Scotland And Independence.

[apelike 10]

3 hours ago, altus said:

That would depend on what sort of leave deal was negotiated.

I agree and that is also something that others on here should take note of.

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

The lack of khaki and blue stuff is really hampering Ireland's development and diplomatic influence

True but Janus never mentioned anything about the development or diplomatic influence of Scotland?  He asked if the UK would be weaker militarily if Scotland left the EU. 

[iansheff 88]

1 hour ago, Baron99 said:

I've not seen or HEARD him in the past month or so outside Westminster, kind of missing him.  Wonder if he has any regrets about wasting the last 3 & half years of his life? 

 

A tv company aught to interview him & ask. 

I was reading about him yesterday, it said he had been away in wales, he stood in the election for the LibDems,  and got 949 votes.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/stop-brexit-man-refuses-quit-21103531

Edited December 16, 2019 by iansheff

[hauxwell 243]

If Scotland does get independence and joins the EU, the EU might have there own army up and running by then, they keep talking about creating one. 

If the Government wants to bring its nuclear fleet where I live near the River Tyne

I don’t mind. 

 

 

[Waldo 96]

14 hours ago, L00b said:

Until there was a 'material change' to Scotland under the status quo decided by IndyRef1.

Thank you LOOb.

 

I'm curious; was that actually written down somewhere in some kind of legal document linked to the referendum? Or was it just something verbalised by politicians?

[L00b 441]

11 hours ago, apelike said:

True but Janus never mentioned anything about the development or diplomatic influence of Scotland?  He asked if the UK would be weaker militarily if Scotland left the EU. 

But you made the argument in post #55 -to which I was replying- that Scotland would weaker, because it would have no military.

 

So does Ireland, and yet it's wielded a pretty big stick in the Brexit negotiations so far - arguably a bigger one than the UK (not the only example of Irish soft power projection by far).

 

Can you stop shifting the goalposts a bit? Please.

 

So, to get back at Janus question, you don't think that the UK losing 'ownership' and sovereign jurisdiction over  e.g. Faslane, not to mention potentially lose a portion of its MoD budget to a foreign country by way of lease payments (or functional equivalent, e.g. proxy 'Scottish' military) would weaken it militarily?

 

Dunno about you, but a loss of asset(s) and/or control over them, strikes me pretty much as a weakening development.

9 hours ago, Waldo said:

Thank you LOOb.

 

I'm curious; was that actually written down somewhere in some kind of legal document linked to the referendum? Or was it just something verbalised by politicians?

It's been an SNP manifesto pledge ever since Indyref1. To my knowledge there is no legal document that followed IndyRef1, which specifically provides for a further Indyref (and reciprocally, which bars a further Indyref), under this test or another.

 

But legally speaking, the Scots don't need Westminster say-so: they can run Indyref2 as an advisory ref (remember those?  ), which is outside the scope of Section 30 Scotland Act '98, and then declare independance the day after (subject to ref result) under the Sewel Convention, leaving the ball in Westminster's court to either assent or subjugate the will of the Scottish people 

 

It's just that the SNP want to cross all the t's and dot all the i's about it, under UK due process (ie get Westminster's approval under Section 30 first, so that Indyref2 is binding). For now, still.

Edited December 17, 2019 by L00b

[Waldo 96]

On 17/12/2019 at 07:58, L00b said:

To my knowledge there is no legal document that followed IndyRef1, which specifically provides for a further Indyref (and reciprocally, which bars a further Indyref), under this test or another.

 

But legally speaking, the Scots don't need Westminster say-so: they can run Indyref2 as an advisory ref (remember those?  ), which is outside the scope of Section 30 Scotland Act '98, and then declare independance the day after (subject to ref result) under the Sewel Convention, leaving the ball in Westminster's court to either assent or subjugate the will of the Scottish people 

 

It's just that the SNP want to cross all the t's and dot all the i's about it, under UK due process (ie get Westminster's approval under Section 30 first, so that Indyref2 is binding). For now, still.

Thank you L00b.

 

It should have been super clear, what 'no' means, and what specific legally binding conditions would be required (or elapsed time) before a second referendum to could take place.

 

Without such clearly defined parameters, a 'no' result is pretty meaningless, because the politicians can always keep running more and more referendums; until they get the result they do want. Of course, once they get a 'yes' answer, they don't need to keep asking the question, and also a 'yes' is going to be something that's much harder to reverse a few years down the line.

 

In fact, to my mind, all referendums should be super clear re: what all available options entail. Running a referendum and then once the result is in, deciding what it means, is shady as hell.

[Westie1889 0]

I read recently that Sturgeon was at loggerheads with some in her party over Faslane as she was now in favour of allowing it to stay post-independence. She wants to remain part of NATO and is unlikely to be able to if she makes the subs to move to the South coast which is the only viable place for a new base.

All my family are Scottish and a large part of the independence movement is purely about being anti-English, racism pure and simple.

They think they are a special case and that everything bad is ‘done’ to them by the English, when in fact they are no different to any other ex-industrial area in the wider UK.
In some ways I hope they go and suffer the consequences which will be dire economically.

Their budget deficit currently 7% and needs to be 3% or below to join the E.U - more austerity anyone?

Big oil profits are finished - £243m the year after the last vote against their estimate at the time of the vote of £16 billion. This difference in percentage terms would have required a bigger reduction in government spending than Greece suffered in the Euro crisis.

The numbers just don’t stack-up, yes they would survive but as a much poorer country.

My dad once said something I think could come true, he felt the Scottish would never actually vote for independence but the SNP are trying to p**s the rest of the UK off that much that they tell them to get lost - I think he may have a point.

 

Getting bored of hearing Sturgeon bleat on all the time, it’s the same population as Yorkshire ffs!

 

 

[Baron99 794]

15 minutes ago, Westie1889 said:

I read recently that Sturgeon was at loggerheads with some in her party over Faslane as she was now in favour of allowing it to stay post-independence. She wants to remain part of NATO and is unlikely to be able to if she makes the subs to move to the South coast which is the only viable place for a new base.

All my family are Scottish and a large part of the independence movement is purely about being anti-English, racism pure and simple.

They think they are a special case and that everything bad is ‘done’ to them by the English, when in fact they are no different to any other ex-industrial area in the wider UK.
In some ways I hope they go and suffer the consequences which will be dire economically.

Their budget deficit currently 7% and needs to be 3% or below to join the E.U - more austerity anyone?

Big oil profits are finished - £243m the year after the last vote against their estimate at the time of the vote of £16 billion. This difference in percentage terms would have required a bigger reduction in government spending than Greece suffered in the Euro crisis.

The numbers just don’t stack-up, yes they would survive but as a much poorer country.

My dad once said something I think could come true, he felt the Scottish would never actually vote for independence but the SNP are trying to p**s the rest of the UK off that much that they tell them to get lost - I think he may have a point.

 

Getting bored of hearing Sturgeon bleat on all the time, it’s the same population as Yorkshire ffs!

 

 

I've got Scottish heritage via my dad's side & still have plenty of relatives in swayth across the central belt from Glasgow over to Edinburgh & Stirling. 

 

I find that those on the west coast, mainly descendants of Irish immigrants, (my mother's side), predominantly favour being part of a bigger Union, while those of long standing Scottish heritage in Edinburgh & Stirling favour independence. 

[Janus 28]

55 minutes ago, Westie1889 said:

All my family are Scottish and a large part of the independence movement is purely about being anti-English, racism pure and simple.

I hear what you are saying. 

 

I'm quite curious to know why Nicola Sturgeon seems to be so vociferous about the indyref2?  It does not sound like she is on the fence-it seems very personal to her. In 2014, I understand that over 55%  of the Scotttish people voted  against independence. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[apelike 10]

On 17/12/2019 at 07:58, L00b said:

But you made the argument in post #55 -to which I was replying- that Scotland would weaker, because it would have no military.

True I did as Scotland would be weaker militarily.

 

Quote

So does Ireland, and yet it's wielded a pretty big stick in the Brexit negotiations so far - arguably a bigger one than the UK (not the only example of Irish soft power projection by far).

 

Can you stop shifting the goalposts a bit? Please.

You have now introduced Ireland into the debate, which is immaterial as it does not matter how Ireland are doing only whether Scotland would be weaker by having no military. So who has moved the goalposts! 

 

Quote

So, to get back at Janus question, you don't think that the UK losing 'ownership' and sovereign jurisdiction over  e.g. Faslane, not to mention potentially lose a portion of its MoD budget to a foreign country by way of lease payments (or functional equivalent, e.g. proxy 'Scottish' military) would weaken it militarily?

As already stated that would obviously depend on the Sovereign negotiations that would need to take place between the government of the UK and Scotland for independence to proceed. A bit like what is happening with the UK and the EU over Brexit as plenty of negotiations will be needed.

 

Quote

Dunno about you, but a loss of asset(s) and/or control over them, strikes me pretty much as a weakening development.

As above as we don't know at this time what assets will be lost or kept by the UK.

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by apelike

[Westie1889 0]

7 hours ago, Janus said:

I hear what you are saying. 

 

I'm quite curious to know why Nicola Sturgeon seems to be so vociferous about the indyref2?  It does not sound like she is on the fence-it seems very personal to her. In 2014, I understand that over 55%  of the Scotttish people voted  against independence. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Janus said:

I hear what you are saying. 

 

I'm quite curious to know why Nicola Sturgeon seems to be so vociferous about the indyref2?  It does not sound like she is on the fence-it seems very personal to her. In 2014, I understand that over 55%  of the Scotttish people voted  against independence. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Sturgeons personal motivation is more political than anti-English, she was a lawyer working in poor areas and believes socialism is the answer to cure all ills.

Alex Salmond was different, there is the famous story about when he was at university and had an  English girlfriend at the time. He was constantly criticising the English so she said to him ‘if you hate them that much why don’t you join the SNP’ and the rest is history.