Scottish independence

RobMc59

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

For England, Wales and Northern Ireland lot of the quota was sold off and or fish landed at foreign ports.

Who leaves organising the local Nativity trail until Christmas Eve ?
How much of a priority is a Nativity trail in a time when everyone was supposed to be isolating ?

That's how hard Westminster fought for Scottish fishermen.

For the UK to realistically think it had any chance of getting any decent concessions out of the EU it had no choice but to give ground on fishing which despite assertions to the contrary has always been of the utmost importance to the EU but not as important to the majority of the UK beyond sabre rattling.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

All those revelling in the SNP should be careful what they wish for,it doesn't look like a Scotland in the EU intends any bonhomie towards similar sized potential rivals,wanting to be amongst the big boys at the top table. According to this link.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18976542.brexit-deal-scotland-very-different-course-westminster/

The top table in Europe is the European Council. We have a seat at that table as a member state of the EU. If Scotland join the EU as an independant member state, they would be welcome to join us at the top table.

RobMc59

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The top table in Europe is the European Council. We have a seat at that table as a member state of the EU. If Scotland join the EU as an independant member state, they would be welcome to join us at the top table.

Is your tongue in your cheek when you are saying that?Because as I said before (and its common knowledge to most people)Germany and France sit at the top table and bizarrely so did the UK before the folly that is brexit. They are/were the countries with the most say.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Is your tongue in your cheek when you are saying that?Because as I said before (and its common knowledge to most people)Germany and France sit at the top table and bizarrely so did the UK before the folly that is brexit. They are/were the countries with the most say.

No my tongue is not in my cheek. The European Council is in fact the top table of Europe, it is the forum through which Germany and France exercise their influence as two of the largest members of the EU. While Ireland understandably does not have the same level of influence, we still have a seat at the top table and have been able to exercise a considerable amount of influence in Europe as a result, as the recent Brexit negotiations have shown.

Fr Tod Umptious

RobMc59 wrote: »

Is your tongue in your cheek when you are saying that?Because as I said before (and its common knowledge to most people)Germany and France sit at the top table and bizarrely so did the UK before the folly that is brexit. They are/were the countries with the most say.

During the whole Brexit drama I recall a discussion in some shape or form about how the UK always wanted to be the leader in Europe.
They were used of leadership, being at the forefront of things etc.
And they did in fact lead.
But it's because they had to share this leading role with France and Germany that continually soured the relationship the UK had with Europe.

It's this type of attitude that the SNP leader in the Commons is referring to when he mentions the top table.
Scotland back in Europe want to be one of the big hitters, because they were one of the big hitters when they were in the UK and the UK was in the EU.
They don't want to be some Ireland, or Estonia or Latvia.
They are more important than that.

Capt'n Midnight

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Scotland back in Europe want to be one of the big hitters, because they were one of the big hitters when they were in the UK and the UK was in the EU.
They don't want to be some Ireland, or Estonia or Latvia.
They are more important than that.

Yeah, 27 countries and the border was front and central in the EU response to Article 50.

The UK timed Article 50 so that it was triggered 12 days after the annual meeting of the Taoiseach with the US president.

I not sure the UK understands soft power.

Ireland is now on the UN Security Council.



I calling "liar liar pants on fire" on your claim that Scotland is a big hitter in the UK. Scotland wanted the EU exemptions from Brexit that Ireland got for NI. Instead they got diddly squat if you exclude the rotting fish.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think Scotland will leave the UK,especially as soon as they realise certain countries will believe they have Scotland over a barrel which is never going to happen,they might grumble and complain and I fully understand they're p*ssed off about brexit but they still have a high degree of autonomy within the UK which is lacking in the EU unless it's Germany or France.Why give that up to be pushed around or taken advantage of by unscrupulous nations trying to gain out of Scotlands potential desire to join the EU?

No offence, Rob, but this is absurd. Arguments against Scottish independnece are going nowhere unless they are at least minimally rooted in reality. This one isn't.

"Scotland still has a high degree of autonomy within the UK which is lacking within the EU"? Then explain how the UK, as an EU member state, was free to conduct and implement a Brexit referendum while Scotland, as a country within the UK, can't hold an independence referendum unless it pleases Boris Johnson to permit it?

It's an absolutely indisputable and glaringly obvious fact that the countries of the UK have much, much less autonomy within the UK than member states of the EU have within the EU. If you genuinely can't see this — if you need to have it explained to you — then your views are so unmoored from basic reality that your perspectives on Scottish independence are basically worthless.

As for Scotland's desire to join the EU being taken advantage of by unscrupulous countries who think they have Scotland over a barrel, I think you are looking at this through a Trumpy mindset in which international relations are a zero sum game; if another country benefits from Scotland's membership of the EU then Scotland itself must lose. But that's completely wrong; Scottish membership of the EU could be beneficial to Scotland and to Ireland (and even to the rump of the UK). Scots who see other countries welcoming the prospect of Scottish membership don't automatically assume that this means that Scotland is about to be filleted. Scotland would have to get a lot more Trumpish than it is for this argument to find any traction. And, globally, Trumpery is on the nose, mercifully.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

That is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the EU and would trigger uproar.

As already pointed out, Denmark is partly in and partly out, and it doesn't seem to have triggered uproar.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

As already pointed out, Denmark is partly in and partly out, and it doesn't seem to have triggered uproar.

Denmark is a full member of the EU since 1973. When Scotland becomes a sovereign independent state it can apply to join.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Denmark is a full member of the EU since 1973. When Scotland becomes a sovereign independent state it can apply to join.

Denmark was a full member of the EU since 1973 when it sought - successfully - to negotiate a partial exit in respect of Greenland.

The UK was a full member of the EU when it decided to Brexit. It could have sought to negotiate a partial exit in respect of those countries within the UK that actually wanted to Brexit, on the Danish model. It chose not to try that, because who cares what Scotland wants or needs? The Scots suffer because of this, and appetite for independence is predictably fuelled.

If, as suggested in this thread, the UK hopes to "kill independency by maximal devolution", they need to make the kind of devolution offer that convinces the Scots that their attitude to Scotland has really changed. An obvious question is "Will the UK devolve the kind of legislative and administrative powers that would allow the UK to be an EU member in respect of Scotland, but not in respect of England?" There is, of course, no guarantee that the EU would agree to this, but in principle membership for part of a state is definitely possible, and there is a current precedent, so it's certainly worth exploring.

If the UK position is "we won't even ask[/i[ for this; we won't seek to negotiate it; this is not a possiblity we have any interest in pursuing" then that tells the Scots all they need to know about how ready the UK really is to allow the Scots to pursue their aspirations. And the "killing independence with maximal devolution" campaign is holed below the waterline.

sondagefaux

sondagefaux wrote: »

The UK parliament has the legal power to put an end to devolved parliaments, as it did to the original Northern Ireland parliament in 1972.

I'm not aware of the European Parliament having similar powers over the Oireachtas or any other national parliament. .

only after a referendum in Scotland

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/part/1/crossheading/the-scottish-parliament-and-the-scottish-government/enacted#:~:text=(1)The%20Scottish%20Parliament%20and,the%20United%20Kingdom's%20constitutional%20arrangements.

“PART 2A
Permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government
63APermanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.”

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Denmark was a full member of the EU since 1973 when it sought - successfully - to negotiate a partial exit in respect of Greenland.

The UK was a full member of the EU when it decided to Brexit. It could have sought to negotiate a partial exit in respect of those countries within the UK that actually wanted to Brexit, on the Danish model. It chose not to try that, because who cares what Scotland wants or needs? The Scots suffer because of this, and appetite for independence is predictably fuelled.

If, as suggested in this thread, the UK hopes to "kill independency by maximal devolution", they need to make the kind of devolution offer that convinces the Scots that their attitude to Scotland has really changed. An obvious question is "Will the UK devolve the kind of legislative and administrative powers that would allow the UK to be an EU member in respect of Scotland, but not in respect of England?" There is, of course, no guarantee that the EU would agree to this, but in principle membership for part of a state is definitely possible, and there is a current precedent, so it's certainly worth exploring.

If the UK position is "we won't even ask[/i[ for this; we won't seek to negotiate it; this is not a possiblity we have any interest in pursuing" then that tells the Scots all they need to know about how ready the UK really is to allow the Scots to pursue their aspirations. And the "killing independence with maximal devolution" campaign is holed below the waterline.

You are confusing two different situations. Any EU member is free to negotiate opt outs it might need, as Denmark and Ireland (Schengen) have done when Treaty changes came into effect. But they were already full members when they did that, having complied with all conditions for membership required at the time they joined.

Scotland is not a sovereign state, which has always been the first requirement for EU membership. Whatever about an existing member opting out of something new, there is no chance an applicant non member can opt out of something as old as the Treaty of Rome.

Imreoir2

Aegir wrote: »

only after a referendum in Scotland

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/part/1/crossheading/the-scottish-parliament-and-the-scottish-government/enacted#:~:text=(1)The%20Scottish%20Parliament%20and,the%20United%20Kingdom's%20constitutional%20arrangements.

Unless Westminster decides to change that, which they can, at any time.

A Dub in Glasgo

The narrative over the past week or so has moved to postpone the election in May due to the ongoing COVID restrictions. This is being pushed by the unionist media and politicians

A new series of polls released this morning, analysis from a pro-independence blogger

https://twitter.com/ProfPMiddleton/status/1349656996472102913

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1349644124996186112

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Unless Westminster decides to change that, which they can, at any time.

and who would introduce this act? It would have to be a private members bill, which the government would be obliged to oppose, as the act confirms their commitment to the permanence of the Scottish Parliament.

Then there is the small matter of it being challenged as unconstitutional, so would get rejected by the Lords and undoubtedly challenged in the courts.

It is far far more than just "Westminster deciding to change that".

A Dub in Glasgo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Unless Westminster decides to change that, which they can, at any time.

or Westminster decides to fillet the devolution settlement because the current occupants of the UK govt get very little traction in Scotland. They are in the process of filleting the devolution settlement without dissolving it

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115322896&postcount=820

pixelburp

11% Undecided in that above poll. That feels quite low to middling in terms of what I might have expected. I guess after 2014 & Brexit, most people have made up their mind one way or another. I would wonder where those 11% are sitting, demographics wise. Are they unsure Unionists, or cautious Republicans?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

or Westminster decides to fillet the devolution settlement because the current occupants of the UK govt get very little traction in Scotland. They are in the process of filleting the devolution settlement without dissolving it

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115322896&postcount=820

You talk of westminster as if it is one person, not an actual parliament.

BonnieSituation

pixelburp wrote: »

11% Undecided in that above poll. That feels quite low to middling in terms of what I might have expected. I guess after 2014 & Brexit, most people have made up their mind one way or another. I would wonder where those 11% are sitting, demographics wise. Are they unsure Unionists, or cautious Republicans?

Some may be republicans but there's been no suggestion if removing the monarchy at this remove. And even as a fervent anti-Monarchist, I would be keeping it in place for the time being so as not to scupper independence.

As regards your query, I'd be almost certain that they're Unionists. Pro-Independence people are fairly set now and are unlikely to waver at all..

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

You talk of westminster as if it is one person, not an actual parliament.

The Tories have an 80 seat majority so can do what they want

A Dub in Glasgo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As regards your query, I'd be almost certain that they're Unionists. Pro-Independence people are fairly set now and are unlikely to waver at all..

A lot of them are on the journey from No to Yes. Whether they plump for Yes in a vote tomorrow is debatable however any referendum is a couple of years away

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Tories have an 80 seat majority so can do what they want

You talk of the Tories as though they are one person. You also forget that the Lords also have a say.

you are looking at what Parliament can do and presuming that they will do it, or even might. It is little more than scaremongering.

bob mcbob

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The narrative over the past week or so has moved to postpone the election in May due to the ongoing COVID restrictions. This is being pushed by the unionist media and politicians

A new series of polls released this morning, analysis from a pro-independence blogger

https://twitter.com/ProfPMiddleton/status/1349656996472102913

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1349644124996186112

This poll would have been taken before the Brexit shambles in the last few days since the transition period ended.

The analysis of this poll is even worse than it seems for the Tories.

The analysis of the list voting intentions, where the Tories hope that Labour voters would move to Tories, indicates -

Just three per cent of voters considered likely to vote and weighted on turnout have switched from Labour to the Scottish Tories, with 11 per cent from the Liberal Democrats.

Critically, more Conservative voters in 2019 (nine per cent) have said they would vote SNP on the list vote than Labour voters switching to the Conservatives.

And even more damning

On healthcare and education – two critical domestic issues – the SNP is trusted more than the Scottish Conservatives by a net of 15 per cent of 2019 Labour voters.

On the economy, that figure is 18 per cent.

In fact, on education and health care, 10 and 15 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters trust the SNP more than their own party.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/analysis-why-are-scottish-tories-failing-make-inroads-snp-dominance-3100565

Imreoir2

Aegir wrote: »

and who would introduce this act? It would have to be a private members bill, which the government would be obliged to oppose, as the act confirms their commitment to the permanence of the Scottish Parliament.

Then there is the small matter of it being challenged as unconstitutional, so would get rejected by the Lords and undoubtedly challenged in the courts.

It is far far more than just "Westminster deciding to change that".

Are you suggesting that one parliament can bind another? That's not how the UK legal system works, as you should well know.

The law you reference is an act of parliament, and it can be undone by another.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that one parliament can bind another? That's not how the UK legal system works, as you should well know.

The law you reference is an act of parliament, and it can be undone by another.

I didn’t mention parliament. Parliament is not the same as the government.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

It is little more than scaremongering.

It is not, the Tories have already dumped the Sewel convention and retrospectively changed the devolution acts to grab powers for Westminster control that the original Scotland act and then we have the IMB

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114634605&postcount=613

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

I didn’t mention parliament. Parliament is not the same as the government.

As a Unionist, do you think the UKGOV should keep to* their devo-max promises or do you think that the current approach is correct?








*It's been 6.5 years, so perhaps that's the wrong phrasing in relation to it.

Imreoir2

Aegir wrote: »

I didn’t mention parliament. Parliament is not the same as the government.

Government controls the parliament, did you skip civics class?

Government can't end devolution without a referendum. But the government can, through parliament, amend the law that requires a referendum to end devolution. As such, if it wanted to, government could end devolution without a referendum provided that it first amended the law to remove the requirement for a referendum. Get it?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is not, the Tories have already dumped the Sewel convention and retrospectively changed the devolution acts to grab powers for Westminster control that the original Scotland act and then we have the IMB

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114634605&postcount=613

powers that were otherwise controlled by the EU. Ultimately, there has to be some mechanism for all four members of the UK to have common standards.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As a Unionist, do you think the UKGOV should keep to* their devo-max promises or do you think that the current approach is correct?

*It's been 6.5 years, so perhaps that's the wrong phrasing in relation to it.

why are you assigning labels to people?

what part of devo max do you have a problem with?

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

powers that were otherwise controlled by the EU. Ultimately, there has to be some mechanism for all four members of the UK to have common standards.

Devolved powers that were being administered by the EU. IMB is diluting devolution

You previously said that this was scaremongering