Scottish Independence

[Sad Sprinter]

OK - here is my tuppence worth, bearing in mind I voted No in the Referendum last time out:

Anti - English Sentiment? No, Anti London Sentiment - Yes (and shared with many of our friends in the North of England)

The economy: If Scotland had wanted to benefit from the Oil boom, it would needed to have done so back in the 1970s, it is too late now, the revenues are spent (wisely or not) by the UK Government. At the last ballot, we were told that Scotland would retain the Pound and would remain tied to the Bank of England. This was a deal breaker for me, throughout the "boom" years of the 1980s interest rates were high to try and keep the economy of London and the SE of England in check, at the same time the economy in Scotland was struggling and the SNP were demanding that Scotland should have control over interest rates to better reflect the regional economy. That would be impossible in an independant Scotland with the Bank of England having control over interest rates. I dread to think what the SNP would do following independance, just giving them tax raising powers under devolution has been like giving fireworks to children, anyone earning over £43,430 currently faces paying 53% of their income in tax and national insurance - and they say this is fair!

Brexit: Now here there is a definate sense of injustice, the Conservatives stronly backed the "no" vote and used the threat that an independant Scotland would have to apply for membersip of the EU, Sticking with the Union was the only way to stay in the EU. Now that same Union is the reason that we are coming out of the EU.

Defence: I am still confused as to the Westminster attitude towards Scotland, we are called "subsidy junkies" by many, yet there is a strong determination to keep us part of the union. Of course Scotland is strategically essential to the defence of the UK, being home to the submarine based nuclear deterrant which the SNP are insistant would be removed from Faslane, Boris wants nukes but would prefer them to be as far away from London as possible

I think Faslane is where Trident is because of its inland location and protection from the sea. Plus its quick entry into the North Atlantic.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think Faslane is where Trident is because of its inland location and protection from the sea. Plus its quick entry into the North Atlantic.

Where would the sub base relocate if not in Scotland?

 

[Struner]

Somewhere in England. Not a Scottish problem.

 

[Enthusiast]

Could you perhaps provide an example of an EU law that the UK is bound by which was clearly, provably to the UKs detriment?

Countless (some already mentioned). But the acceptability or otherwise of any EU law is not the point. It is the fact that they can be imposed by a foreign institution that is the issue.

The logical and conciliatory response to a close referendum result would have been to propose a form of Brexit which preserved as much as possible of the links with the EU and thereby gave the 48% something of what they thought was important.

So what "logical and conciliatory response to a close referendum result" would have been devised had the result been 52:48 to Remain? What form of Remaining would have been proposed which cut as many as possible of our links with the EU and thereby gave the 48% something of what they thought was important? To save you pondering, I can tell you. No consideration whatsoever would have been afforded the Leavers. Mr Cameron would have appeared on the steps of No 10 on Friday morning, proudly announcing that the nation had given its verdict, the matter was finally put to bed, and we move together towards a bright future as full EU members. This idea that the losers must be appeased and accommodated is utter nonsense.

I just want the UK to remain an EU member, or at the very least stay part of the CU/SM.

Or alternatively, "I just want the UK to remain an EU member, or at the very least remain an EU member albeit with our name crossed off the list of members."

 

[edwin_m]

Countless (some already mentioned). But the acceptability or otherwise of any EU law is not the point. It is the fact that they can be imposed by a foreign institution that is the issue.



So what "logical and conciliatory response to a close referendum result" would have been devised had the result been 52:48 to Remain? What form of Remaining would have been proposed which cut as many as possible of our links with the EU and thereby gave the 48% something of what they thought was important? To save you pondering, I can tell you. No consideration whatsoever would have been afforded the Leavers. Mr Cameron would have appeared on the steps of No 10 on Friday morning, proudly announcing that the nation had given its verdict, the matter was finally put to bed, and we move together towards a bright future as full EU members. This idea that the losers must be appeased and accommodated is utter nonsense.



Or alternatively, "I just want the UK to remain an EU member, or at the very least remain an EU member albeit with our name crossed off the list of members."

We've done this to death on the referendum topics. Unlike the actual behavior of the Leavers, the might-have-been of Remain would have been favoured in Scotland and the effect on any else is off topic for this thread.

 

[GrimShady]

Somewhere in England. Not a Scottish problem.

What do you do for employment in Inverclyde and the knock on effect?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Where would the sub base relocate if not in Scotland?

I would say Plymouth is the only realistic alternative, considering there is already a submarine base there. Or perhaps Barrow, which faces the North Atlantic and is where the BAE submarine building works are anyway.

 

[Meerkat]

I would say Plymouth is the only realistic alternative, considering there is already a submarine base there. Or perhaps Barrow, which faces the North Atlantic and is where the BAE submarine building works are anyway.

Plymouth is far too populated and it’s difficult getting subs in and out - tide restricted.
Barrow is also restricted depthwise. Also access to the open sea is not as clear.
Falmouth was one alternative to Faslane at the time, but it involved significant appropriation of scenic surroundings which are now National Trust and the holiday homes of rich folk so even more difficult.
The other was Milford Haven, which is not in England and is the landing point of huge amounts of natural gas now.
I would bet on Barrow if you forced me, but it’s not ideal

 

[furnessvale]

Somewhere in England. Not a Scottish problem.

Together with all those lovely jobs.

 

[najaB]

I would say Plymouth is the only realistic alternative, considering there is already a submarine base there. Or perhaps Barrow, which faces the North Atlantic and is where the BAE submarine building works are anyway.

There are probably a few possible locations in Northern Ireland - but then that means that they might end up in the same situation again in a few years!

 

[nidave]

I find it funny how those who are opposed to the EU (and want Brexit) on the grounds of a country "taking back control" is now saying Scotland should not get the same opportunity as it better off in a union. Is the irony not lost of people?

 

[Meerkat]

I find it funny how those who are opposed to the EU (and want Brexit) on the grounds of a country "taking back control" is now saying Scotland should not get the same opportunity as it better off in a union. Is the irony not lost of people?

Bit of a difference in timescales and directions of travel.
Scotland lost control a long long time ago, rather than within living memory, and Scotland has been gaining more and more devolved power as opposed to power being slowly taken away.

 

[najaB]

Scotland lost control a long long time ago, rather than within living memory

Scotland has never lost control, thank you very much. Unlike Wales there is a union between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England and Wales.

Scotland has been gaining more and more devolved power as opposed to power being slowly taken away.

The EU has taken no powers from the UK.

 

[furnessvale]

The EU has taken no powers from the UK.

Presumably the same applies to all EU countries.

In which case, why does the ECJ even exist?

 

[Meerkat]

Scotland has never lost control, thank you very much. Unlike Wales there is a union between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England and Wales.

So why are the SNP complaining then?

 

[najaB]

Presumably the same applies to all EU countries.

Indeed. All members of the EU cede certain powers to the Union (e.g. control over monetary policy when they join the Euro). There's a big difference between power being taken and power being ceded.

In which case, why does the ECJ even exist?

Because there needs to be a final arbiter of any disputes.

 

[najaB]

So why are the SNP complaining then?

Because when powers were ceded from the English and Scottish parliaments to the UK parliament it was done so on the assumption that it would be an equitable relationship. Increasingly, some people in power give the impression that they see Scotland as subservient to England.

 

[Journeyman]

Together with all those lovely jobs.

This is what people forget - I know people who live in the area, and practically every family in Helensburgh depends on the base for at least part of its income. Many of the people I used to work with at a consultancy in Glasgow were connected with it too. If you close Faslane, you'll create a very significant unemployment problem across a large chunk of the west of Scotland.

There's no easy answer to this, and saying it's England's problem is far too simplistic. My own view is that renewing Trident is a criminally immoral waste of money, but how do you deal with the consequences of scrapping it?

 

[nidave]

Scotland has never lost control, thank you very much. Unlike Wales there is a union between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England and Wales.

The EU has taken no powers from the UK.

Like the uk being a member of the EU then.

The uk also includes.n.
Ireland.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

[najaB]

United Kingdom of Great Britain...

Which, you will find, was created by the 1707 Acts of Union as I said.

 

[Meerkat]

This is what people forget - I know people who live in the area, and practically every family in Helensburgh depends on the base for at least part of its income. Many of the people I used to work with at a consultancy in Glasgow were connected with it too. If you close Faslane, you'll create a very significant unemployment problem across a large chunk of the west of Scotland.

There's no easy answer to this, and saying it's England's problem is far too simplistic. My own view is that renewing Trident is a criminally immoral waste of money, but how do you deal with the consequences of scrapping it?

last time I looked the SNP solution was to base the Scottish Navy in Faslane

 

[GrimShady]

I find it funny how those who are opposed to the EU (and want Brexit) on the grounds of a country "taking back control" is now saying Scotland should not get the same opportunity as it better off in a union. Is the irony not lost of people?

No because Scotland had its say on 2014

This nation doesn't need more division, they can have another go in 20 years.

 

[Aictos]

Because when powers were ceded from the English and Scottish parliaments to the UK parliament it was done so on the assumption that it would be an equitable relationship. Increasingly, some people in power give the impression that they see Scotland as subservient to England.

Mmmm don't forget the West Lothian question

In that it was the question of whether MPs from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, sitting in the House of Commons should be able to vote on matters that affect only England, while MPs from England are unable to vote on matters that have been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

So for a period of time, it would appear that England was actually subservient to Scotland.

 

[furnessvale]

Indeed. All members of the EU cede certain powers to the Union (e.g. control over monetary policy when they join the Euro). There's a big difference between power being taken and power being ceded.

There is a difference between having power taken off us and giving it away. At least that is an admission that power has transferred away from the UK government.

Thankfully the people of the UK and at last a government with a pair are taking it back!

 

[najaB]

At least that is an admission that power has transferred away from the UK government.

Of course it has. The same as every other member state. If you're going to join a club then you abide by it's rules. It's arrogant in the extreme to think otherwise.

But what we gained in return far outweighs anything we ceded.

 

[Struner]

Indeed.
That’s why you join a club.
But it gets different when your voice is ignored, as in the “precious union”.

 

[najaB]

But it gets different when your voice is ignored, as in the “precious union”.

I'm tired of this lie. Just sick and tired of it.

 

[AY1975]

So what "logical and conciliatory response to a close referendum result" would have been devised had the result been 52:48 to Remain? What form of Remaining would have been proposed which cut as many as possible of our links with the EU and thereby gave the 48% something of what they thought was important? To save you pondering, I can tell you. No consideration whatsoever would have been afforded the Leavers. Mr Cameron would have appeared on the steps of No 10 on Friday morning, proudly announcing that the nation had given its verdict, the matter was finally put to bed, and we move together towards a bright future as full EU members. This idea that the losers must be appeased and accommodated is utter nonsense.

Agreed, a "winner takes all" attitude is engrained in British political culture unlike some other countries in Europe and elsewhere.

In 1994 Norway held a referendum on joining the EU, and the result was 52.2% no (i.e. a similar margin to our 2016 Brexit vote). Because it was such a close result the Norwegian government went for the compromise solution of joining the EEA to gain access to the Single Market but without full EU membership. Presumably it was felt that this was a solution that EU supporters and opponents alike would feel able to live with.

On that basis, if Cameron (or his successor) had decided that a Norway-style Brexit would be appropriate for a 52% win for Leave (and given that Scotland and Northern Ireland had voted Remain), then Remainers and softer Leavers alike might have felt able to live with that kind of compromise, however reluctantly. The most ardent Brexiters wouldn't have been happy as we would still have to abide by EU rules without having any say in them (as countries like Norway and Switzerland have to) and we'd still have to accept freedom of movement from the remaining EU countries, but at least we would have been able to leave the political institutions of the EU and have our own independent agricultural and fisheries policies whilst retaining many of the benefits of EU membership.

Such a compromise would have taken into account the fact that the country was bitterly divided on the issue, and would have reduced the risk of Scotland wanting another independence referendum and Northern Ireland wanting to leave the UK and become part of a united Ireland.

Interpreting a 52% win for Leave as a mandate for a hard Brexit is rather like taking a 52% win for Remain as a mandate to join the Euro, join Schengen and go fully metric.

 

[Esker-pades]

Agreed, a "winner takes all" attitude is engrained in British political culture unlike some other countries in Europe and elsewhere.

In 1994 Norway held a referendum on joining the EU, and the result was 52.2% no (i.e. a similar margin to our 2016 Brexit vote). Because it was such a close result the Norwegian government went for the compromise solution of joining the EEA to gain access to the Single Market but without full EU membership. Presumably it was felt that this was a solution that EU supporters and opponents alike would feel able to live with.

On that basis, if Cameron (or his successor) had decided that a Norway-style Brexit would be appropriate for a 52% win for Leave (and given that Scotland and Northern Ireland had voted Remain), then Remainers and softer Leavers alike might have felt able to live with that kind of compromise, however reluctantly. The most ardent Brexiters wouldn't have been happy as we would still have to abide by EU rules without having any say in them (as countries like Norway and Switzerland have to) and we'd still have to accept freedom of movement from the remaining EU countries, but at least we would have been able to leave the political institutions of the EU and have our own independent agricultural and fisheries policies whilst retaining many of the benefits of EU membership.

Such a compromise would have taken into account the fact that the country was bitterly divided on the issue, and would have reduced the risk of Scotland wanting another independence referendum and Northern Ireland wanting to leave the UK and become part of a united Ireland.

Interpreting a 52% win for Leave as a mandate for a hard Brexit is rather like taking a 52% win for Remain as a mandate to join the Euro, join Schengen and go fully metric.

As Farage said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."

 

[Journeyman]

Agreed, a "winner takes all" attitude is engrained in British political culture unlike some other countries in Europe and elsewhere.

In 1994 Norway held a referendum on joining the EU, and the result was 52.2% no (i.e. a similar margin to our 2016 Brexit vote). Because it was such a close result the Norwegian government went for the compromise solution of joining the EEA to gain access to the Single Market but without full EU membership. Presumably it was felt that this was a solution that EU supporters and opponents alike would feel able to live with.

On that basis, if Cameron (or his successor) had decided that a Norway-style Brexit would be appropriate for a 52% win for Leave (and given that Scotland and Northern Ireland had voted Remain), then Remainers and softer Leavers alike might have felt able to live with that kind of compromise, however reluctantly. The most ardent Brexiters wouldn't have been happy as we would still have to abide by EU rules without having any say in them (as countries like Norway and Switzerland have to) and we'd still have to accept freedom of movement from the remaining EU countries, but at least we would have been able to leave the political institutions of the EU and have our own independent agricultural and fisheries policies whilst retaining many of the benefits of EU membership.

Such a compromise would have taken into account the fact that the country was bitterly divided on the issue, and would have reduced the risk of Scotland wanting another independence referendum and Northern Ireland wanting to leave the UK and become part of a united Ireland.

Interpreting a 52% win for Leave as a mandate for a hard Brexit is rather like taking a 52% win for Remain as a mandate to join the Euro, join Schengen and go fully metric.

Absolutely agree. Anyone with any sense should have used the referendum result as an indication that the country needed to discuss and agree a way forward in a spirit of compromise, but that never happened.

I'm struggling to feel well-disposed towards any politicians right now. I'm furious with Cameron for holding a referendum that was completely unnecessary, and that very few people wanted. I'm furious with Corbyn for his mumbling about triggering Article 50 the day the result was announced, and his subsequent woeful leadership. I'm furious with May for deciding the result was an opportunity to carry on with her anti-immigrant crusade and that it was the "will of the people" to strip us of freedom of movement. I'm furious with Johnson for his disgusting opportunism and for somehow making a bad deal even worse. I'm furious that the opposition parties granted him an election they could have prevented, and handed him a landslide on a plate. I'm furious with the SNP for constantly trying to force another bloody referendum on us in the midst of all the chaos.