Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The UK is nothing like Spain and Scotland is nothing like Catalonia or Munster. Scotland and England gave up their parliaments to create the UK in the Act of Union so either of them should be able to unilaterally end the arrangement and reinstate their own parliament.

That is a very dangerous international precedent to set - even quite extreme; the idea that any population can unilaterally declare independence. After all, it's the "population" who get to define their own identity and use it as a measure for independence. What "authorities" believe does not matter.

In 2014, just 5 short years ago, Scotland opted to Remain in the UK (in a % higher than the Brexit vote).

Why do you find it challenging to accept this relatively recent decision?

It comes across, dare I say, that you're almost longing for Scottish independence, even if they don't vote for it.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

In 2014, the Scottish people had their say; you portray this as if the UK has never offered Scotland its choice to Leave. If they did Leave (I supported it at the time), we would have to respect that choice. But they opted to Remain, so we must respect that too.

Personally, I believe another Scottish referendum should be held perhaps 3-5 years post Brexit.

Why?

For two reasons: first, to let Brexit settle in, so people understand the consequences fully and, second, to let the Scottish people have their say on whether they - in a post-Brexit world - want to remain part of the UK or wish to join the EU and the Euro and so forth.

As I said, the UK is almost a country in itself; and it must abide by its constitutional norms. We cannot have a situation in which one part of the UK unilaterally requests independence, in the same way we cannot have Catalonia doing the same.

If you have no constitutional norms, what's stopping Munster becoming an independent nation?

Separatism is a challenging constitutional subject.

Ireland is not a union of different nations. Ireland does not contain regions with seperate legal systems or devolved administrations. There is only one parliament in Ireland. Munster cannot become a nation in the same way that Yorkshire cannot become a nation, they are not nations in themselves, they are part of a nation. The UK is quite different, it is a union of different nations, with seperate legal systems, parliaments and nationalities.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a very dangerous international precedent to set - even quite extreme; the idea that any population can unilterally declare independence.

In 2014, just 5 short years ago, Scotland opted to Remain in the UK.

Why do you find it challenging to accept this relatively recent decision?

It comes across, dare I say, that you're almost longing for Scottish independence, even if they don't vote for it.

It should not be for me, or you, or Borris Johnson to decide. It should be for the Scottish people, through their elected representatives to decide. If the Scottish do not want an independance referendum, they should stop voting for those who support independance.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It should not be for me, or you, or Borris Johnson to decide. It should be for the Scottish people, through their elected representatives to decide. If the Scottish do not want an independance referendum, they should stop voting for those who support independance.

But they voted in 2014 to Remain? Not 1970, 1954, or 1923.

Why do you keep implying that Scotland is being held against its will?

Clearly, quite a lot of Scots are happy to remain in the UK. The 2014 result affirms that, as does the most recent mass survey by a pro-independence organization.

I cannot understand why you're trying to force Scottish independence on a people who are giving you a very different result.

I have a feeling that, if Scotland voted to Remain in another referendum in 2023, say, you would still refuse to acknowledge the result.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a very dangerous international precedent to set - even quite extreme; the idea that any population can unilaterally declare independence. After all, it's the "population" who get to define their own identity and use it as a measure for independence. What "authorities" believe does not matter.

In 2014, just 5 short years ago, Scotland opted to Remain in the UK (in a % higher than the Brexit vote).

Why do you find it challenging to accept this relatively recent decision?

It comes across, dare I say, that you're almost longing for Scottish independence, even if they don't vote for it.

We keep getting told that the UK is a Union of constitient countries so why is it a dangerous percedent to allow one of the creating countries of the union to leave?

Can you imagine the rage in the UK if there was no EU article 50 process?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

If the situation was as stark as you've portrayed, Scottish independence would have been 90% Leave in 2014.

Clearly, with the 2014 result, the Scottish people do not see themselves as "dominated" by their southern neighbour.

A major "threat" to the Scots in 2014 was that out of the UK, they would lose their access to the EU. Applying your slightly bizarre electoral logic, two years later, they (again) voted to remain in the EU, but now England decided that it was in England's interest to be out of the EU and Scotland had to follow suit. And to make sure that the Scots don't upset the English applecart, the Tories are trying to reclaim devolved powers from the Scottish Parliament.

What was that you were saying about democracy and pooled sovereignty and domination ... ?

There is nothing inconsistent in the Scots expressing their desire for independence from England, while also indicating their wish to remain (or re-join) the EU - knowing that they will retain their newly earned sovereignty and recover the trans-national protection of their culture and heritage.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

But they voted in 2014 to Remain? Not 1970, 1954, or 1923.

Who are you to give the timeline that allows the people in Scotland to choose?

We have had a General Election in 2015 and another one in 2017 and will have another one in 2019 despite the law saying it should be every five years!!

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

We keep getting told that the UK is a Union of constitient countries so why is it a dangerous percedent to allow one of the creating countries of the union to leave?

Can you imagine the rage in the UK if there was no EU article 50 process?

The world is a big place, filled with many minorities and complex political situations.

These situations are highly delicate. Unilateral declarations of independence sound fluffy and non-violent, but things on the ground are often very, very different.

CelticRambler wrote: »

A major "threat" to the Scots in 2014 was that out of the UK, they would lose their access to the EU. Applying your slightly bizarre electoral logic, two years later, they (again) voted to remain in the EU, but now England decided that it was in England's interest to be out of the EU and Scotland had to follow suit. And to make sure that the Scots don't upset the English applecart, the Tories are trying to reclaim devolved powers from the Scottish Parliament.

Seriously, I'm starting to think some people refuse to listen.

The UK is not holding Scotland hostage for the past 300 years. They have intense connections. That's why, in 2014, the Scots voted for Remain - not 90:10, not 80:20, not 70:30, but 55:45. We must respect this result.

Let's have another referendum, I don't mind!

Now, if the Scots vote to Remain in a post-Brexit referendum, will you finally accept that result?

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

The world is a big place, filled with many minorities and complex political situations.

These situations are highly delicate. Unilateral declarations of independence sound fluffy and non-violent, but things on the ground are often very, very different.




Seriously, I'm starting to think some people refuse to listen.

The UK is not holding Scotland hostage for the past 300 years. They have intense connections. That's why, in 2014, the Scots voted for Remain.

Now, if the Scots vote to Remain in a post-Brexit referendum, will you finally accept that result?

So what mandate do you recognise?

The people in Scotland voted pro-independence majority of MPs to Westminster in 2015, 2017 and will do so again in 2019

The people in Scotland voted pro-indendence majority of MSPs to Holyrood in 2011 and 2016

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

But they voted in 2014 to Remain? Not 1970, 1954, or 1923.

Why do you keep implying that Scotland is being held against its will?

Clearly, quite a lot of Scots are happy to remain in the UK. The 2014 result affirms that, as does the most recent mass survey by a pro-independence organization.

I cannot understand why you're trying to force Scottish independence on a people who are giving you a very different result.

I have a feeling that, if Scotland voted to Remain in another referendum in 2023, say, you would still refuse to acknowledge the result.

How have I refused to acknologe the result? Is Scotland not part of the UK right now? That is the acknologement of the result.

Had the British people voted by a narrow margin to remain in 2016 and then at the next general election voted for a party proposing another Brexit referendum, should the EU say sorry, you had your chance, you can't have another referendum for at least ten years?

I am not trying to force anything on Scotland, perhaps you failed to comprehend it, but I just said that it should be for the elected representatives of the people of Scotland to decide, not you, or me, or Borris Johnson or Corbyn for that matter. You seem to support treating the Scotish by rules that you would never accept if they were applied to the UK by the EU.

EDIT: You seem fixated with the idea that people are not accepting of the result of various referendums. Scotland is still part of the UK. How exactly has the result not been accepted? Wishing to overturn the result of a referendum is not the same as refusing to accept the result, indeed the only reason to call for another referendum is that you accept the result of the first and acknologe that another referendum is needed to overturn the result of the first.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a very dangerous international precedent to set - even quite extreme; the idea that any population can unilaterally declare independence.

Not dangerous ... and not a precedent either. The constituent populations of Czechoslovakia decided to separate into Czechia and Slovakia. The people of Moravia sometimes agitate in favour of ceding from Czechia but the majority has decided that they're better off working as part of one nation.

Perhaps you're too young to remember a country called Yugoslavia? That split into several new independent countries, based on their historical populations, and most of which have since opted to join the EU because "better together" you know. There is, however, one former Yugoslav territory that is a long way from EU membership - one that shares a number of uncomfortable parallels with England.

So the precedents have been set, and guess what: when people are given the choice, they generally opt for the peace and economic prosperity offered by EU membership.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I am not trying to force anything on Scotland, perhaps you failed to comprehend it, but I just said that it should be for the elected representatives of the people of Scotland to decide, not you, or me, or Borris Johnson or Corbyn for that matter. You seem to support treating the Scotish by rules that you would never accept if they were applied to the UK by the EU.

Right, but it's possible to vote for the SNP and not want independence?

Why can't anyone grasp this simple point? For example: if I felt that the SNP's politics were best for Scotland, I would vote for them regardless of the independence question.

Second, Angus Robertson held a massive poll of 2,000 people last month. Most people in that poll now support the Union.

Again, let's not make up facts to suit our claims. Let's focus on the evidence.

A poll commissioned by a pro-independence organisation has “backfired spectacularly”, it has been claimed, after it showed that one in six Yes voters in 2014 now want to remain in the Union.

The Survation survey found that 37 per cent of voters “completely support” Scotland staying part of the UK while just 26 per cent “completely support” breaking-up Britain.

Supporters of the Union said it was no surprise the poll for Progress Scotland, which is headed by Angus Robertson, the former SNP leader at Westminster, had been posted online with “no fanfare”.

It also found, after surveying more than 2,000 Scots at the start of the month, that 16 per cent of those who backed Yes in the 2014 referendum now support remaining in the UK, while only four per cent of No voters have switched to favour independence.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Perhaps you're too young to remember a country called Yugoslavia? That split into several new independent countries, based on their historical populations, and most of which have since opted to join the EU because "better together" you know. There is, however, one former Yugoslav territory that is a long way from EU membership - one that shares a number of uncomfortable parallels with England.

The last time that European countries were sewed together under one supranational political organization.

Look how well that turned out...

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, but it's possible to vote for the SNP and not want independence?

Why can't anyone grasp this simple point?

Dunno. It's very simple. Maybe it'd be easier for people to understand if it were phrased "it's possible to vote for the Tories and not want Brexit?"

Would you accept that as a valid comparison?

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Second, Angus Robertson held a massive poll of 2,000 people last month. Most people in that poll now support the Union.

Again, let's not make up facts to suit our claims. Let's focus on the evidence.

Facts???

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2019/10/on-scale-of-confusion-from-0-to-10.html

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The last time that European countries were sewed together under one supranational political organization.

Look how well that turned out...

Ah, OK - so you are agreeing that one dominant country forcing the cooperation of smaller adjacent states, especially by invading them first, isn't really a great model for success. Definitely an argument in favour of breaking up the UK.

Good job there's an alternative supra-national model that states can voluntarily sign up for (and leave) instead.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Dunno. It's very simple. Maybe it'd be easier for people to understand if it were phrased "it's possible to vote for the Tories and not want Brexit?"

Would you accept that as a valid comparison?

People vote for a variety of reasons.

For some, it's about keeping Corbyn out, so they'll hold their nose and vote Conservative.

But it's the same in Scotland. Not everyone who votes for the SNP want independence.

The statistics on independence polling bear this out (see above).

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, but it's possible to vote for the SNP and not want independence?

Why can't anyone grasp this simple point? For example: if I felt that the SNP's politics were best for Scotland, I would vote for them regardless of the independence question.

Second, Angus Robertson held a massive poll of 2,000 people last month. Most people in that poll now support the Union.

Again, let's not make up facts to suit our claims. Let's focus on the evidence.

That is true, an individual may well vote for the SNP and vote to remain in the UK in the following independance referendum. That is why most people don't view it as legitimate for the SNP to declare independance on the basis of winning a majority in an election. The issue is not what individual voters might do, but the right of the people of Scotland to choose to leave the UK. Right now the Scottish people are being told that they do not have the right to leave the UK regardless of what they want.

Why cant you grasp the simple point that it should be for the people of Scotland through their elected representatives, and not Borris Johnson, to decide if they have a referendum on independance.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Facts???

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2019/10/on-scale-of-confusion-from-0-to-10.html

Have you read that article?

I have.

What it says is a complaint about the Sun's "headline", not the results used.

The results of the survey stand, regardless of what the Sun - which I don't read - states or misstates about the poll results.

The results I stated stand.

Why cant you grasp the simple point that it should be for the people of Scotland through their elected representatives, and not Borris Johnson, to decide if they have a referendum on independance.

I've already stated that I welcome a poll post-Brexit on whether Scotland remains within the Union, or leaves and joins the Euro and EU.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

People vote for a variety of reasons.

For some, it's about keeping Corbyn out, so they'll hold their nose and vote Conservative.

Yeah ... I think the sarcasm whooshed past you.

But thank you for confirming clearly and irrefutably that a vote for the Conservative Party in this election is not a vote for Brexit. :cool:

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah ... I think the sarcasm whooshed past you.

But thank you for confirming clearly and irrefutably that a vote for the Conservative Party in this election is not a vote for Brexit. :cool:

That goes without saying.

For some, Corbyn is worse than Brexit - and I agree.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

For some, Corbyn is worse than Brexit - and I agree.

Even better. So seeing as we can't interpret the results of the forthcoming election as any kind of mandate for Brexit, the party/ies that eventually end up forming a government should really check with the people before they hit the Big Red Button ... shouldn't they? I mean that would be good democracy.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Even better. So seeing as we can't interpret the results of the forthcoming election as any kind of mandate for Brexit, the party/ies that eventually end up forming a government should really check with the people before they hit the Big Red Button ... shouldn't they? I mean that would be good democracy.

Not according to some of your fellow Remainers here.

Some have argued that if a Liberal Democrat majority were to take hold, they would have a mandate to revoke Article 50.

Are you amongst their number?

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Not according to some of your fellow Remainers here.

Some have argued that if a Liberal Democrat majority were to take hold, they would have a mandate to revoke Article 50.

Are you amongst their number?

Where does the idea of a one off referendum whose result cannot be changed actually come from?

It makes no sense ; governments pass laws and then repeal the same legislation all of the time (if they feel the new law is not working or has been a failure).

The fact that a now discredited liar / fraud / charlatan like Cameron said he would implement the result is pretty meaningless.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Some have argued that if a Liberal Democrat majority were to take hold, they would have a mandate to revoke Article 50.

Are you amongst their number?

If, thanks to the inherent quirks of FPTP, the Lib Dems achieved a majority of seats on the back of less than a majority of the vote, I would say no, they didn't have a mandate to revoke Art.50

However, I would argue that the planning and attempts at execution of Brexit have been such mess, that the circumstances surrounding the original campaign are shrouded in such criminality and that the process has been stalled and undermined so often by Leaver MPs, that it would politically sensible to revoke Art.50 and remove the constant uncertainty of extendable deadlines. After a period of cross-party reflection, it would be prudent to put a new set of proposals to the public, including a detailed outline of the different types of Brexit.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Where does the idea of a one off referendum whose result cannot be changed actually come from?

From nobody. Nobody at all. Certainly not me.

In fact, what democrats generally believe is that you implement the result of one vote, then decide, in a second later vote, whether to alter the directional course.

What's generally frowned upon is having a vote taken, then having a second vote demanded by the losers in order to overturn the first before it has been implemented.

CelticRambler wrote: »

If, thanks to the inherent quirks of FPTP, the Lib Dems achieved a majority of seats on the back of less than a majority of the vote, I would say no, they didn't have a mandate to revoke Art.50

Are you suggesting that the Liberal Democrats would be anti-democratic to implement their revocation policy?

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

The results of the survey stand, regardless of what the Sun - which I don't read - states or misstates about the poll results.

The results I stated stand.



I've already stated that I welcome a poll post-Brexit on whether Scotland remains within the Union, or leaves and joins the Euro and EU.

So you ignore the mandate post?

You ignore the Lord Ashcroft poll?
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/08/my-scotland-poll-yes-to-independence-takes-the-lead/

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So you ignore the mandate post?

You ignore the Lord Ashcroft poll?
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/08/my-scotland-poll-yes-to-independence-takes-the-lead/

I've stated, at least half a dozen times, that another Scottish referendum should be held in a post-Brexit world.

Something tells me that, like in 2014, even if the Scots vote to Remain, you would not accept that vote either.

It appears that it's not that you want Scotland to have a vote, it's that you cannot accept them voting for the Union. That's what's irritating you.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

I've stated, at least half a dozen times, that another Scottish referendum should be held in a post-Brexit world.

Something tells me that, like in 2014, even if the Scots vote to Remain, you would not accept that vote either.

It appears that it's not that you want Scotland to have a vote, it's that you cannot accept them voting for the Union. That's what's irritating you.

Post-Brexit means Feb 2020 onwards yet earlier you stated that you will not allow the Scots another vote for a few years.. who are you to decide?

I accepted the 2014 vote and I also accept that the population was lied to and the pro-indpendence parties have a mandate for another vote yet you are the one denying it and issuing prophetic warnings about Scotland going independent

a bit like Robertson

'The former secretary general of Nato has said that Scottish independence would be cataclysmic for the West in an era of international turmoil.

Speaking in the US, Lord Robertson said a "debilitating divorce" after a "Yes" vote in September would threaten the stability of the wider world.'

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

People vote for a variety of reasons.

For some, it's about keeping Corbyn out, so they'll hold their nose and vote Conservative.

But it's the same in Scotland. Not everyone who votes for the SNP want independence.

The statistics on independence polling bear this out (see above).

So you have moved on to Scotland now:rolleyes:

One of the primary arguments against Scottish Independence were

• Leaving the UK would involve leaving the European Union
• Which would also involve possibly losing its currency, the Pound Sterling

As the UK is now apparently leaving the EU - these two arguments are not just moot - in the event of brexit they are nullified

Therefore what Scotland voted for in 2014 no longer exists - Scotland is not leaving a United Kingdom with full access to a single market, and within the largest trading block in the world

It would be leaving a reclusive isolationist Right wing basket case, run by Right Wing English nationalists, with a currency falling through its own backside

A change to the Union - ie change in the circumstances of the Union, is Scotland's casus belli to seek a second referendum and independence

And they will get it - maybe not from Boris Careerist Johnson - but from who ever follows him in what will undoubtedly be turbulent times -

hometruths

Deleted User wrote: »

In fact, what democrats generally believe is that you implement the result of one vote, then decide, in a second later vote, whether to alter the directional course.

What's generally frowned upon is having a vote taken, then having a second vote demanded by the losers in order to overturn the first before it has been implemented.

What if the winners of the first vote called for a vote to give them a mandate to "Get the first vote done" and then lost that vote to the losers of the first vote who campaigned to give them a mandate to "Scrap that first vote".

What would democrats generally believe in that hypothetical scenario?