Scottish Independence

[Saddleworth2]

And the Scottish parliament who can say up yours we're having one,then what do you do?

They can, but it would not be legally binding which is something they really need if they want to rejoin the EU.

 

[Saddleworth2]

How exactly are they being ignored when they have more MPs per person than England. They also have a Scottish Parliment with its own powers. They have 20% more money to spend than English regions. And they had their once in a generation independence referendum just over 5 yrs ago? It seems to me they can't actually claim that based on the above. The SNP are behaving rather like a spoilt child.

If independence depends on the HoC permission to hold a second referendum and the English dominated (10 times the number of MP's than Scotland has) parliament continues to refuse don't you think they will have a valid point?

 

[happy daze]

They can, but it would not be legally binding which is something they really need if they want to rejoin the EU.

Hardly a realistic stance that Boris could take," I see you've voted to leave us but I am going to stick my head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen" as far as joining the eu it would give them no greater pleasure than to say welcome.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Hardly a realistic stance that Boris could take," I see you've voted to leave us but I am going to stick my head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen" as far as joining the eu it would give them no greater pleasure than to say welcome.

Even Sturgeon claims that any referendum needs to be legal and an advisory referendum is not binding. It is a moot point that Johnson would accept the result unless it was a supra supra majority which it is very unlikely to be. I think Spain would have a more comfortable position re Scotland rejoining if the referendum was legally binding. All opinions mate and who knows what will happen.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

If independence depends on the HoC permission to hold a second referendum and the English dominated (10 times the number of MP's than Scotland has) parliament continues to refuse don't you think they will have a valid point?

No not really. They had an opportunity and that was when their case was so much stronger economically. I don't mind whether they leave it not. I just don't see why they would want to as economically they would be crippled. They are very unlikley to meet the economical criteria to join the EU, when they take their share of uk debt and they have been told they can't use the pound. But hey ho they contribute less to the UK economy than they take so the rest of us would be slightly better off.

 

[Saddleworth2]

No not really. They had an opportunity and that was when their case was so much stronger economically. I don't mind whether they leave it not. I just don't see why they would want to as economically they would be crippled. They are very unlikley to meet the economical criteria to join the EU, when they take their share of uk debt and they have been told they can't use the pound. But hey ho they contribute less to the UK economy than they take so the rest of us would be slightly better off.

Which is a valid opinion but not really a response to my post which was about a second referendum only happening with the permission of an English dominated HoC. (533 to 59)

 

[happy daze]

Even Sturgeon claims that any referendum needs to be legal and an advisory referendum is not binding. It is a moot point that Johnson would accept the result unless it was a supra supra majority which it is very unlikely to be. I think Spain would have a more comfortable position re Scotland rejoining if the referendum was legally binding. All opinions mate and who knows what will happen.

Perhaps it is,but he might find denial difficult with the reality of 52% to 48% which is his route to brexit,that and his majority,
And yeah you're right we are all speculating.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Which is a valid opinion but not really a response to my post which was about a second referendum only happening with the permission of an English dominated HoC. (533 to 59)

Well that's the way it is isn't it. If you look at the share of the vote at the last GE the SNP got about the same as they did at the independence ref. The FPTP system just makes it look as if they have overwhelming support. So I don't think their support is any stronger. Also I can't see any UK PM wanting to go down in history as being in charge if Scotland did leave. Their ego won't let them. What did and still does anoy me as a person living in the UK English regions is the way Cameron and co offered incentives for them to vote to stay. Being a bit of socialist I believe in a fair distribution of wealth so the Barnet formula should have been scrapped long ago imo.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Well that's the way it is isn't it. If you look at the share of the vote at the last GE the SNP got about the same as they did at the independence ref. The FPTP system just makes it look as if they have overwhelming support. So I don't think their support is any stronger. Also I can't see any UK PM wanting to go down in history as being in charge if Scotland did leave. Their ego won't let them. What did and still does anoy me as a person living in the UK English regions is the way Cameron and co offered incentives for them to vote to stay. Being a bit of socialist I believe in a fair distribution of wealth so the Barnet formula should have been scrapped long ago imo.

Which is all a completely valid point of view. The FPTP system certainly does skew things in both parliaments. My point is much narrower. Even if every individual in Scotland wanted independence, permission for a further referendum would have to be granted by a English dominated (or Union dominated if that sounds less abrasive) HoC. There is nothing stopping Johnson blocking a referendum for as long as he has this size of majority. Now you can say he would be morally obliged under certain circumstances etc etc...But it does seem that true democracy and sovereignty really depends on what size of population (and therefore MP's) a country has.

 

[Coatigan]

No not really. They had an opportunity and that was when their case was so much stronger economically. I don't mind whether they leave it not. I just don't see why they would want to as economically they would be crippled. They are very unlikley to meet the economical criteria to join the EU, when they take their share of uk debt and they have been told they can't use the pound. But hey ho they contribute less to the UK economy than they take so the rest of us would be slightly better off.

My response i guess is to a number of points you raise across multiple posts rather than just the one above (which i've clearly found interesting and valid enough to bother responding to), ive not multi-quoted purely for ease. And note, my pointing out a different side to the argument, and the contrasting view does not mean that is always what i believe or want, purely highlighting there IS a counter-interpretation, and in some cases quite a prevalent one as well.

You are right, Scotland did have the opportunity, voted no. Things have changed though, and continue to do so. The 'you've had your say, now stick with it.' stance is unsustainable, unconstructive, and increasingly to many, undemocratic. I'm not suggesting that is what you've said btw, just that it is out there. The once in a generation line that people have latched onto is meaningless, it can't be treated as any formal agreement or binding 'promise', it wasn't, it was a sales pitch highlighting the significance of the opportunity/risk, depending on which side promoted it, and both did.

I agree, the economic case for independence was stronger in 2014, without a doubt. But, so was the case for remaining. The 'best of both worlds' while being in the EU (and remaining in the UK being the only way to guarantee that' has been eroded away. How much more brexit weakens that remains to be seen, and what that balance is at the time of asking/making such a case may well be what swings it.

I disagree with your view that Scotland is overcompensated and over
-represented. Scotland contributes more, both in tax and in income, and the Barnett formula recognises that. To you, it recognizes it too much, to many scots, not enough. To me, for the record, neither. I don't know enough to not trust either side (or both) that agreed it. Scrapping it however, and the calls to do so, will imho be the final nail in the Union. I do agree though, i did not like Cameron's incentive promises to remain. they created animosity for a start, on both sides. On one, why are 'they' being given more. On the other, why did they need to ask and why were they not given sooner, if 'deserved', and if not, why are they needed as a buy-off. And then there is the bitter taste of them not actually having been delivered, while the other side rerains the bitter taste they were offered in the first place. It was one of the worst thing he did at the time imho and will leave a long term issue for what was for him a short term fix, potentially completely unnecessary.

Regarding how you intterpret the voting figures, it is as selective as the remainer arguements Brexit has no mandate, and pointless. An independence promoting party has the largest share of the votes. And two independence supporting parties have a working majority in parliament. And i'll just point out, not just you but others too that seem to think the snp are an overnight flash in the pan, they have won the last 6 elections in a row, continue to gain support, and have been on the increase more or less since the 70s. It would be naive to think they are foing to just vanish. We all accept the political set up in N.I as estsblished, imho, Scotland has become the same now. Whether we/you like it or not. imho.