brexit negotations just looks to me like playing politics.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I don't know who is claiming that Scotland will be able to negotiate anything with the EU before Scotland gains independence. Sturgeon tried for a special deal for Scotland, and has been told quite plainly that the EU can only negotiate with an independent nation (the UK) and can't make separate arrangements with parts of nations (despite Greenland having a different arrangement with the EU from the rest of Denmark).
The whole discussion is, after IndyRef2 assuming a Yes vote, can an independent Scotland seek EU membership. The answer to that is clearly yes, there is nothing stopping an independent Scotland seeking EU membership. Whether that application is successful and how long it will take are different questions. That does not, in anyway, depend on whatever arrangement the rUK has with the EU - if Scotland is independent and the rUK outside the EU, the UK government has not basis to tell either Scotland or the EU what they should do.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't know who is claiming that Scotland will be able to negotiate anything with the EU before Scotland gains independence. Sturgeon tried for a special deal for Scotland, and has been told quite plainly that the EU can only negotiate with an independent nation (the UK) and can't make separate arrangements with parts of nations (despite Greenland having a different arrangement with the EU from the rest of Denmark).
The whole discussion is, after IndyRef2 assuming a Yes vote, can an independent Scotland seek EU membership. The answer to that is clearly yes, there is nothing stopping an independent Scotland seeking EU membership. Whether that application is successful and how long it will take are different questions. That does not, in anyway, depend on whatever arrangement the rUK has with the EU - if Scotland is independent and the rUK outside the EU, the UK government has not basis to tell either Scotland or the EU what they should do.
It may be the way things were reported here, but the Nats did a really good impression of trying to negotiate with the EU in their own right in the aftermath of the Referendum. And got told no. Although parts of member nations could opt out, parts of non-member nations couldn't opt in. The Faroe Islands aren’t members of the EU either.
If Scotland becomes independent, it can do whatever it likes once exit terms are sorted. But at the moment they're not independent. So they can't. The current situation isn’t entirely the fault of the UK. The Nats have always wanted IndyRef2. If it wasn’t Brexit, it would be something else.
If I was one of the 45% of Scottish people who voted Leave, I’d be well pissed. Sturgeon is treating them with the same contempt as May is treating the Remain voters in the rest of the UK.
[ 17. March 2017, 11:42: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It may be the way things were reported here, but the Nats did a really good impression of trying to negotiate with the EU in their own right in the aftermath of the Referendum. And got told no.
Which I thought I just said. The Scottish Government seeking to do what it's supposed to do, get the best for the people of Scotland and represent them, sought to keep Scotland within the Single Market. They followed two options, and found neither could be made to work. The long shot was a special deal for Scotland different from the rest of the UK, and they were told quite clearly the only way for Scotland to have a different deal from the rest of the UK was for Scotland to be independent from the rest of the UK - and for that to be an established fact rather than an aspiration.
The more reasonable option was for the whole of the UK to remain within the Single Market in some Norway-like arrangement. Which should have been achievable given that that was what a proportion of Leave voters wanted anyway, so it's a reasonable compromise between the 48% who voted to Remain and the x% who voted for a hard Brexit, even though it would only be the preference of the (52-x)%. But, Mrs May seems incapable of simple arithmatic and seems convinced she has a mandate for a hard Brexit. With the inevitable Indyref2 as a result.
quote:
If I was one of the 45% of Scottish people who voted Leave, I’d be well pissed. Sturgeon is treating them with the same contempt as May is treating the Remain voters in the rest of the UK.
The 45% are those who voted for Independence in 2014. The Leave vote in June was 38% in Scotland.
Presumably of that 38% some would still support Scottish independence (just outwith the EU), just as some who voted Remain would oppose Scottish independence. It's not treating them with contempt if they're asked to vote on Scottish independence with it either defined in advance that the Scottish government would seek EU membership (or, that the government wouldn't), or that an Independent Scotland would hold a referendum to determine whether the people of Scotland want the Scottish government to seek EU membership. Whatever way, that 38% get another chance to have their views heard and discussed.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That does not, in anyway, depend on whatever arrangement the rUK has with the EU - if Scotland is independent and the rUK outside the EU, the UK government has not basis to tell either Scotland or the EU what they should do.
OF course - but the relationship between the UK and the EU might be relevant for Scotland's decision. If Scotland joined the EU, then it must trade with the UK on the same terms as the other EU members. If Scotland is outside the EU, it can negotiate different terms.
So it might become a question of whether getting better terms for trade with the EU is worth getting worse terms for trade with the UK.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That does not, in anyway, depend on whatever arrangement the rUK has with the EU - if Scotland is independent and the rUK outside the EU, the UK government has not basis to tell either Scotland or the EU what they should do.
OF course - but the relationship between the UK and the EU might be relevant for Scotland's decision. If Scotland joined the EU, then it must trade with the UK on the same terms as the other EU members. If Scotland is outside the EU, it can negotiate different terms.
So it might become a question of whether getting better terms for trade with the EU is worth getting worse terms for trade with the UK.
Which are questions that will be debated endlessly as the referendum campaign progresses. But, it is clear that the deal Mrs May is currently working for is not a deal that will work for Scotland - the question is whether Scotland can work up a deal that's better for Scotland if given the opportunity. If Mrs May opts for the relatively sane option of seeking EEA membership then if Scotland can obtain EEA or EU membership the trade issue is effectively eliminated. But, her published plan is much less sane than that.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Perhaps we're wrong to trust opinion polls and wrong again to trust a poll commissioned by the Daily Telegraph, but this suggests that getting on with Brexit is more important to a majority of voters than the possible break up of the UK. So it would endorse the PM's decision not to permit another Indyref just to suit the SNP's timetable. But the First Minister said today at her springtime bash in Aberdeen that she may be willing to discuss a time frame with the PM.
Nicola Sturgeon, as wily a politician as ever, has now made it inevitable that the British government must concede the point eventually, even though there's no evidence that the Scots even want it. Meanwhile Gordon Brown has re-entered the fray with a rehash of his devo max or federal UK idea he first posited in 2014, which even Alex Salmond considered at one time. So it's pretty certain Scotland will get its referendum. It's less certain when, or even what the question will be. It's also uncertain what will be the UK's relationship with the EU by then or even what the EU itself will look like then. This is why I totally agree that this shouldn't happen before 2020 and that Scotland should get the extra option of devo max. Only then, in the knowledge of the changed circumstances, can it make a properly informed decision.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The biggest problem with devo-max federalism at this time is that it still denies the wishes of 62% of the Scottish electorate who voted to stay in the EU back in June. Because the messages from the discussions last year seemed clear that no amount of additional devolved powers or federal division of the UK will allow a special deal for Scotland. The "solution" offered by Brown doesn't address the change of circumstances that make the current constitutional arrangement unsatisfactory.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The biggest problem with devo-max federalism at this time is that it still denies the wishes of 62% of the Scottish electorate who voted to stay in the EU back in June
So does the SNP's latest position. The FM wants to call an independence referendum because Scotland risks being taken out of the EU against its will. Nothing in what she says explains how holding this vote will achieve the aim of keeping Scotland in. In fact she's now conceding that she may have to apply to EFTA. That's something which requires the agreement of all EFTA countries as well as the EU 27. It would at least allow control over agriculture and fisheries, but there's no indication that it's achievable. The only transparently obvious reason for this vote is to get rid of the English, because it's a stab in the dark whether or not independence will achieve what she says is her motive for seeking it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Independence won't keep Scotland in the EU, there won't be enough time between and referendum and Brexit to prevent Scotland being pulled out of the EU. But, once independent then Scotland can start the process of regaining EU membership asap.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I repeat my assertion that this proposed referendum has nothing to do with Brexit, the EU or the Single Market. Gordon Brown knows this only too well. So he's cutting to the chase and suggesting another way in which Scotland could satisfy its nationalist aspirations. With Labour far removed from power I only hope the British Government has the sense to listen to what Gordon and Kezia Dugdale are proposing.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I repeat my assertion that this proposed referendum has nothing to do with Brexit, the EU or the Single Market. Gordon Brown knows this only too well. So he's cutting to the chase and suggesting another way in which Scotland could satisfy its nationalist aspirations. With Labour far removed from power I only hope the British Government has the sense to listen to what Gordon and Kezia Dugdale are proposing.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
