Scottish Independence

[PieFacE]

1 hour ago, RimmyJimmer said:

 

If we had voted to remain they would have still wanted another go at independence. They've just jumped on the anti brexit bandwagon to drum up more patriotic chest beating support...or try to!!

I very much doubt that to be honest. Not in this timeframe anyway.

Edited March 17, 2017 by PieFacE

[markavfc40]

12 hours ago, Genie said:

I thought she said by the end of '18 / start of '19 which we'd still all be in the EU and not have finalised any deal.

David Davis told a scrutiny committee a couple of days ago that negotiations would need to be complete within in 18 months to allow time for the individual countries to vote on any deal in their parliaments.

It seems that the SNP saying a new ref should be held in around 18 months/2 years seems reasonable given that the Brexit minister has stated by this time they will have completed negotiations so we, including the Scots, will know what we are heading into post Brexit.  That being the case the Scots would go to the voting booth with far greater knowledge of what they are voting for than the UK did as a whole on June 23rd 2016. 

[Awol]

11 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

David Davis told a scrutiny committee a couple of days ago that negotiations would need to be complete within in 18 months to allow time for the individual countries to vote on any deal in their parliaments.

It seems that the SNP saying a new ref should be held in around 18 months/2 years seems reasonable given that the Brexit minister has stated by this time they will have completed negotiations so we, including the Scots, will know what we are heading into post Brexit.  That being the case the Scots would go to the voting booth with far greater knowledge of what they are voting for than the UK did as a whole on June 23rd 2016. 

Q: Given the unarguable fact that Scotland will have to leave the EU with the rest of the UK regardless of any referendum result, how is it better for the Scottish people to vote based on what the final deal could look like rather than what the final deal is? 

[Genie]

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

But but the North Sea oil.... 

Sshhhh Donald Trump might be listening.

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Sshhhh Donald Trump might be listening.

The golf course is really just a directional drilling pad. GCHQ told me - via Fox News.. and Sean Spicer.

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

Q: Given the unarguable fact that Scotland will have to leave the EU with the rest of the UK regardless of any referendum result, how is it better for the Scottish people to vote based on what the final deal could look like rather than what the final deal is? 

Here's why:

As Mark says, the 18 ish months from now time frame is when the deal will be going to the EU parliament to vote on (or reject), so the thing, if it goes as the Tories suggest will be pretty much settled. AT that point the Jocks can do their Indie vote having a good view of the situation.

We know that the Jocks want to stay in - they want the EU deal we have now, as members, and if they're forced out they want back in as soon as possible.

On that basis having the vote at the SNP's choice of timing gives them a good few months head start to instigate getting back in. It's also the case, they'd suggest, that if they've voted to leave the UK and their Go't asks the EU "can we stay in please, we're about to become Independent of the UK" that their application to stay in will be considered more practical than it was when they did the same thing a couple of months ago.

I'm not saying they'll get what they want, but there's a logic to it

[snowychap]

50 minutes ago, Awol said:

Q: Given the unarguable fact that Scotland will have to leave the EU with the rest of the UK regardless of any referendum result, how is it better for the Scottish people to vote based on what the final deal could look like rather than what the final deal is? 

So you're of the opinion that May's 'deal/no deal' claim, i.e. that it's what they come up with at the end of the negotiation (and is what is put to the various individual countries but perhaps not the UK parliament) or nothing, is a load of cobblers?

Edited March 17, 2017 by snowychap

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

So you're of the opinion that May's 'deal/no deal' claim, i.e. that it's what they come up with at the end of the negotiation (and is what is put to the various individual countries but perhaps not the UK parliament) or nothing, is a load of cobblers?

No I think it will be a deal or no deal scenario, but the negotiations will be ongoing right down to the wire. If that leaves no time for ratification I think they'll agree unanimously to extend the deadline (as is allowed by A50) on the basis that rhetoric on both sides will have been replaced with a high degree of pragmatism - that's assuming no upsets in EU members national elections between now and then.

Could well be wrong, just how I can imagine things panning out towards the end.

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Q: Given the unarguable fact that Scotland will have to leave the EU with the rest of the UK regardless of any referendum result, how is it better for the Scottish people to vote based on what the final deal could look like rather than what the final deal is? 

@Awol See Pete's answer mate a couple of posts above. He saved me the trouble.

[snowychap]

9 minutes ago, Awol said:

No I think it will be a deal or no deal scenario, but the negotiations will be ongoing right down to the wire. If that leaves no time for ratification I think they'll agree unanimously to extend the deadline (as is allowed by A50) on the basis that rhetoric on both sides will have been replaced with a high degree of pragmatism - that's assuming no upsets in EU members national elections between now and then.

Could well be wrong, just how I can imagine things panning out towards the end.

You may be right.

If that happens, though, after both sides have said that they want and expect (have almost promised?) the negotiations to be wrapped up with six months to spare then it surely won't be seen as anything else other than an utter shit show and could have May looking like the worst Prime Minister since, well, the last one.

Edited March 17, 2017 by snowychap

[Awol]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

Here's why:

As Mark says, the 18 ish months from now time frame is when the deal will be going to the EU parliament to vote on (or reject), so the thing, if it goes as the Tories suggest will be pretty much settled. AT that point the Jocks can do their Indie vote having a good view of the situation.

We know that the Jocks want to stay in - they want the EU deal we have now, as members, and if they're forced out they want back in as soon as possible.

On that basis having the vote at the SNP's choice of timing gives them a good few months head start to instigate getting back in. It's also the case, they'd suggest, that if they've voted to leave the UK and their Go't asks the EU "can we stay in please, we're about to become Independent of the UK" that their application to stay in will be considered more practical than it was when they did the same thing a couple of months ago.

I'm not saying they'll get what they want, but there's a logic to it

Of course, if the UK Gov is trying to negotiate with Brussels while Nicola Krankie is using every Brussels leak to the press as ammo to undermine the UK position from behind, then we'll all inevitably end up in a weaker negotiating position, probably achieve less than we could have otherwise done & thereby increase her chances in indyref2. It is logical from her party political perspective, not so for the Scottish electorate. 

If Scotland is hell bent on independence (and it doesn't appear to be at the moment) then they can do it once the UK has finished the business of Brexit. That's pretty much what she's been told and I can't imagine that changing.

 

 

 

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You may be right.

If that happens, though, after both sides have said that they want and expect (have almost promised?) the negotiations to be wrapped up with six months to spare then it surely won't be seen as anything else other than an utter shit show and could have May looking like the worst Prime Minister since, well, the last one.

Not really, almost everyone outside the direct participants  has said 2 years is a ludicrous timetable, it's just what was written into the Treaty of Lisbon. 

The EU can't very well say any different without admitting they made rubbish law in the Treaty and equally London has no option but to go along with it.

FWIW I reckon it'll either fall apart very quickly if the EU insist on this ludicrous exit bill (not the principle of ongoing liabilities but the numbers being proposed) or it'll stretch on a little further than 2 years as all sides realise the importance of getting it right. 

There'll likely be more than a few career casualties along the route from both sides. Whether that includes Mrs May remains to be seen! 

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

Not really, almost everyone outside the direct participants  has said 2 years is a ludicrous timetable, it's just what was written into the Treaty of Lisbon.

Whilst that seems very likely to everyone other than the parties involved, it is what they've been telling us. I can't see that changing up until the day when it does (i.e. probably 31st October 2018) and from then on it'll be questions of 'when will the deal be done' and answers of 'no running commentary' again from May and Davis for what will be, again, an unspecified length of time only I doubt they'll be given the same leeway that they have over the schedule for article 50 invocation.

I can't see that satisfying any of the different groups back home in her party from the euroscpetics on her backbenches to the europhiles elsewhere.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Of course, if the UK Gov is trying to negotiate with Brussels while Nicola Krankie is using every Brussels leak to the press as ammo to undermine the UK position from behind, then we'll all inevitably end up in a weaker negotiating position,

Could you give me a hypothetical, to illustrate your point, please? Cus I'm struggling.

[HanoiVillan]

5 hours ago, RimmyJimmer said:

Xenophobic remainers, and very bitter! What do the english want?....we want the opposite.

With the best will in the world, you don't seem to understand what 'xenophobia' means. 

[tinker]

Spain, for one, would veto Scotland joining the EU for years to come. What if the Shetland Isles decide they want independence from Scotland? That would remove the Oil resources from Scotland's tax income. Can't believe the timing of her tbh, its poor to say the least but maybe she is trying to minimise the damage that Brexit is going to cause us.

[MakemineVanilla]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

With the best will in the world, you don't seem to understand what 'xenophobia' means. 

Xenophobic is probably the wrong word.

Ethnocentric or racist would probably be more accurate.

 

[tonyh29]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

We know that the Jocks want to stay in

well yes , with a but  .....  we know they voted remain in the referendum , however at that point they would have been part of the UK (assuming we had voted remain) and nothing really would have changed .

Now they would be voting to join an EU , an EU that by it's own rules will insist they get their GDP deficit down from 9% to 3% ( presumably this would be achieved through austerity ?), insist they sign up to take the Euro  ..as well as who knows what other criteria ,  it's believed it could be 2023 be fore they join , what happens in the meantime ?

on that basis the jocks might not actually want to stay in / re-join  .. I recall reading some time back that by and large the jocks want to keep the £ and don't want to join the Euro ? ( assuming of course they are allowed to keep the £ as even that seems contentious ? )

Would be interested to see if the SNP gave the people a vote on joining the EU after any independence win  , as surely the conditions will have changed (as per the SNP argument now)

yeah a lot of speculation in there , but then that's all anyone can kinda do at this stage 

[TrentVilla]

Is it me or is a fairly fundamental point being largely ignored.

Scotland wouldn't and couldn't meet the conditions of entry to the EU.

The whole debate is irrelevant, Scotland is leaving the EU and even if they vote to leave the U.K. that isn't going to change.

All this noise by the SNP is really about getting another shot at the independence their own people rejected and hiding that behind a debate about the EU.

They had their vote, they made their choice. Then the UK had its vote and made its choice.

By definition the Scottish people opted to be part of the wider U.K. vote and therefore subject to decisions made.

It is utterly ridiculous that the SNP think this gives them a legitimate right to another referendum. Are they going to have one every time the Government does something they don't like? 

They rejected the chance, one has to imagine in no small part because of concerns about their inability to be financially self sufficient. (Despite the never ending pot of gold in the North Sea)

Since that time due to the drop in oil prices Scotland is even less likely to be able to be self sufficient. And that is before having to make the sort of changes they would need to make to re-join the EU.

This whole thing is utterly utterly ridiculous.

 

[snowychap]

39 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

It is utterly ridiculous that the SNP think this gives them a legitimate right to another referendum.

They stood, in the last Scottish Elections, on a platform that said:

Quote

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.

As such, it would seem that they ought to at least ask for one in order to satisfy some/most of the people who voted for them.

Edited March 17, 2017 by snowychap