How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?

[jack D and coke]

Just now, Zlatanable said:

You said 'cheated', earlier

 

How does 'cheated' turn into 'repealed' ? 

We voted for it. They didn’t respect the vote.

What else would you call it?

[Don Dan]

3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Scotland voted for devolution and the Labour Party repealed it. 

Claimed not enough people voted. 

 

From Wikipedia 

The Scottish referendum of 1979 was a post-legislative referendum to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate. This was an act to create a devolveddeliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted "Yes" in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.

 

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

From Wikipedia 

The Scottish referendum of 1979 was a post-legislative referendum to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate. This was an act to create a devolveddeliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted "Yes" in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.

 

Ok fair enough I wasn’t aware it had been stipulated beforehand. 

 

[TheOak88]

2 hours ago, Whatever said:

Independence is in the post.

 

 

Tick tock

Been in the post for the past 5 years. 

[Don Dan]

7 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Probably because it’s like any deal. We have to iron out a lot of things first. 

Theyve changed their tune somewhat since brexit. 

 

In reality we are already in a deal/member with the EU (via the UK) as has been argued many times in the recent past then there should be no problem going straight in.

Sturgeon has been in Europe numerous times for meetings with Barnier etc I would hope she has asked the question. It would be interesting if she has asked the question and I would have thought very important to inform the Scottish Electorate of the answer she got. 

 

[Don Dan]

5 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Ok fair enough I wasn’t aware it had been stipulated beforehand. 

 

 

I wasnt either and I voted in it. 😳

[jack D and coke]

Just now, Zlatanable said:

 

So do you believe Scotland was 'cheated' in 1979 referendum now? 

Didn’t I just answer that?

[AlphonseCapone]

12 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

If we are sure the EU all agree and the EU say they all agree let’s get it in writing. That in itself is a vote winner. I’m not sure what the problem is with obtaining an official letter from the EU saying we will be admitted immediately. If Spain agree as you indicated they will sign the document stating they agree Scotland get straight in. 

 

For a start, the EU won't get into a discussion with part of a country and they won't do anything that suggests they aren't impartial in the constitutional affairs of a nation. A letter like you suggest would be incredibly provocative. Especially at this moment in time with Brexit.

 

And Scotland has no legal authority to get agreements as its not a devolved matter. And if the said letter wasn't legally binding, it would be worthless, like the political declaration in the Brexit negotiations. 

 

The point is that the same tripe about Spain specifically vetoing Scotland because of Catalonia has been put to bed by the Spanish themselves numerous times. Their biggest argument, and it's such a simple one, is if a country or region leaves another country in a way that is legally compatible with that country's constitution then they've no issues with said new country joining the EU. As far as they are concerned this, like Scotland, differs completely from Catalonia where there is no legal basis for it to leave Spain. They aren't comparable for the Spanish. 

 

They've clarified it so many times that is incredulous folk still spout it;

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-politics-scotland/spain-would-not-oppose-future-independent-scotland-rejoining-eu-minister-idUKKCN1NP25P

 

None of this means I'm saying it would be easy or hard for Scotland to join, all I'm saying is the Spanish veto myth is dead and only extreme ignorance would continue to peddle it. 

 

[Don Dan]

18 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

the EU won't get into a discussion with part of a country and they won't do anything that suggests they aren't impartial in the constitutional affairs of a nation. 

 

And there’s the problem as I see it. How Scotland gets round that is anyone’s guess. So at this point there is no way of guaranteeing Scotland gets straight into the EU.  

[jack D and coke]

29 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

 

I am unsure, thats why I am asking.

You said that you don't trust the United Kingdom when it comes to elections, as the 1979 referendum was cheated.

Then 5 minutes later,  you have changed your point of view.

Being on Jambos Kickback seems to have been a major education for you tonight. 

Just wondered how that feels. 

 

 

I’m wrong quite often. I don’t tend to get too upset about it. 

I changed my point of view when I was corrected. 

Im not pig headed like you seem to be fella👍🏼

 

 

[jake]

6 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

And there’s the problem as I see it. How Scotland gets round that is anyone’s guess. So at this point there is no way of guaranteeing Scotland gets straight into the EU.  

God forbid Scotland should after escaping the shackles of one union join another where its influence is further diminished.

But if Scotland wished to I am sure it would be guarenteed.

Why would they the EU not welcome a nation like ours .

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by jake

[Don Dan]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

Why would they the EU not welcome a nation like ours

 

I hope it would. 

[Don Dan]

On the day of Brexit if it ever happens. The EU says “goodbye UK, Scotland you are welcome to join immediately” we then demand another referendum.

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, Zlatanable said:

how often are you wrong do you think? 

That was a major one tonight. 

 

I think it’s the first time I’ve been wrong in about 2 years tbh. 

Not a major one either. I was wrong about Kyle Lafferty as well I thought he’d have been shite. That’s what I call major😅

 

[jack D and coke]

14 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

 

 

Will your voting in #indyref2 be based upon similar mental clarity?

If you had any decent banter I’d try keep this going. Bored now😕

[Jambo, Goodbye]

39 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

your sensation of boredom is important, especially in a thread about #indyref2

although, as you have admitted, you could just be wrong again.

 

Literally everybody on the planet is wrong from time to time, but only a small majority have the ability to admit it. Why not move on and get off the boy's back. You're coming across as a right arse. 

[JyTees]

****ing masochists! 

[Jambo, Goodbye]

11 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#indyref2 is an important issue. Spreading conspiracy theories, then claiming ignorance, gets my attention. 

 

 

 

 

George Cunningham's amendment that altered the referendum rules, despite his minority government holding it in return for being propped up by SNP support, could have been felt by many as a way of insuring Labour kept their promise whilst making a YES outcome as difficult as they could. I would imagine many would have felt cheated as a result. 

 

It's not fact, but the feeling of being cheated could be conveyed through a certain point of view by some. Hardly conspiracy theory stuff. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Jambo, Goodbye

[Jambo, Goodbye]

2 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

 

So,  there was no cheating, in 1979. 

Do you think there was cheating in 2014?

Do you think there will be cheating in #indyref2?

 

I never said there was cheating, I don't think there was and I don't think there will be cheating. 

 

But I do hold the ability to understand why people would feel cheated from the '79 ref. I can empathise with other people, regardless of my political standpoint. That's enough for me to dismiss any conspiracy talk. 

 

You're best not trying to drag on an argument that has long finished here.  

[Jambo, Goodbye]

1 hour ago, Zlatanable said:

I am best doing what I feel is relevant and appropriate. And so are most people.

 

Indulging fantasy scenarios, never ends well, in the long game of politics. 

 

Whatever happens in #indyref2 , I hope it is based on reality rather than ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody is "indulging" as you put it. Quite the opposite. Unless we count your insistence to argue with people who have admitted their wrong about something. Now that's indulgence. 

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

 

 

No, I am not aware of how a democratic election in the UK was false, and it was cheated. 

Is it common knowledge?

79 devolution ref. Yes won, the Labour government reneged because of a 40% rule, (which Brexit didn't meet either). The SNP pulled it's support for the minority government. Labour government collapsed. In comes Thatcher!

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

 

So,  there was no cheating, in 1979. 

Do you think there was cheating in 2014?

Do you think there will be cheating in #indyref2?

Aye, Aye and fecking Aye. Obviously you think having all the Media run the naw propaganda isn't cheating. 

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, JyTees said:

****ing masochists! 

Indeed you are. How else would you explain voting Cowardice? Loyalism? Thick?

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

From Wikipedia 

The Scottish referendum of 1979 was a post-legislative referendum to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate. This was an act to create a devolveddeliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted "Yes" in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.

 

 

6 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Ok fair enough I wasn’t aware it had been stipulated beforehand. 

 

A last minute amendment, which the government could've ignored, so you were right the first time.

 

If no amendment was brought in devolution in 79, would have led to independence in the 80s and wouldn't have sold off Scottish assets. End of. But the assimilated will just act like Zlat with everything out of context and time.

 

And George Cunningham, yer usual Traitor in an English seat. Gove, Fox, IDS, etc... etc...

Edited August 7, 2019 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

I am best doing what I feel is relevant and appropriate. And so are most people.

 

Indulging fantasy scenarios, never ends well, in the long game of politics. 

 

Whatever happens in #indyref2 , I hope it is based on reality rather than ignorance.

 

 

 

 

Do u think manipulation of events to weigh them in your favour isn't cheating? 

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

I wasnt either and I voted in it. 😳

Exactly. The Edinburgh agreement was 2 years before the ref. This had royal assent 7 months before the ref, minus however long parliament sits in recess. 

At the end of the day, Labour promised a ref for SNP support, the double-crossed then and we all paid the price, when the devil tried to destroyed Scotland.

[ri Alban]

Déjà vu!!! Labour will not block Indyref2.

 

Tictacs kicking in already before the G.E is called on October the 1st.

 

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

13 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

All new member states are obliged to join the exchange rate mechanism and the Euro. Scotland would use the Euro if it joined as an independent country.

Countries who retained their currencies are grandfathered in. This is not the case for new member states.

Czechia say you're wrong. 

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Czechia say you're wrong. 

 

It's another one of those things well covered. Essentially there are no definitive timeliness on converting to the Euro, there is some rather purposefully vague text that essentially leaves it until the country decides, that could be in a year or 20. 

[Sarah O]

The EU would take an indie Scotland in just as a massive GIRFUY to rUK and that would be

[Justin Z]

9 hours ago, jake said:

God forbid Scotland should after escaping the shackles of one union join another where its influence is further diminished.

But if Scotland wished to I am sure it would be guarenteed.

Why would they the EU not welcome a nation like ours .

 

If you're an honest person, stop spouting tripe like this, as if there is any like comparison, legal or otherwise, between the "union of equals" and the Europeean Union.

[Justin Z]

17 hours ago, Who_put_the_ball_in... said:

RBS set to move HQ to London in the event of Scottish independence. Sure they wouldn’t be the only ones either. Can’t blame them what bank would want to operate in Socialist Republic of Scotland and do business in Crankie Dollars. 

 

Think this pretty much sums up the appropriate response.

 

[jake]

47 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

If you're an honest person, stop spouting tripe like this, as if there is any like comparison, legal or otherwise, between the "union of equals" and the Europeean Union.

If I'm an honest person ?

 

 

[Justin Z]

Just now, jake said:

If I'm an honest person ?

 

Yes. As has been hashed out what feels like dozens of times on this forum alone, the comparison of the UK's structure of government and union to the EU as equivalent in any way, is an absolute canard--not as a matter of opinion. They factually have **** all to do with each other, full stop. One cannot honestly cast the two in the same light if one is aware of the structuring of each.

 

Now if, in spite of all the reading you say you do and have done, all the enquiring and mulling over, it's a simple mistake on your part, and you don't actually have the full picture of how the two of them work so differently, fair dos. Happy to go over it with you. But as much as you talk about your education on this subject, forgive me if my initial reaction was that that simply couldn't be the case.

[jack D and coke]

9 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Think this pretty much sums up the appropriate response.

 

In think by law they’d have to move as it’s where they do most of their business. It’s not a threat more of a legal necessity. 

Theyve been London based for years anyway this HQ’d in Edinburgh is nonsense.

 

[Justin Z]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

In think by law they’d have to move as it’s where they do most of their business. It’s not a threat more of a legal necessity. 

Theyve been London based for years anyway this HQ’d in Edinburgh is nonsense.

 

Good info. Another one ticked off in the "Project Fear" column then.

[manaliveits105]

So the SNPs own economic committee state independence will lead to initial increased austerity - whoopee higher taxes and worse austerity and no idea on currency etc etc

Now Crankie looking for an alliance with Corbyn and Mcdonnell -

where do I sign up hud me back !

[Justin Z]

Politicians giving an honest assessment of the situation shock.

 

Says a lot more about you, complaining, than it does about their straightforward assessment of the near-term impact.

[jake]

42 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Yes. As has been hashed out what feels like dozens of times on this forum alone, the comparison of the UK's structure of government and union to the EU as equivalent in any way, is an absolute canard--not as a matter of opinion. They factually have **** all to do with each other, full stop. One cannot honestly cast the two in the same light if one is aware of the structuring of each.

 

Now if, in spite of all the reading you say you do and have done, all the enquiring and mulling over, it's a simple mistake on your part, and you don't actually have the full picture of how the two of them work so differently, fair dos. Happy to go over it with you. But as much as you talk about your education on this subject, forgive me if my initial reaction was that that simply couldn't be the case.

😄

Your slagging me off has got more polite which is nice.

 

I have not said the structure of these unions are the same.

 

They are both unions .

Which centralise power and imo mean less accountability and decrease local power.

One needs only look at the economic levers used by both to see they dont work other than for the already powerful.

It's a global economy and being part of these unions is like employing 2 middle men.

The EU in particular with its policies denies poorer nations fair prices for their food exports.

In fact EU policies on food tax punish the poor in Europe .

And before anyone counters with Tory policies .

Just because you leave the EU does not mean it's a race to the bottom.

We have more chance of progressive economic policies away from the EU whose priorities are the protection of multi national financiers .

We can vote for that.

Scotlands case for independence is a lot more complex but essentially the same .

 

So if Scotland chose independence its wealth and standing would see it given a seat at the top table.

If it were to rejoin the EU it would not.

 

If Scotland was to rejoin its budget would ultimately be governed by the EU would it not?

There are examples of this already .

Greece 

Spain

Italy.

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

If Scotland was to rejoin its budget would ultimately be governed by the EU would it not?

There are examples of this already .

Greece 

Spain

Italy.

 

No. The EU oversees budgets and makes recommendations. Greece, Spain, and Italy were acting on their own like ****ing morons, then ran headlong into the financial markets meltdown. They would've had far better economic outcomes had they followed EU recommendations. As part of an economic collective, your own actions affect all the other members to some extent, so if you all agree (via the democratic EU Parliament) that you all ought to follow some set of rules, rules that if you break them are actionable against you, what is the objection exactly?

Again, to simplify it down to "budget governed by EU" as you did is wildly inaccurate. I also think it illustrates perfectly the difference in the two unions. Call it 2% control, 5% control, 10% control, whatever you want. Every decision to sign a treaty, to join a union, etc., cedes part of a state's sovereignty. Much like when we as individuals collectivise and create governments to do things on our behalf, we are ceding part of our individual sovereignty to them. We do so because it is sensible.

 

10 minutes ago, jake said:

They are both unions .

Which centralise power and imo mean less accountability and decrease local power.

 

That's correct--though you'll have to clarify what you mean by "less accountability"--but the key is the level to which this occurs. In the case of Scotland to the UK (really to England), it's 100%. Even with a Scottish Parliament. People keep saying, just now, the people of Scotland are sovereign. In the current constitutional system, they are not. Westminster is fully, 100% sovereign, with zero exceptions. Ceding all this power, Scotland has what to show for it? By comparison, because Norway was running its own affairs, it now has a $1 trillion+ North Sea oil fund, instead of having all of that profit hoovered off elsewhere in return for **** all, as just one example.

 

Likewise, compare the ceding of small measure of sovereignty for the market access alone, and you only begin to start to grasp why it's understating it to call comparison of the two apples and oranges.

 

I snipped the rest of your post because it's all off-topic. Not saying there aren't legitimate objections there, many of which are addressable via the democratic will, but they don't have anything to do with this subject.

[Ron Burgundy]

18 hours ago, Class of 75 said:

Very hypocrital when she and the other Remoaners refuse to accept the result of the majority in the EU Referendum. No surprise there then. 

And the last once in a generation Indy ref.

[jake]

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

No. The EU oversees budgets and makes recommendations. Greece, Spain, and Italy were acting on their own like ****ing morons, then ran headlong into the financial markets meltdown. They would've had far better economic outcomes had they followed EU recommendations. As part of an economic collective, your own actions affect all the other members to some extent, so if you all agree (via the democratic EU Parliament) that you all ought to follow some set of rules, rules that if you break them are actionable against you, what is the objection exactly?

Again, to simplify it down to "budget governed by EU" as you did is wildly inaccurate. I also think it illustrates perfectly the difference in the two unions. Call it 2% control, 5% control, 10% control, whatever you want. Every decision to sign a treaty, to join a union, etc., cedes part of a state's sovereignty. Much like when we as individuals collectivise and create governments to do things on our behalf, we are ceding part of our individual sovereignty to them. We do so because it is sensible.

 

 

That's correct--though you'll have to clarify what you mean by "less accountability"--but the key is the level to which this occurs. In the case of Scotland to the UK (really to England), it's 100%. Even with a Scottish Parliament. People keep saying, just now, the people of Scotland are sovereign. In the current constitutional system, they are not. Westminster is fully, 100% sovereign, with zero exceptions. Ceding all this power, Scotland has what to show for it? By comparison, because Norway was running its own affairs, it now has a $1 trillion+ North Sea oil fund, instead of having all of that profit hoovered off elsewhere in return for **** all, as just one example.

 

Likewise, compare the ceding of small measure of sovereignty for the market access alone, and you only begin to start to grasp why it's understating it to call comparison of the two apples and oranges.

 

I snipped the rest of your post because it's all off-topic. Not saying there aren't legitimate objections there, many of which are addressable via the democratic will, but they don't have anything to do with this subject.

Will reply .

But you have gone from being nippy to being funny with your abrupt ways.

 

Loving the "I snipped the rest of your post"

😄

[dobmisterdobster]

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Déjà vu!!! Labour will not block Indyref2.

 

Tictacs kicking in already before the G.E is called on October the 1st.

 

 

Labour couldn't win an egg and spoon race in their current state.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, jake said:

Will reply .

But you have gone from being nippy to being funny with your abrupt ways.

 

Loving the "I snipped the rest of your post"

😄

 

Well I mean I'm glad, but you do have a tendency to veer wildly away from the subject, and imo that's far more infuriating than abrupt but on-topic, or even a straight up dick as I am at times, but on-topic. Obviously neither of those extremes is desirable, but still. Red herrings don't make for good discussion, ken?

[jack D and coke]

18 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

And the last once in a generation Indy ref.

It’s been once in 312 years Ron. That going over the score is it?

[jake]

23 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Well I mean I'm glad, but you do have a tendency to veer wildly away from the subject, and imo that's far more infuriating than abrupt but on-topic, or even a straight up dick as I am at times, but on-topic. Obviously neither of those extremes is desirable, but still. Red herrings don't make for good discussion, ken?

How did I go off topic wildly?

 

And anyway discussions on any subject should be fluid.

 

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, jake said:

How did I go off topic wildly?

 

And anyway discussions on any subject should be fluid.

 

By getting into particular aims of the EU as it currently exists that you don't like, that have very little to nothing to do with claiming an equivalence to the level of sovereignty ceded to it via membership, versus the level of sovereignty Scotland has ceded to the UK.

 

Fluid discussion is one thing. Red herrings are another. Points need to be focused on and finished before moving on. If you have to cede those points in order to do so, fine, but you haven't yet. Instead of engaging with the facts about how the loss of sovereignty in signing on to the EU works versus Scotland's current domestic situation, you went off on wholly unrelated matters. Because the facts aren't answerable as such, this comes across as deflection.

Sure, membership in the EU may not be a good idea for lots of reasons. They need to stand alone, not with spurious likenings of unions.

[Justin Z]

43 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

And the last once in a generation Indy ref.

 

We've also already talked about how this framing is in really bad faith, just a few pages ago.

[jake]

38 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

No. The EU oversees budgets and makes recommendations. Greece, Spain, and Italy were acting on their own like ****ing morons, then ran headlong into the financial markets meltdown. They would've had far better economic outcomes had they followed EU recommendations. As part of an economic collective, your own actions affect all the other members to some extent, so if you all agree (via the democratic EU Parliament) that you all ought to follow some set of rules, rules that if you break them are actionable against you, what is the objection exactly?

Again, to simplify it down to "budget governed by EU" as you did is wildly inaccurate. I also think it illustrates perfectly the difference in the two unions. Call it 2% control, 5% control, 10% control, whatever you want. Every decision to sign a treaty, to join a union, etc., cedes part of a state's sovereignty. Much like when we as individuals collectivise and create governments to do things on our behalf, we are ceding part of our individual sovereignty to them. We do so because it is sensible.

 

 

That's correct--though you'll have to clarify what you mean by "less accountability"--but the key is the level to which this occurs. In the case of Scotland to the UK (really to England), it's 100%. Even with a Scottish Parliament. People keep saying, just now, the people of Scotland are sovereign. In the current constitutional system, they are not. Westminster is fully, 100% sovereign, with zero exceptions. Ceding all this power, Scotland has what to show for it? By comparison, because Norway was running its own affairs, it now has a $1 trillion+ North Sea oil fund, instead of having all of that profit hoovered off elsewhere in return for **** all, as just one example.

 

Likewise, compare the ceding of small measure of sovereignty for the market access alone, and you only begin to start to grasp why it's understating it to call comparison of the two apples and oranges.

 

I snipped the rest of your post because it's all off-topic. Not saying there aren't legitimate objections there, many of which are addressable via the democratic will, but they don't have anything to do with this subject.

The EU protected and protect the bad financial decisions made by big business and served up austerity which punished the people of those countries.

At the same time they effectively bailed out the financial institutions (German).

So what does that mean ?

It means youth unemployment at 40% for starters.

Austerity does not create wealth.

These measures protected financial institutions.

How is it that those who argue against tory austerity are blind to EU policy .

 

As to the signing up to the same set of rules.

That's exactly the problem.

One size does not fit all.

 

[jake]

5 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

By getting into particular aims of the EU as it currently exists that you don't like, that have very little to nothing to do with claiming an equivalence to the level of sovereignty ceded to it via membership, versus the level of sovereignty Scotland has ceded to the UK.

 

Fluid discussion is one thing. Red herrings are another. Points need to be focused on and finished before moving on. If you have to cede those points in order to do so, fine, but you haven't yet. Instead of engaging with the facts about how the loss of sovereignty in signing on to the EU works versus Scotland's current domestic situation, you went off on wholly unrelated matters. Because the facts aren't answerable as such, this comes across as deflection.

Sure, membership in the EU may not be a good idea for lots of reasons. They need to stand alone, not with spurious likenings of unions.

My original point was god forbid we leave one union (the uk) to then rejoin another(EU).

 

There are very many reasons why they are likened to each other.

And I think all of the points I raised are pertinent to Scotlands independence .