Scottish independence

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

"damage both countries"

How would this manifest?

Is that a serious question?

They have been part of a union for over 300 years and have shared interests socially, politically, militarily and financially. Seperating the two, as we have seen with Brexit, would involve enormous upheaval and costs, for what are in reality little or no benefit.

Water John

So the USA should be still under the control of London by your logic.
England should still have all it s colonies and the Empire should never have been dismantled.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

I get that you are somehow trying to link Scottish independence to Irish independence, but I am interested to know why you think that is?

The link I was making has more to do with your statement about being undermined in the Union. I mean, our independence was completely predicated on being undermined (at the very least) in the Union, but you don't think that's a valid reason for any Scot to want to leave the UK.

I think that's rather bat****, given our own history.

That's the link. It was very obvious, you admitted it yourself, but as is your wont, you'd rather be obtuse about it.

Let's just do the one, shall we?

when you say interests, do you mean that you find something interesting, or do you mean that it is in Ireland's interests for Scotland to become independent? When you say "Unfortunately as an Irishman living in Dublin it's unlikely that I'll have a choice in the matter." it gives the impression that believe it is the latter.

In which case, why is it in Ireland's best interests what happens in a foreign country?

It can be both.

But, my interest is first and foremost I would like to see Scotland independent from the rUK.

Self-determination has such a psychological value that is immeasurable. (Please don't try and compare it to "Brexit" you know it's not the same thing and it would show you're not remotely interested in the question or the answer)

During the 1950s in this dank Dev-dominated kip would anybody have reversed the decision of 1921? Not on your nelly.

Secondly to that I believe it would be a catalyst for a UI (well, I believed it would have been moreso pre-Brexit vote, but that's clearly taking centre stage in the UI debate for now).


---

Scotland is economically and socially bring dragged back by its membership of the UK. That's very clear. The UK is England+2 and a bit. It's not a normal State.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

Is that a serious question?

They have been part of a union for over 300 years and have shared interests socially, politically, militarily and financially. Seperating the two, as we have seen with Brexit, would involve enormous upheaval and costs, for what are in reality little or no benefit.

Yes it is a serious question.

Separating the two would be nothing like Brexit because in the event that it would occur, it would be occuring between two parties that wish for it to happen on the back of a popular vote in Scotland.

Before the vote the questions would be answered and certain fears allayed (we can't help that the Vow and the scaremongering spooked some pensioners in 2014), so it woudl be nothing like what Brexit is. You know this. They're not comparable in how they would be handled.


Here's the White Paper for the referendum in 2014:
https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0043/00439021.pdf

Nothing like that was produced befor Brexit outlining the benefits or reasons.

How come we were able to leave the UK given how interwined we were since the 12th century 'til the Act of Union in 1801 and subsequently through various Home Rule Bills and rebellions?

How can you not see the benefit?

Scotland never gets the government it votes for. It's more Social democratic and Civically Nationalist than England.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

So the USA should be still under the control of London by your logic.
England should still have all it s colonies and the Empire should never have been dismantled.

Interesting logic and no, I don’t think that at all.

Also interesting that you refer to English colonies, when the reality is the Scottish were every bit as colonial as the English, arguably more so. You have read about the Darian scheme I take it.

Using your logic though, would also mean the break up of pretty much every country in Europe, including what is now Scotland, when they return the Shetland, Orkney and Western Isles to Norway, along with all those lively oil fields.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It can be both.

But, my interest is first and foremost I would like to see Scotland independent from the rUK.

Self-determination has such a psychological value that is immeasurable. (Please don't try and compare it to "Brexit" you know it's not the same thing and it would show you're not remotely interested in the question or the answer)

Self determination, but self determination that goes the way you'd like it to and if possible, you'd like to give it a helping hand?

And self determination by who, the Scots, or the people that live in Scotland? surely the sensible thing to do would be for it to be something for only the Scots to determine and any Scot regardless of where they live?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

During the 1950s in this dank Dev-dominated kip would anybody have reversed the decision of 1921? Not on your nelly.

even the hundreds of thousands who had to move to the UK? Great independence that.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Secondly to that I believe it would be a catalyst for a UI (well, I believed it would have been moreso pre-Brexit vote, but that's clearly taking centre stage in the UI debate for now).

Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. It isn't really about any desire for self determination for the Scottish, it is more about self interest.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Scotland is economically and socially bring dragged back by its membership of the UK. That's very clear. The UK is England+2 and a bit. It's not a normal State.

can you provide some evidence for that, or maybe a few examples?

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

swap independence with Brexit and Scotland with Britain and you sound very much like a Jacob Rees Mogg.

Yes I suppose you could see it that way but we both know (or at least should) that the situations are different.

If you believe them to be the same, can you please provide some stunning insight as to why.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Yes it is a serious question.

Separating the two would be nothing like Brexit because in the event that it would occur, it would be occuring between two parties that wish for it to happen on the back of a popular vote in Scotland.

Before the vote the questions would be answered and certain fears allayed (we can't help that the Vow and the scaremongering spooked some pensioners in 2014), so it woudl be nothing like what Brexit is. You know this. They're not comparable in how they would be handled.


Here's the White Paper for the referendum in 2014:
https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0043/00439021.pdf

Nothing like that was produced befor Brexit outlining the benefits or reasons.

one was produced very shortly after and before the letter was issued to Brussels. It wasn't too dissimilar and contained lots of "We will do this and this and this" but not much "This is how we will do it".

Both white papers are also pretty dependent on the other guys agreeing with everything you say as well.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

How come we were able to leave the UK given how interwined we were since the 12th century 'til the Act of Union in 1801 and subsequently through various Home Rule Bills and rebellions?

How can you not see the benefit?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Scotland never gets the government it votes for. It's more Social democratic and Civically Nationalist than England.

apart from 1997, 2002, 2005......

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

Yes I suppose you could see it that way but we both know (or at least should) that the situations are different.

If you believe them to be the same, can you please provide some stunning insight as to why.

both seem to be on the basis that there is some form of democracy deficit from being in a larger union and leaving said union will bring great riches to all.

Sam Russell

Aegir:

Originally Posted by BonnieSituation
Scotland is economically and socially bring dragged back by its membership of the UK. That's very clear. The UK is England+2 and a bit. It's not a normal State.

can you provide some evidence for that, or maybe a few examples?

I think if you investigate the 'West Lothian Question'

The English MPs consider Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on purely English matters because they have a devolved assembly for such matters that only apply to Scotland.

Now this is an interesting point of view - since if there was an assembly for England, it would not be those MPs who would be part of it. In other words, the English MPs consider themselves above the Scottish MPs.

Now if I were a Scottish MP, I would take exception to that POV. And they do. Add in the latest behaviour of Tory MPs to flee the chamber once a Scottish MP stands to talk in the HoC, and I would be out campaigning for IndyRef2.

Scotland has no place in the Tory controlled Parliament in Westminster.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think if you investigate the 'West Lothian Question'

The English MPs consider Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on purely English matters because they have a devolved assembly for such matters that only apply to Scotland.

Now this is an interesting point of view - since if there was an assembly for England, it would not be those MPs who would be part of it. In other words, the English MPs consider themselves above the Scottish MPs.

Now if I were a Scottish MP, I would take exception to that POV.

by Scottish MPs, you mean MPs with a seat in Scotland, not Scottish MPs who have a constituency in England I presume.

So you see there being no parliament for England and MPs from Scotland (who are all Scottish) being able to vote on matters that only affect England as being an indication of the democracy deficit and how England is dragging down Scotland?

That is Alastair Campbell (ooh look, another Scotsman) level spin skills right there.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

both seem to be on the basis that there is some form of democracy deficit from being in a larger union and leaving said union will bring great riches to all.

And is it your view that there is a democratic deficit in both unions?

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

by Scottish MPs, you mean MPs with a seat in Scotland, not Scottish MPs who have a constituency in England I presume.

So you see there being no parliament for England and MPs from Scotland (who are all Scottish) being able to vote on matters that only affect England as being an indication of the democracy deficit and how England is dragging down Scotland?

That is Alastair Campbell (ooh look, another Scotsman) level spin skills right there.

I do not know whether you are being deliberately disingenuous or simply trying to pretend to not understand my point.

1: A Scottish MP is obviously an MP for a Scottish seat. The MP may or may not be Scottish - it is not a requirement either way.

2: As England does not have a regional parliament, some matters are devolved to the Scottish Assembly are therefore not handled by the Parliament in Westminster. However, those equivalent matters relating to England are.

3: English MPs (those sitting in an English seat) consider that only English MPs should decide such matters. This obviously implies that they are a higher form of life that Scottish MPs.

The matter has never been resolved, but it is a matter of great concern to English Nationalist MPs - mainly Tories.

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

And is it your view that there is a democratic deficit in both unions?

No, I don't. I do believe an English parliament would have helped to avoid Brexit though.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not know whether you are being deliberately disingenuous or simply trying to pretend to not understand my point.

1: A Scottish MP is obviously an MP for a Scottish seat. The MP may or may not be Scottish - it is not a requirement either way.

No, but I'm pretty sure every MP in Scotland is actually Scottish, whereas there are a number of Scottish MPs representing seats in England.

Sam Russell wrote: »

2: As England does not have a regional parliament, some matters are devolved to the Scottish Assembly are therefore not handled by the Parliament in Westminster. However, those equivalent matters relating to England are.

yes, so it sounds as though the Scottish have a good level of self determination there.

Sam Russell wrote: »

3: English MPs (those sitting in an English seat) consider that only English MPs should decide such matters. This obviously implies that they are a higher form of life that Scottish MPs.

That is nothing short of bizarre, if not comical.

Surely a Scottish MP who think they have the right to vote on matters that only affect the English, or worse still, supports legislation that they know their own party would not support in Scotland, considers themselves superior?

Sam Russell wrote: »

The matter has never been resolved, but it is a matter of great concern to English Nationalist MPs - mainly Tories.

It isn't really though, is it? but why shouldn't it be? why shouldn't the English have the same rights and representation as the Scots do? Why would Scottish, (or Northern Irish or Welsh for that matter) MPs want to vote on matters that they do not affect their constituents?

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

No, I don't. I do believe an English parliament would have helped to avoid Brexit though.



No, but I'm pretty sure every MP in Scotland is actually Scottish, whereas there are a number of Scottish MPs representing seats in England.



yes, so it sounds as though the Scottish have a good level of self determination there.



That is nothing short of bizarre, if not comical.

Surely a Scottish MP who think they have the right to vote on matters that only affect the English, or worse still, supports legislation that they know their own party would not support in Scotland, considers themselves superior?



It isn't really though, is it? but why shouldn't it be? why shouldn't the English have the same rights and representation as the Scots do? Why would Scottish, (or Northern Irish or Welsh for that matter) MPs want to vote on matters that they do not affect their constituents?

There are issues that affect, say Gibraltar. Under your scheme no MP could vote on those.

The English Assembly could be set up on the same basis as the Scottish one, but why has it not been set up?

If such an assembly was set up, the Westminster MPs would not be involved with it. See, English MPs are superior to their Scottish equivalents.

Look at the English attitude to the Scottish Inner Court decision to find the PM had lied misled to the Queen. Outrageous.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are issues that affect, say Gibraltar. Under your scheme no MP could vote on those.

surely if an issue only affected Gibraltar, it would be handled by the Gibraltar Parliament, would it not?

Sam Russell wrote: »

The English Assembly could be set up on the same basis as the Scottish one, but why has it not been set up?

good question, I think it should be and that the reason it hasn't is because Westminster spends too much time pandering to the Scottish, Irish and Welsh and neglects England, hence why i think an English parliament would have prevented Brexit.

Sam Russell wrote: »

If such an assembly was set up, the Westminster MPs would not be involved with it. See, English MPs are superior to their Scottish equivalents.

this post should be recorded as one of the most bizarre leaps of logic ever to appear on boards.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Look at the English attitude to the Scottish Inner Court decision to find the PM had lied misled to the Queen. Outrageous.

err, the Scottish court and the English high court came to conflicting decisions, so the case was heard in the supreme court, which agreed with the Scottish court, did it not?

where's the problem here?

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

No, I don't. I do believe an English parliament would have helped to avoid Brexit though.

Ok I am intrigued, can you tell me how you see an English parliament working within the confines of the UK in particular what that means for the UK parliament.

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

Ok I am intrigued, can you tell me how you see an English parliament working within the confines of the UK in particular what that means for the UK parliament.

Not too dissimilar to the Scottish one. Devolved powers to manage things like education, NHS etc and ministers with special responsibilities for regions.

I would move it out if London as well, to somewhere like Nottingham.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

err, the Scottish court and the English high court came to conflicting decisions, so the case was heard in the supreme court, which agreed with the Scottish court, did it not?

where's the problem here?

No the English court came to the decision - 'Nothing to see here'. The Scottish court came to the conclusion that there was a need to hear the evidence, and having heard it, decided the Prorogue was unlawful on the grounds that HM the Q had been misled, in fact, grossly misled - which is an astonishing decision.

The case had to go to the Supreme Court whatever happened.

The only conflict was the English court decided it did not have jurisdiction, while the Scottish court did have jurisdiction. Having considered the evidence, they then came to a judgement. They could have decided differently.

My comment was on the reaction of BJ and No. 10, and many Tories, to the verdict, and the belief they espoused that it was a gross overstepping of their powers, Westminster was in England and not subject to Scottish law, etc. etc.

Most honest politicians would have resigned on the spot.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

Not too dissimilar to the Scottish one. Devolved powers to manage things like education, NHS etc and ministers with special responsibilities for regions.

I would move it out if London as well, to somewhere like Nottingham.

Why Nottingham? Why not Colchester, or Chichester, or even Southampton?

It would have to move to Manchester, a major University City in Northern England. The BBC moved there, so it must be a good place.

Hawkeye9212

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why Nottingham? Why not Colchester, or Chichester, or even Southampton?

It would have to move to Manchester, a major University City in Northern England. The BBC moved there, so it must be a good place.

An English Parliament should be based in the Midlands. Birmingham is the largest city.

Hawkeye9212

bob mcbob wrote: »

Ok I am intrigued, can you tell me how you see an English parliament working within the confines of the UK in particular what that means for the UK parliament.

The UK Parliament would adopt a similar role to national governments in other decentralised countries like Germany and Italy.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

Not too dissimilar to the Scottish one. Devolved powers to manage things like education, NHS etc and ministers with special responsibilities for regions.

I would move it out if London as well, to somewhere like Nottingham.

Ok so why would this address the "causes of Brexit" and why would an English parliament need to move from London?

Sam Russell

bob mcbob wrote: »

Ok so why would this address the "causes of Brexit" and why would an English parliament need to move from London?

If it is to create regional assemblies, why would England only get one assembly for 50 million citizens, but Scotland gets one for 5 million?

Also, London already has a Mayor with executive powers, so it would be better, if there was only to be one assembly for England, to move the centre of assembly power to the North of England and Manchester would be the natural choice. Even the Beeb have moved there!

If the assembly was based in London, anything north of Watford will see little if any benefits.

Hawkeye9212

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it is to create regional assemblies, why would England only get one assembly for 50 million citizens, but Scotland gets one for 5 million?

Also, London already has a Mayor with executive powers, so it would be better, if there was only to be one assembly for England, to move the centre of assembly power to the North of England and Manchester would be the natural choice. Even the Beeb have moved there!

If the assembly was based in London, anything north of Watford will see little if any benefits.

They are the constituent countries. I don't the Scots will take kindly to being treated the same as the English regions.

Sam Russell

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

They are the constituent countries. I don't the Scots will take kindly to being treated the same as the English regions.

I find the term Country' a little strange.

I heard some English commentators from the FA at the time of the Blatter FIFA scandal saying Blatter signed up some football associations that were not even members of the UN. [He seamed to be unaware the England, Scotland, Wales, or NI, are not members of the UN].

What is a 'country'? Is it a sovereign nation with its own parliament, constitution, and member of the UN? Is the Isle of Mann a country? Is Wales a country or a principality? What is NI - a province? Or maybe a bit of a province? It certainly is not a country in the normal meaning of the term.

I think Scotland would like to be treated the same as Ireland - a sovereign nation.

A Dub in Glasgo

Scotland & England are countries which dissolved their own parliaments to create the UK. The new parliament for the UK stayed in Westminster. The people in Scotland decided not to become independent for various reasons some of which the UK told the people in Scotland that they were part of an equal partnership and they should not become independent if they want to retain their EU citizenship.

Look how that has worked out, the people in Scotland want to evalulate their 2014 decision and they are not being allowed to

ancapailldorcha

Why do people want an English Parliament when Westminster is effectively exactly that?

BonnieSituation

Don't forget thaty in 2004 this was attempbted to have regionalised devolution in England and after one refrendum defeat in the NE it was abandoned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_North_East_England_devolution_referendum

A Dub in Glasgo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Don't forget thaty in 2004 this was attempbted to have regionalised devolution in England and after one refrendum defeat in the NE it was abandoned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_North_East_England_devolution_referendum

Guess who was in charge of the North East Says No campaign?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/12/dominic-cummings-honed-strategy-2004-vote-north-east