Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  
Results 1 to 20 of 119

Thread: Scexit UK

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North Shields
    Posts
    2,186

    Default Scexit UK

    Here we go yet again, personally, I think the whole of the UK should have a vote in this saga of Scottish independence and settle the subject for good, I think England's public would be pleased to vote and I fear the vote would be good riddance as they must be sick of hearing the old bleats of indignation that come out of Scotland on most if not all subjects that arise regarding anything political regarding the UK, the threats of leaving do not instill fears South of the order and why should they ?, the submarine saga I suppose will come up but what the hell just move it or scrap it and there is not many levers left for the SNP to pull as the oil is near finished and apparently there is loads in the south of England as that report in the summer stated along with shale gas.

    So yes go for the referendum and give the whole of the Uk a vote on the outcome and have final democratic decision for once, but have the wording agreed so no wriggle room at all, as appears there's believed to be with the Brexit carry on.
    Hating people because of their colour is wrong. And it doesn't matter which colour does the hating. It's just plain wrong.
    Muhammad Ali

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Strathy
    Posts
    4,234

    Default

    As long as they say it's "once in a generation" let's go for it!
    "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."

  3. #3

    Default

    She's playing to the gallery, its a draft bill to see if the bill's contents and tory hard brexiteers will push leavers into a majortiy.... then she makes her move...providing May sanctions an indyref vote and her stance is simple, in 2014 a majority voted to stay in the UK and in 2016 a majority in the UK voted to leave EU, so cant see Sturgeon being granted an indyerf2 ? If rUK were involved in an indy2 ref vote they would undoubtedly vote us out the UK..on a good riddance to irritations basis.

  4. #4

    Default

    She must be at a loose end. Snoopy's whole purpose is cutting the kingdom in half: they are a one-issue pressure group, but now they find themselves in government expected actually to take some responsibility for normal things, which is a distraction. What else can she do? It's as if a "Stop the Windfarms" group found itself running the council, and tried to turn every report on road junctions and bin collections into a wind turbine protest.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob murray View Post
    She's playing to the gallery, its a draft bill to see if the bill's contents and tory hard brexiteers will push leavers into a majortiy.... then she makes her move...providing May sanctions an indyref vote and her stance is simple, in 2014 a majority voted to stay in the UK and in 2016 a majority in the UK voted to leave EU, so cant see Sturgeon being granted an indyerf2 ? If rUK were involved in an indy2 ref vote they would undoubtedly vote us out the UK..on a good riddance to irritations basis.

    Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they?

  6. #6

    Default

    Here we go again.Family against family, wounds that have not healed from the last time vitriolic abuse aimed at people who dont agree with the SNP view, childrens flags taken from the front of houses and destroyed.Why not just concentrate on getting Scotland right and tight,wait and see if BREXIT works and if not then think about an Indyref.Nicola work for all of us not just yourself

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oddquine View Post
    Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they?
    Its all bluster, Consultation on a draft bill does not in any way mean that a second vote is going to happen any time soon :

    1 WE dont know what Bexit will look ilke and how it will impact upon Scotland
    2 AT last indy vote majority voted to stay in UK... thats democracy
    3 May represents the UK as a whole and Scotland voted to stay part of UK so she will undoubtedly proceed on that basis and any indy situation has to be sanctioned by Westminster or at least thats how I understand it / UDI its a simple as that eh ? What about exiting the UK, divving up debts etc you cant just walk away international capital markets would treat a UDI Scotland as a pariah nation and wont lend or lend at extortionate rates. UDI... the last desparet suggestion by fanatics.
    4 If May knocked back indy2 then she will have right on her side, unless SNP can demonstrable prove a proven appetite and desire to split from UK and that has to come from all not just the SNP
    5 Its all bluff anyway, Sturgeon as polls stand cant do anything until we fully know what Brexit means ( polls arent on her side, call a vote and lose and she is finished like Salmon ) and if the majority of Scots eventually find it unpalatable that will take time so perhaps indy 2 by 2020 2021 at earliest if sanctioned e a serious issue to progress as it stands she is only talking for SNP not Scotland as a whole
    6 The former soviet union was reknown for centralised control...remind you of anyone / any party ?

    Its all speculation, Sturgeons statement yesterday doesn't really mean anything, just rabble rousing for the faithful. we dont have Brexit details neither do the SNP so they can only speculate scenarios. Indy carping just shows the SNP to be a single issue party, they wont let it go eh ?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob murray View Post
    Its all bluster, Consultation on a draft bill does not in any way mean that a second vote is going to happen any time soon :

    1 WE dont know what Bexit will look ilke and how it will impact upon Scotland
    2 AT last indy vote majority voted to stay in UK... thats democracy
    3 May represents the UK as a whole and Scotland voted to stay part of UK so she will undoubtedly proceed on that basis and any indy situation has to be sanctioned by Westminster or at least thats how I understand it / UDI its a simple as that eh ? What about exiting the UK, divving up debts etc you cant just walk away international capital markets would treat a UDI Scotland as a pariah nation and wont lend or lend at extortionate rates. UDI... the last desparet suggestion by fanatics.
    4 If May knocked back indy2 then she will have right on her side, unless SNP can demonstrable prove a proven appetite and desire to split from UK and that has to come from all not just the SNP
    5 Its all bluff anyway, Sturgeon as polls stand cant do anything until we fully know what Brexit means ( polls arent on her side, call a vote and lose and she is finished like Salmon ) and if the majority of Scots eventually find it unpalatable that will take time so perhaps indy 2 by 2020 2021 at earliest if sanctioned e a serious issue to progress as it stands she is only talking for SNP not Scotland as a whole
    6 The former soviet union was reknown for centralised control...remind you of anyone / any party ?

    Its all speculation, Sturgeons statement yesterday doesn't really mean anything, just rabble rousing for the faithful. we dont have Brexit details neither do the SNP so they can only speculate scenarios. Indy carping just shows the SNP to be a single issue party, they wont let it go eh ?
    Well duh, Rob....like the Boy Scouts, she is being prepared. A bill doesn't just get magicked out of thin air at a moment's notice,

    1)She has not said there will be an indy referendum before she sees how Brexit will impact on Scotland. She is certainly not saying it will be tomorrow or the next day or next month or next year..or even the next one....just that the option is there if it becomes necessary....and however much you object...she has been elected to make the decision as to what necessary means....that is democracy. It won't become necessary in the short term (ie in this Parliament) if May does sensible.

    2) At this Brexit vote an even bigger majority of Scots who voted voted to remain in the EU, compared to the indyref result.....is that not also democracy. Just think, Rob.... if the UK Government decided to let the whole UK vote in the next Scottish Referendum, and the only country/region to vote for Scottish Independence, by a big, even overwhelming, majority, was the Scots...would you be ignoring that result and refusing independence, because it is "democracy"?

    3) May does not represent the UK as a whole, and she doesn't even try.....she represents right-wing UK on a much smaller, and more polarised to specific areas, popular vote than than the SNP got in Scotland. And no Unionist Westminster government has ever represented me, because I have never voted for any one of them in my 50 years of voting.

    Let's be honest, if any political party in the UK tries to represent the whole population, it is the SNP.....because they HAVE to....as the second aim in their two aim constitution is the furtherance of all Scottish interests. If they are perceived to fail to do that, it harms their main aim. The others only need worry about furthering the interests of those who bank-roll them and those who vote for them, so all they really do in elections is produce policies to attract (or at least not scare away) the swing voters in around 29 constituencies(mostly the ones which are being checked out by the police for election fraud, in fact), while keeping their core support onside. The SNP, on the other hand, don't have the luxury of only talking to the converted.

    I dunno about problems with UDI....the Republic of Ireland managed it...and without a majority democratic vote ....and without taking any UK debt. It isn't my favoured option, but is definitely the option of last resort. A Declaration of UDI does not mean negotiations about division of assets and liabilities don't take place.....it just means they take place after the declaration and not before it. Anyway, we'd likely be OK without a share of UK debt and assets.....because what we'd need to set us up would cost us a lot less than our share of UK debt, given we have much of the infrastructure already in place..and we'd probably have no problem with foregoing assets as long as the rUK pays public and private pensions until nobody is left alive who has paid anything into the UK Treasury (that's a really big black hole right there for the UK if it is required to find it all at once) That would save us a whack over around 40 years. .

    4) She may have that right, but would she be so stupid...after all, everybody who voted for the SNP and pro-indy party's knew the indy2 possibility existed, (apart from the clue in the Party name, and constitution).....it was in their manifesto, loudly and clearly....and they were still elected on 46.5% of the popular vote in constituencies, compared to the Tories in England who had a mandate from only 38.6% of the whole UK electorate to hold the Brexit referendum.

    Of course, The SG could always have an advisory referendum to prove there is a desire for independence...couldn't they? Afaik, Thatcher said (when she thought it would never happen) that if we ever had a majority of SNP MPs in parliament, we didn't need a referendum. If we had believed that the way you lot believe Alex Salmond spoke for the SNP and all pro-indy people when he gave his personal opinion that the indyref was a once in a lifetime occurrence, we'd have declared UDI after the 2015 GE....but we're not daft enough to think a throw-away remark by even the head of a government is agreed policy.

    5) Is it all bluff anyway? I do agree she has to see which way the wind blows....which is why she has set out red lines...did you notice them? They are actually quite reasonable and surmountable lines....but I suspect she does not really expect any Westminster Government, which knocked back 120 reasonable amendments to the Scotland Act 2016, supported by every Scottish MP bar Mundell, to do reasonable. (If as May says, she is triggering a hard Brexit in March 2017, I suspect an indyref will be towards the end of 2018 to be within the window before the UK is formally out of the EU.....but if she plays sensible and guarantees Scotland gets what the SG thinks will help Scotland weather the fall-out, that would probably put an indyref back....until May emulates Cameron and fails to deliver)

    6) I was thinking more of the Soviet Union sending in the tanks, tbh (though I was only kidding)...after all the UK doesn't have enough tanks any more to send them into the streets of Glasgow again to threaten the Scots who have unwelcome opinions.

    6a)You are always harping on about central control...but what you always seem to forget is that it is very possible, if it is such anathema to the Scottish population, that it can vote the SNP out every four years.....and you also seem to forget that many who vote for the SNP are well aware that centralisation, while not ideal, is a way of reducing costs at the top (the most expensive ones) so the savings can be spent elsewhere .

    Can't say I have ever noticed you railing about the fact that the Scottish Police and Fire Service pay VAT while English equivalents do not, adding to their costs; Or commenting that centralisation of both in England has been mooted to save money (so maybe the idea wasn't all bad); Or that, despite Scotland pleading for the Foreign Student right to stay post graduation rules to be resurrected for Scotland. it has been resurrected....but only for Oxford, Cambridge , Bath and Imperial College London.....in a country which voted to leave the EU because there are too many foreigners....(go figure!) But, hey....Scotland can safely be ignored, can't it...we just roll over and take it, don't we?

    You know, Rob, the people who won't let it go are Unionists, not the SNP or even pro-indy people. On the day Nicola made one mention of independence in a FM questions.....Ruthie, Kez and Willie Rennie etc got five rants in about independence, and not a lot about what the SNP was doing in order to hold them to account. Sure we pro-indy people talk to each other on FB....but so do the Unionists on the same subject.

    If you check out this forum since the indyref....the majority of posts are by yourself and Better Together, or others who "came out" as no voters, either gloating about oil/Scottish finances etc or making remarks about the SNP on SNP BAD lines, and throwing independence into the mix just because you could. Most of us pro-indy people are getting on with just getting along......and we rarely initiate posts regarding independence,(because that is not a current issue)...or even the Westminster government on here. Count the posts....count the ones which didn't start as being anything about the SNP or independence, but ended up being about one, the other or both anyway......though I do have to admit that since the cutting the sock head off Better Together, there aren't as many as there used to be.

    Most of the "talk about independence" is us responding to unionists starting the conversation....so who is really "not letting it go"?
    Last edited by Oddquine; 16-Oct-16 at 02:18.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oddquine View Post
    Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they?
    what about “the initiative” to persuade No voters to vote Yes in the future, you know what the SNP said they were going to be doing over the summer...theres no initiative is there, rather "we" are being told what may or not may not happen regardless..a wholly desperate single issue undemocratic protest party, scots on the whole are canny ( economics and unanswered economic questions last time around resulted in a stay majority ) and if Im allowed to speculate I would imagine that the majority of Scots will wait to see how Brexit hits there pockets, if detrimental and negative and SNP can come out with solutions that negate this then I can see in time a swing to leave, but as it is, in turbulent times SNP are just adding more uncertainty and turmoil to the current situation and as poster says will once again raise vicious divisiveness in Scotland.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oddquine View Post
    Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they?

    Does the SNP government have the constitutional authority to call another independence referendum without the approval of Westminster.?
    The factual answer to that is ‘No’ as under the Scotland Act which established the Holyrood parliament the constitution is a matter reserved to Westminster.
    The last independence referendum was agreed by the Scottish and Westminster governments under the so-called ‘Edinburgh agreement’.
    Would the UK government give legislative blessing next time around? We don’t know. The UK government has so far said it does not support such a move.
    But if there was an overwhelming groundswell of opinion in favour of a second independence referendum they might be unwise to block it. Blocking it might play into the Nationalists’ hands....so Sturgeon is poker playing if she can get enough support for indy 2 ( and how does she prove this ? ) then if westminster blocked it that act would further add to leave vote, however the polls arent in her favour.

  11. #11

    Default

    The SNP need to concentrate on getting the NHS,Police .Fire and Rescue Service right and tight before she starts spending more of our budget on another Indyref or going on jollies around Europe try to gain favour with countries who will not help Scotland in any way as they have troubles of their own.
    In regards to Police Scotland have they paid the Massive tax bill that was spoken about after the SNP made it a national force or are the thousands of pounds owing been pushed under the carpet and hidden because it causes too many problems

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Strathy
    Posts
    4,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oddquine View Post
    Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they?

    "If that produced a majority for independence"
    - and what if it did not would that be 'once in a generation'? (Edinburgh agreement) or would it be the best of three?.. Time is running out for Sturgeon's minority government, and she knows it.. there is no way the fishing communities - for starters - would accept loosing their new fishing grounds which would be returned to them.. Independence from UK? then no way will it be the £Sterling (no Chancellor would not act as bail out)it's going to be the Euro.. what's the deficit? about 3% as it must be to join EU? hmmm.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVynXGj4eyA was quite interesting! AND: (BBC)
    Official Scottish government statistics showed the country spent £14.8bn more than it raised in taxes in 2015/16, including a share of North Sea revenue. That figure represented a 9.5% share of GDP, the report said - more than double the 4% figure for the UK as a whole.
    Last edited by bekisman; 15-Oct-16 at 19:46.
    "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •