We will soon get back to posting on issues of UK wide relevance when the A50 is issued
Sturgeon wants another referendum
- Thread starter blue cigar
- Start date
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
Good post. I've picked out this extract because I'm not familiar with the Islands situation. Any chance of a quick summary? And is it relevant to fishing as well as oil? Cheers in advance.
blue cigar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2005
- Messages
- 4,005
Magicpole must be a "true scot" then.
The snp dont even have a plan, they are all over the place with a currency. We'll use the euro, no we'll keep the pound even though ww cant keep the pound because its a uk currency! Its all right for you lot living outside scotland, you dont see the utter mess they are making up here.
The snp dont even have a plan, they are all over the place with a currency. We'll use the euro, no we'll keep the pound even though ww cant keep the pound because its a uk currency! Its all right for you lot living outside scotland, you dont see the utter mess they are making up here.
"What WILL happen though as a consequence of independence is that free University will be gone almost immediately. Public service investment will take a hit in numerous areas. Scotland won't become a wasteland but it will not be as well of for investment as it is today."
Of course this reality is simply avoided by the very same SNP champions that have been banging on about the austerity policies of recent years
Given the challenges that will need to be faced the years following independence will make the recent years seem like extreme largesse
Now - for those that have read that book - is extremely funny.
You have the comparison bang-on
The Islands have made murmurings about independence from Scotland if they vote Yes. To be honest those Islands are culturally distinct from Scotland in the same way that Scotland is culturally distinct from England. It was only relatively recently in historical terms that they became Scottish. Orkney was classed as part of Norway/Denmark for about 600 years until they were given to the Scots in the 15th century. The Shetlands have a similar history but with more rebellion and telling the Scots to piss off. Those people from the Northern Islands....I mean, I don't like sweeping generalisations as a rule but I don't think it's too much a stretch to suggest that being fiercely independent from the Scots is built into their culture a bit. They're a different breed up there. They're Scotland's Scotland for lack of a better term.
Anyway, the main proposal I've seen floated is that if IndyRef2 hits then the Northern and possibly even the Western Isles seek to leave Scotland and the join the UK under their own independent nation. The UK would plough through any problems here politically and make it happen due to the equidistance principle.
This is a way of drawing maritime borders especially where there's two islands and bit of important resource in the middle, essentially saying what's closer to me is mine and what's closer to you is yours.
The problem Scotland have is that if the Islands were part of the UK, the oil deposits that are a major part of the Scottish plan wouldn't all go to Scotland. Here's an image, imagine if those Islands to the North East of Scotland were in the UK and we used a "what's closer to us is ours" principle. It wouldn't strip Scotland of all of its oil, but would strip it of a significant amount of it.
Not just the Northern fields, but it would also dip into the ones of the East coast of Scotland too. So they'd go from the above (well everything North of the English border anyway), to something that looks like this:
Decent sized change IMO.
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
She could refuse, but she can't. Hiw can an unelected Prime Minister refuse an elected one who has a manifesto pledge to adhere to?
She won't refuse, she will try to set the timing but that again is a dangerous game and will play into the hands of proof that regardless what we vote for means nothing if Westminster doesn't agree.
The ref should be after the deal is known, which will obviously be before we actually leave in two years. To think that we will hang about a further two years is not going to happen.
Because politicians break manifesto promises all the time and she has no legal obligation to do anything.
It's not like Scotland are going to invade York or something. They have no recourse outside of the PM allowing them a vote which she can do today, tomorrow or never.
Sorry MP - but that is just so utterly barking mad.
Absolute nonsense derived from a level of wishful thinking that delusion sets in.
There is no way that May will fail to set the timing and there is no way that timing will precede the next GE and it is most probable that the hosting of Indyref2 will be set out in the manifestos of all parties. The vote will follow the GE and after a period of time to allow for the public to make informed decisions based on evidence - so at least 1 year.
Hence my comment that June 2021 looks good - there is simply no way, outside of an 'SNP wet dream' that the UK PM is going to allow distraction during the Brexit negotiation period and also no way the UK PM would allow an Indyref2 without a due period of time for campaigning.
There is an Abba song about having 'played all my cards' and having 'no more Ace to play' that comes to mind
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
According to the Institute for Govt today there's virtually no chance that Parliament can deal with Brexit in 2 years - they will have 15 or more bills to debate and pass which means that there will be no time for any other normal government work in Parliament - and they cite the uncertainty brought in by the Scottish Referendum question being something that really makes it all not on. So as a result May simply can't allow the SNP their way because there won't be actual time !!
If Scotland votes Yes May would have to resign. Just as Cameron did after Brexit and would have have had to if Scotland had voted Yes in 2014. Its a massive incentive for May to refuse a 2nd referendum, at least while she plans to be PM. And nobody in her party will pressure her to do otherwise, no matter how the Scots react.
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
We know that. But that policy could be the very thing that swings it.
She has to be careful she isn't acting exactly like we say she will.
It's a judgement call. Undermine the Scottish democratic process to that extent then Holyrood is a sham. That will lead to much gnashing of teeth up here and whose camp do you think that helps?
She may be able to make it very difficult by refusing and throwing a punch of authority.
The punch coming the other way is an unelected PrimeMinister ignoring the democratic rights of Scotland and that is very tricky.
It just is.
I
I
inbetween
Guest
Ultimately having as many referendums as they want is possible but losing a second one would be political suicide so I say let them.
I don't see the harm in allowing them to hold another referendum, if they vote to leave the UK then so be it. If they stay then the SNP like UKIP is made irrelevant and maybe the Scots will think about voting someone in who will run their country properly instead of one that bangs on about referendums.
The referendum was in 2014 and was largely a narrow result, since then there has been a general election where the SNP has made massive gains and they are now being taken out of the EU. It would be pretty ignorant to say at this stage with any certainty that people in Scotland are majorly in favour of staying in the UK.
I wouldn't want to say whether Scotland wants to leave but I would say a growing faction will want the choice, why else would they vote in a nationalist government?
If anything ignorance on our part will make it far worse and that is what we are doing, it is what the EU did with us and has lead to Brexit. Nothing annoys people more when it comes to democracy than denying them the right to choose.
smudgedj
Well-Known Member
She's not but Salmond (astute) is and will be leading the national socialist party within 12 months.
It might make her position more difficult if there was actually a clear majority in Scotland in favour of a 2nd referendum. As for her being an unelected PM, I expect that will change before Brexit is complete.
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
Why would she have to resign? Cameron felt obliged to resign for several reasons. I believe the main ones were:
a) He had nailed his public colours too firmly to the EU mast, even after being humiliated in the pre-negotiation.
b) He was strongly associated with Project Fear.
c) He was negligent in making fcuk all contingency plan for a "no" vote.
d) He's first and foremost a PR man, not a manager or implementer.
Picking up the reins after that would have been both untenable and unpalatable.
May needs to stick to her guns re no Scottish referendum until after Brexit. She can then cross the Indyref2 bridge when she comes to it. Who knows what the backdrop will be at that point? There is no guarantee Scots will vote for independence if there's a real prospect of being outside both the Union and EU.
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
Have I missed something? Has he been perfecting the goose step?
Because she would have agreed to a referendum, when she didnt have to, and then lost. She would be out as quick as Cameron.