It really isn't perfect. The two referendums were hugely disruptive and very costly. Plenty of people North and South are sick of referendums.
Scottish Politics
- Thread starter Cheesy
- Start date
It really isn't perfect. The two referendums were hugely disruptive and very costly. Plenty of people North and South are sick of referendums.
The issue was the time, which is IMO pretty perfect, i.e. Surgeon seeks a date between fall 2018 and spring 2019 when the terms of the deal will be pretty clear.
Westminster don't bother acting devisive and exemplifying hypocrisy these days and therefore, I fully understand why Scots/the SNP seek another independence referendum, It is irrelevant if people in the South are fed up with referendums: It only matters whether or not Scots are.
If a majority of voters in a (potential) 2nd referendum wants to remain in the UK, so be it. If a majority wants to be independent, so be it. Give them the choice now where the context has totally changed and Westminster put hard Brexit over UK unity.
You probably need a bit more patience than Sturgeon appears to be showing.
I suppose it depends on when the referendum takes place and, if the Nats win, when you'll declare your own Art 50 to leave the UK.
It would be a bit stupid if the rest of the UK eventually does a deal with the EU and Scotland is already in the process of leaving the UK so is then left outside both the UK and EU without access to either market.
The referendum isn't likely to happen. The smart money is on the SNP looking for more concessions and failing that the likelihood of Westminster granting a second referendum is slim.
I said 'North and South' because I heard Scottish people saying they have had enough of referendums too. Indyref was hugely divisive in Scotland.
It gives her 18 months to sketch out a post independence relationship with the EU, and then present that as an alternative to the UK's settlement
Agreed, and I think that'd be Sturgeon's preference too. The political landscape, and her party, have forced her hand I feel.
Yes, it was hugely divisive and given that any result is likely to be a narrow majority in either direction, a second ref will not heal those divisions.
I heard one chap say 'families don't speak anymore' because of it!
Wouldn't surprise me. There's a general generational divide (old:No, Young:Yes) and also the "how can you be of the left and vote for nationalism" debate which can get pretty heated in my experience. Politics doesn't seem very civilised anymore, and binary referendums don't help with nuance in debate.
Most of their business is with the EU, as is consistent with the rest of the British economy. Talk of 'Brexit' has already harmed the British financial sector with the first businesses already relocating to the EU
What are you on about?
It really, really wasn't, to be honest. For the most part people have just sort of gotten on with things and any division has been fairly minimal, and all in rather good spirits - it caused very little violence, and I've certainly never fallen out with anyone over it. Contrasted to division over Trump in America it's pretty much non-existent.
Every argument that is made with regards to Scotland staying in the UK applies to Brexit. Yet you'll have leavers then arguing for remain in this case
Sorry but the division caused by a referendum, whether #indyref1 or Brexit, didn't stop them from happening in the past and won't in the future, neither in the UK or elsewhere.
I'm not so sure that a referendum is off the table. If it isn't granted, I don't expect Sturgeon/ SNP just sitting back saying 'fine with us, it was just an innocent try'. In case it is granted, however, I'm pretty certain voter turnout will be high enough to get a valid result, which is all what matters.
I am just repeating what I have heard some Scots say, anecdotal I know.
I could say the same about Brexit though, in my sphere life has gone on as normal.
Fair enough. I posted that as reasons why it would be better for England if Scotland left though.
And what will they do exactly? They are only calling this because May has completely ignored them since Brexit.
I found it to get quite heated to be honest, but relative to subsequent events (Brexit & Trump) it seems minor I guess.
On the brightside, imagine how bad it would've been had Miliband won
The divisive nature of the last indyref was all online really. Both sides were really pathetic.
Fair play.
Hope Scotland leaves. As a history enthusiast, I've always wondered what it would be like to see the Kingdom of England. We just need a few old diseases to make a comeback and we're set.
I guess we all have to wait and see. Nevertheless Sturgeon wouldn't be Sturgeon and the SNP not the SNP if they accept a NO from Westminster and obediently knuckle down to die-hard-Brexit-seekers like May, Johnson et al.
What happens to the armed forces if Scotland splits off from the UK? How many of the nuclear subs do they get to keep?
SNP are anti-nuclear, so we'll keep them all down South I'd imagine.
Won't somebody think of the subs!
Gove.
Someone mentioned Michael Gove, so...
Never seen someone that looks more like a cnut.
What about Wales and NI?
They get a warhead a day till they sign over all the oil
Worth noting this is all happening with the council elections just a couple of months away.
I think this was one of the biggest stumbling blocks in the last one. But my understanding is that provided Scotland separated from rUK by constitutionally legal means with the full agreement of Westminster, Spain would not and could not veto its joining the EU. What Spain won't accept is secession of any kind.
Scotland, once independent, would have to go through the precedures for joining the EU, which could take some years or maybe fast-tracked if the other member states deem it appropriate, which is not something we can determine yet. The attitude of other member states may change after Article 50 has been activated.
Spain is the obvious country to veto its membership, but it didn't veto Slovakia or the Czech Republic, because of the above conditions, I imagine. Spain will also put the status of Gibraltar on the table. After March, it is out of the EU too and Spain plans to allow it to remain provided there is joint-sovereignty .
Finally, it's not at all clear what sort of EU there will be by the time Scotland qualifies for membership with a two-speed Europe being one of the possibilties. What status would Scotland settle for ?
That would be interesting
Presumably that would require another referendum in Gibraltar
But presuming Gibraltar voted for joint sovereignty and say HSBC said right our Gibraltar branch is now our head office does the bank have its eu financial services passport...
The more I think of the what ifs the more I am convinced any meaningful deal will take more than 2 years
Northern Ireland becomes a part of the Republic and - whisper it quietly - Wales was actually a part of the Kingdom of England in the past. Poor Welsh.
Depressing.
M
And the Foreign Minister, Margallo, said that after article 50, the world changes. Hmm ?
Yes, it's going to be interesting. A few months ago there was a bit of a spat between the Spanish foriegn minister and the PM of Gibraltar. "You'll never put your hands on Gibraltar" said the PM. "No, but I'll put the Spanish flag on it soon" the FM retorted.
And the Foreign Minister, Margallo, said that after article 50, the world changes. Hmm ?
Last edited:
The Scottish Executive must not be allowed to go forward with a referendum. Cameron should have ensured after the last one that it could never happen again, and this could have been achieved with the right constitutional amendments. Many countries protect themselves from unilateral independence declarations by making such things illegal/unconstitutional, and this makes total sense. The democratic nation state is the most basic and strongest unit of international politics and law - it should not be allowed to be broken up by regional separatists acting on their own accord. It's fecking ridiculous that we are possibly going to be in this nonsense situation once again.
For as long as a party promising independence has power in Scotland there is a mandate for a referendum, in my view.
That said, I'm not convinced this is a wise decision by the SNP leadership.
That said, I'm not convinced this is a wise decision by the SNP leadership.
That was never going to work because doing so, effectively killing of Scottish independence for good while support was incredibly strong, would've prompted outrage: the SNP were able to win almost every seat on the back of us just not liking the parties on offer at Westminster all too much. Imagine what'd have happened if they tried to block it from ever changing?
You're acting as if democratic nations never change. They do. Britain has done so since the forming of the union in 1707, adding Ireland, and then seceding part of it and retaining Northern Ireland. They add and secede territory, and have been doing so for centuries. Thankfully we're in an age now where it can be done, for the most part, in relative peace.
The SNP aren't just acting on their own accord; they were democratically elected to Holyrood with a manifesto commitment to pursue independence if there was a material change to their status, which has happened with Brexit. People weren't put off by that, and voted for it. Likewise, plenty voted for the Scottish Greens which means there is a democratically elected majority who support independence in Holyrood as a whole. The UK government, if they wish, are more than entitled to strike that down and not give us another vote, because it's been less than four years since the previous one, but it's not anti-democratic for the SNP to pursue a vote, and this idea that nation states are continuous, unchanging entities that never add or secede territory is a bit silly.
I can see Theresa may offering a referendum post article 50... Autumn 2019... Get rid of the jock mps before the next election