Jump to content

How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?


Highlander

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Mate, all else being equal that kind of response is really uncalled for and certainly does nothing but harm your own cause.

 

Not sure the reference to "pish talking cretins" was aimed at the OP - I read that as being the twitter person? (Demagogue Bingo?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ri Alban

    267

  • frankblack

    213

  • Boris

    175

  • JamboX2

    134

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

Not sure the reference to "pish talking cretins" was aimed at the OP - I read that as being the twitter person? (Demagogue Bingo?)

 

Well, I hope so, but seeing as it was preceded by "just stop it eh" at the poster, that's not how it read to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

Well, I hope so, but seeing as it was preceded by "just stop it eh" at the poster, that's not how it read to me.

 

Fair do's.  :thumb:

 

Personally, I felt the content regards mis/dis information re EU/Scotland etc was spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Mate, all else being equal that kind of response is really uncalled for and certainly does nothing but harm your own cause.

Cause?

What cause?

If folk cant see the shit show by now then hell mend them!

I'm not here to change anyones minds. Well documented, I'm here to call out the shite when I see it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Just stop it eh. The "need to get to the back of the queue" myth has been debunked about a thousand times by everyone including prominent members of the EU.

Its Turkey that's "in the queue" and will be for many more decades to come.

 

Project fear is in full flow again I see. Pish talking cretins who will do anything to protect their precious Union that does nothing except shit on them from a great height but hey, god save the queen and red post boxes n shit!

 

He didn't say back of the queue. He said meet the Copenhagen criteria. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Fair do's.  :thumb:

 

Personally, I felt the content regards mis/dis information re EU/Scotland etc was spot on.

 

I agree with you. Presented antagonistically, it can only make things worse, no matter how accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

He didn't say back of the queue. He said meet the Copenhagen criteria. 

 

Correct, if we meet the Copenhagen Criteria then we would be back in the EU again. There is no queue for us. 

 

Would seem a simple thing to get clarified but it's easier to just scream project fear and have faith in Nicola, mother of Scotland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Correct, if we meet the Copenhagen Criteria then we would be back in the EU again. There is no queue for us. 

 

Would seem a simple thing to get clarified but it's easier to just scream project fear and have faith in Nicola, mother of Scotland

Independence isn't about the SNP(Nicola Sturgeon) though, is it. Gain it first then vote for who we want to run our affairs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

He didn't say back of the queue. He said meet the Copenhagen criteria. 

The article did. Croatia etc... Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Correct, if we meet the Copenhagen Criteria then we would be back in the EU again. There is no queue for us. 

 

Would seem a simple thing to get clarified but it's easier to just scream project fear and have faith in Nicola, mother of Scotland

Do we meet the criteria with the UK? If not the UK can't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Correct, if we meet the Copenhagen Criteria then we would be back in the EU again. There is no queue for us. 

 

Would seem a simple thing to get clarified but it's easier to just scream project fear and have faith in Nicola, mother of Scotland

Yer Mother of Scotland pish, just blew yet whole agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Do we meet the criteria with the UK? If not the UK can't either.

 

Entry criteria needn't apply to those who are members. UK and Denmark have no commitment to join the euro. New members must commit to joining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Yer Mother of Scotland pish, just blew yet whole agenda.

 

Agenda? I have very little respect for politicians of all parties. 

 

There is an unhealthy protective  obsession with "oor Nicola" from some (see the Janice Forsyth story earlier as an example)

 

The National makes the Daily Express look like high brow journalism. They are literally spreading fake news now. 

 

From the National story in my original message (where they aren't pretending to be someone else), 

----

Fernandes added: “I like Scotland. I’m not against Scotland joining the European Union if it does become a new [independent] country and fulfils the Copenhagen criterion.”

---

 

Nobody can say for sure that they will or won't. As a result, whether we get back in the EU quickly is unknown. Simple logic

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Entry criteria needn't apply to those who are members. UK and Denmark have no commitment to join the euro. New members must commit to joining it.

When the UK joined, later all countries have to join the euro?

but it can it not be at anytime?Scotland have to give a commitment, but can put it off, indefinitely. No?

 

Sorry in the Tesco queue. :D

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody who has joined the EU since the Euro came into being has been forced to adopt it immediately.

The commitment is to promise to join it eventually.

There is no time frame.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Agenda? I have very little respect for politicians of all parties. 

 

There is an unhealthy protective  obsession with "oor Nicola" from some (see the Janice Forsyth story earlier as an example)

 

The National makes the Daily Express look like high brow journalism. They are literally spreading fake news now. 

 

From the National story in my original message (where they aren't pretending to be someone else), 

----

Fernandes added: “I like Scotland. I’m not against Scotland joining the European Union if it does become a new [independent] country and fulfils the Copenhagen criterion.”

---

 

Nobody can say for sure that they will or won't. As a result, whether we get back in the EU quickly is unknown. Simple logic

 

 

Scotland is already a member of the EU. We will take old UK's place, fairs fair, rUK were being allowed to stay if Scotland left in 2014. New entity and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

When the UK joined, later all countries have to join the euro?

but it can it not be at anytime?Scotland have to give a commitment, but can put it off, indefinitely. No?

 

Sorry in the Tesco queue. :D

 

Euro came into being after the UK joined. UK and Denmark opted out. Everyone else not in the euro but in the EU has to commit to join but can obviously find ways around it.

 

The question is what would the Scottish bargaining position be in terms of how it wanted it's membership to look. No doubt it would be a relatively painless process. But there'll be trade offs to be made. 

 

All folk are saying is there are unknowns to this for Scotland. Some of those will be difficult some less so. If you want independence you need to accept it won't be all plain sailing from day 1. There'll be economic shock then it'll play out. Like Brexit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
17 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Not at all. All those things may happen if Scotland applies for EU membership. I said Scotland can apply in its own right once independent. Nothing on terms and conditions or reaction. All that is firmly on the table.

 

And if an editor of the telegraph isn't happy he should attack the agreements reached in the Smith commission and question himself for allowing a very vague vow in his paper.

 

You just told us "The Vow was high level words and has been and is being delivered via the new powers being devolved." It's not according to its architect and you criticise him for "allowing a very vague vow". It wasn't his responsibility to make sure the vow was adhered to it was the responsibility of the politicians who signed it. He thinks they didn't uphold the vow and has now changed to become a supporter of independence because of they did not do what they promised to do. 

   You are telling us in one breath that the vow is being implemented and so the bargain is kept and in another that the vow was so vague that it is impossible to hold people to account.

    Don't you think the architect of the vow would know what was agreed by the politicians and would be in the best position to judge as to whether it was being implemented or not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
6 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Euro came into being after the UK joined. UK and Denmark opted out. Everyone else not in the euro but in the EU has to commit to join but can obviously find ways around it.

 

The question is what would the Scottish bargaining position be in terms of how it wanted it's membership to look. No doubt it would be a relatively painless process. But there'll be trade offs to be made. 

 

All folk are saying is there are unknowns to this for Scotland. Some of those will be difficult some less so. If you want independence you need to accept it won't be all plain sailing from day 1. There'll be economic shock then it'll play out. Like Brexit. 

 

Why will there be economic shock when our trading relationships will be the same or better that they are now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Entry criteria needn't apply to those who are members. UK and Denmark have no commitment to join the euro. New members must commit to joining it.

Like Sweden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Euro came into being after the UK joined. UK and Denmark opted out. Everyone else not in the euro but in the EU has to commit to join but can obviously find ways around it.

 

The question is what would the Scottish bargaining position be in terms of how it wanted it's membership to look. No doubt it would be a relatively painless process. But there'll be trade offs to be made. 

 

All folk are saying is there are unknowns to this for Scotland. Some of those will be difficult some less so. If you want independence you need to accept it won't be all plain sailing from day 1. There'll be economic shock then it'll play out. Like Brexit. 

I'd rather we hooked up with the Nordic countries. I'm not bothered about full membership either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
20 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Own courts

Legal system

Independent church

Education system

University independence

Local governance 

Own banks 

 

 

Famine.

 

 

Read Tom Devine's book Independence or Union. Detailed breakdowns of welath redistribution, numbers of high ranking Scots in Imperial administration compared to Ireland for example was quite marked from reading the book. The number of Scots businesses which actively pursued imperial trade was higher than the average elsewhere outside London. Then Scottish Secretaries like Johnston and Ross achieved higher per head spend in Scotland and investment through the 40s, 50s to the 70s. 

 

Interesting book. Would recommend it.

None of these institutions operated in any coherent way prior to the England/Wales union.

 

The UK government were not responible for potato blight. To a large degree they were responsible for the forced removal of many poor people throughout Scotland so much so that the rate of migration was higher than any other European country.

The fact that Scotland had such effective fighting men and such a high standard of education allowed Scots to have a disproportionately high involvement in the Empire. There is nothing to support your claim that Scotland  "has enjoyed a hugely favourable position in the UK since 1707." Your Showing favour to Scotland notion is unconvincing but if you are so convinced can you tell us when it stopped or perhaps you think it continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
17 hours ago, coconut doug said:

None of these institutions operated in any coherent way prior to the England/Wales union.

 

The UK government were not responible for potato blight. To a large degree they were responsible for the forced removal of many poor people throughout Scotland so much so that the rate of migration was higher than any other European country.

The fact that Scotland had such effective fighting men and such a high standard of education allowed Scots to have a disproportionately high involvement in the Empire. There is nothing to support your claim that Scotland  "has enjoyed a hugely favourable position in the UK since 1707." Your Showing favour to Scotland notion is unconvincing but if you are so convinced can you tell us when it stopped or perhaps you think it continues.

Correct. 

It’s nothing more than vague scaremongering and an underlying message of loss should we leave. 

Fear. Fear. Fear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/08/2019 at 16:54, coconut doug said:

 

You just told us "The Vow was high level words and has been and is being delivered via the new powers being devolved." It's not according to its architect and you criticise him for "allowing a very vague vow". It wasn't his responsibility to make sure the vow was adhered to it was the responsibility of the politicians who signed it. He thinks they didn't uphold the vow and has now changed to become a supporter of independence because of they did not do what they promised to do. 

   You are telling us in one breath that the vow is being implemented and so the bargain is kept and in another that the vow was so vague that it is impossible to hold people to account.

    Don't you think the architect of the vow would know what was agreed by the politicians and would be in the best position to judge as to whether it was being implemented or not? 

 

The Vow had no specifics. None. Read it. The Smith Commission set out what would be devolved. A lot of power has been devolved and the Vow has been delivered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/08/2019 at 16:56, coconut doug said:

 

Why will there be economic shock when our trading relationships will be the same or better that they are now?

 

Because Scotland would be leaving a union where a majority of its business is done. A potential new currency. A border. These things will have a cost and take time to work in.

 

There is nothing wrong with accepting it might well come with a cost. Brexit certainly will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/08/2019 at 19:53, coconut doug said:

None of these institutions operated in any coherent way prior to the England/Wales union.

 

In Scotland or Wales? 

 

On 16/08/2019 at 19:53, coconut doug said:

 

The UK government were not responible for potato blight. To a large degree they were responsible for the forced removal of many poor people throughout Scotland so much so that the rate of migration was higher than any other European country.

 

Forced?

 

On 16/08/2019 at 19:53, coconut doug said:

The fact that Scotland had such effective fighting men and such a high standard of education allowed Scots to have a disproportionately high involvement in the Empire. There is nothing to support your claim that Scotland  "has enjoyed a hugely favourable position in the UK since 1707."

 

Read the book. Take a view. Devine backs independence but his book slays a lot of tired troupes and sets out a very good, balanced view. Union might have been good but doesn't mean it will always be.

 

On 16/08/2019 at 19:53, coconut doug said:

Your Showing favour to Scotland notion is unconvincing but if you are so convinced can you tell us when it stopped or perhaps you think it continues.

 

The current Brexit debacle and danger of no deal throws up a serious question of what is the best for Scotland going forward. Do we want to be more european or do we want to be part of Boris's view of the UK?  

 

There seems to be fewer and fewer alternatives in UK politics. People should be asked how they wish to be governed, if there is no second vote or a general election then I wouldn't oppose a independence referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/08/2019 at 13:01, jack D and coke said:

Correct. 

It’s nothing more than vague scaremongering and an underlying message of loss should we leave. 

Fear. Fear. Fear. 

 

Not at all. Just pragmatic and regurgitating the views of a noted academic based on his book Independence or Union: Independence or Union: Scotland's Past and Scotland's Present https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0241215870/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_I8CwDb95FT02K

 

Excellent book on the nature of union, it's impact on the national psyche and how and why attitudes have shifted since the mid-1950s to now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
5 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

Hi, hope you well. 

I feel a tremendous sense of loss, thinking about the UK splitting apart. 

 

I am fearful of of Scotland becoming independent because of this sudden rush. Its terrifying. Like being in a car with somebody who says they can drive, but can't drive safely. 

 

 

I’m good man hope you are an all👍🏼

I’m not sure why there has to be fear. What is it that makes us so unable to run things ourselves? We somehow different from other countries? 

I suppose I understand the loss thing for a lot of people though. Fair enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boris said:

Who have no intention of adopting the euro...

 

Anytime soon. I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is they are committed by law to join. But they continue to push it  back. That's a position allowed under Treaty and may also be open to Scotland.

 

Then again, I'm not totally sure at times why the euro is always ruled out.

Edited by JamboX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Anytime soon. I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is they are committed by law to join. But they continue to push it  back. That's a position allowed under Treaty and may also be open to Scotland.

 

Then again, I'm not totally sure at times why the euro is always ruled out.

 

Ah, ok.  I was probably making the same point as you!  i.e. you can "commit" to the Euro with no real intention of ever adopting it.

 

The Greek experience of the Euro I suppose is the thing that gets cast up, however scrutiny of Greece's inadequate tax collection etc and basket case economy never really gets aired.  When we have a eurosceptic press I suppose that is no surprise.  EU/Euro (they're all the same right?!) = bad!!

 

I'm not informed enough to have a real opinion about the Euro as such, but it seems to work ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
11 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The Vow had no specifics. None. Read it. The Smith Commission set out what would be devolved. A lot of power has been devolved and the Vow has been delivered. 

 

If the vow had no specifics as you say, how can you then claim that it is being delivered via the Smith commission? Don't you think i've read the vow? Don't you think the guy who drew it up understands its content and aspirations particularly in relation to Scotland's opinion being meaningfully considered. Don't you understand why Murray Foote the architect of the vow, has changed from being a Union supporter to an Indy one?

  Do you really think that giving the Scottish parliament the ability to spend money ameliorating on the worst effects of welfare cuts amounts to power being devolved? The real power is going back to Westminster when we leave the EU through the continuity bill where devolved matters will be controlled from London, by politicians whose parties have  small and declining representations in Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

If the vow had no specifics as you say, how can you then claim that it is being delivered via the Smith commission?

 

Because the Vow created the Smith Commission which put meat on the bones.

 

Quote

Don't you think i've read the vow? Don't you think the guy who drew it up understands its content and aspirations particularly in relation to Scotland's opinion being meaningfully considered. Don't you understand why Murray Foote the architect of the vow, has changed from being a Union supporter to an Indy one?

 

Totally. Foote moved to indy primarily over Brexit. If he feels short changed from allowing the Vow to go into his paper perhaps he should have asked Cameron, Clegg and Miliband to agree what the flesh of the new powers in the Vow would be when he printed it.

 

It promised:

 

1. Scottish parliamentary permanence and extensive new powers to be delivered by an agreed process after 19 September 2014

2. Equitable distribution of resource to ensure prosperity, defence and welfare

3. Continuation of Barnett and more financial powers to Holyrood

 

The 2016 Scotland Act delivered:

 

1. New tax powers in income tax and the ability to levy new taxes and a share of VAT receipts

2. Welfare powers

3. The ability to set new rules for Scottish elections and amend the Scotland Act 1998

4. Greater control of abortion laws 

5. Power over on shore oil and gas 

6. Rail franchising

7. New energy and climate powers

8. Crown estate devolution 

9. APD devolved

10. Permance of the Scottish Parliament in legislation.

 

Oh and Barnett still exists. I'd argue that's pretty much what the Vow "promised". 

 

Quote

  Do you really think that giving the Scottish parliament the ability to spend money ameliorating on the worst effects of welfare cuts amounts to power being devolved?

 

Yes. Because those cuts would need reversed in an independent Scotland anyway and resource would need to be found to reverse some of these policies to have a more generous welfare system. The same applies in a devolved context. 

 

Plus only certain elements of welfare are now reserved. The Scottish Government and Parliament now have total control of disability benefits and can do as they please here.

 

Quote

The real power is going back to Westminster when we leave the EU through the continuity bill where devolved matters will be controlled from London, by politicians whose parties have  small and declining representations in Scotland.

 

No they won't. The continuity bill calls for a temporary period of coordination until the situation is settled. Which, imo makes a lot of sense. 

 

This is scaremongering.

 

It is one thing to be an advocate of yes. Another to be blatantly clouded and dogmatic in your views. 

Edited by JamboX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Ah, ok.  I was probably making the same point as you!  i.e. you can "commit" to the Euro with no real intention of ever adopting it.

 

The Greek experience of the Euro I suppose is the thing that gets cast up, however scrutiny of Greece's inadequate tax collection etc and basket case economy never really gets aired.  When we have a eurosceptic press I suppose that is no surprise.  EU/Euro (they're all the same right?!) = bad!!

 

I'm not informed enough to have a real opinion about the Euro as such, but it seems to work ok?

 

Similarly I've never lived with the euro. But I think from the outside if you don't have a basket case economy like Greece or Ireland did it works. 

Edited by JamboX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
On 19/08/2019 at 11:08, JamboX2 said:

 

Because the Vow created the Smith Commission which put meat on the bones.

 

 

Totally. Foote moved to indy primarily over Brexit. If he feels short changed from allowing the Vow to go into his paper perhaps he should have asked Cameron, Clegg and Miliband to agree what the flesh of the new powers in the Vow would be when he printed it.

 

It promised:

 

1. Scottish parliamentary permanence and extensive new powers to be delivered by an agreed process after 19 September 2014

2. Equitable distribution of resource to ensure prosperity, defence and welfare

3. Continuation of Barnett and more financial powers to Holyrood

 

The 2016 Scotland Act delivered:

 

1. New tax powers in income tax and the ability to levy new taxes and a share of VAT receipts

2. Welfare powers

3. The ability to set new rules for Scottish elections and amend the Scotland Act 1998

4. Greater control of abortion laws 

5. Power over on shore oil and gas 

6. Rail franchising

7. New energy and climate powers

8. Crown estate devolution 

9. APD devolved

10. Permance of the Scottish Parliament in legislation.

 

Oh and Barnett still exists. I'd argue that's pretty much what the Vow "promised". 

 

 

Yes. Because those cuts would need reversed in an independent Scotland anyway and resource would need to be found to reverse some of these policies to have a more generous welfare system. The same applies in a devolved context. 

 

Plus only certain elements of welfare are now reserved. The Scottish Government and Parliament now have total control of disability benefits and can do as they please here.

 

 

No they won't. The continuity bill calls for a temporary period of coordination until the situation is settled. Which, imo makes a lot of sense. 

 

This is scaremongering.

 

It is one thing to be an advocate of yes. Another to be blatantly clouded and dogmatic in your views. 

 

Foote says the vow was about “extensive new powers” for Holyrood and would deliver “faster, safer, and better change” than independence.  He has changed his mind  saying “Independence is now the only option that provides any prospect of that greater end. What matters is timing and circumstance.” There may be some new “powers” as a result of the Smith commission but clearly these are not in the spirit of the vow and he should know because he is the architect of it.

 

   Brexit is a factor but not the only factor and clearly not the “primary” factor as you suggest. It took him 2 years after the Brexit vote to move to supporting Indy and he was motivated by Scotland’s treatment by the UK government and not the Brexit decision itself. I expect you already knew that. In illustrating this he tweeted that the behaviour of many MPs would seem “appalling to many Scottish viewers” and “serves to confirm the SNP line that Scots interests are treated with disdain”.

 

If you want a fuller story it’s all in here https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/12893/independence-it-must-be-mastermind-behind-vow-switches-no-yes  including a quote from Tom Devine describing the idea that the union is based on partnership and respect as “fraud and myth”.

 

Can I now assume that you accept that the vow was primarily about Scotland being treated with greater respect and that two prominent Scots one the architect of the vow, the other our leading historian have expressed opinions that this has not happened and so the vow has been broken?

 

Going by your comments above i'm still not sure that you understand that it was Foote who was the architect of the vow and that he would not feel "short changed for allowing it in his paper" He feels short changed because he feels it was not properly implemented and that is why he changed from No to Yes. Can i assume that you now understand this point too? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
On 18/08/2019 at 23:18, JamboX2 said:

 

In Scotland or Wales? 

 

Wales obviously as you claimed their institutions were destroyed after the union of Wales and England.

 

Forced?

 

People were forced off the land in the Highland Clearances. The Duke of Sutherland's estate was particularly brutal. The locals were described as aborigines and shown little or no consideration. Are you disputing that these people were forcibly removed from their homes which were often burned down to stop them returning. Devine’s book which you are promoting has a subtitle “ A history of the dispossessed”

 

 

Read the book. Take a view. Devine backs independence but his book slays a lot of tired troupes and sets out a very good, balanced view. Union might have been good but doesn't mean it will always be.

 

I haven’t read the book but I have read several reviews. I am offered no insight as to whether the union has been good or not and I don’t really care. I do know that universally the poor and the weak would have been treated very badly irrespective of which part of the British Isles they inhabited which is why I do not accept you claim that Scotland "has enjoyed a hugely favourable position in the UK since 1707." Having read the reviews I’m not sure which tired tropes Devine has slain.

 

The current Brexit debacle and danger of no deal throws up a serious question of what is the best for Scotland going forward. Do we want to be more european or do we want to be part of Boris's view of the UK?

 

Boris has no coherent view on anything especially the UK. Very few people, including Tories, want to be part of Boris's view.  

 

There seems to be fewer and fewer alternatives in UK politics. People should be asked how they wish to be governed, if there is no second vote or a general election then I wouldn't oppose a independence referendum.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Foote says the vow was about “extensive new powers” for Holyrood and would deliver “faster, safer, and better change” than independence.  He has changed his mind  saying “Independence is now the only option that provides any prospect of that greater end. What matters is timing and circumstance.” There may be some new “powers” as a result of the Smith commission but clearly these are not in the spirit of the vow and he should know because he is the architect of it.

 

I quoted the Vow above. I then noted the powers devolved. The Vow promised there would be a process to those ends you note. This was the Smith Commission which agreed the 2016 powers. These are extensive powers. How you can argue that the devolution of most of the welfare state is not is beyond me. The idea that the ability to establish any new benefits or taxes it is huge. The control of the Crown Estate is a great thing for green energy. These are major changes in how Britain works. Before 2016 the idea was that welfare and abortion should be uniform across Great Britain for the idea of parity of treatment in the welfare state mkdel. That has now been changed. Scotland can and is creating her own benefits. It can treat Scots differently from non-Scots and take different policy and budgetary choices on these areas and the already devolved areas. It is an exceptionally strong set of institutions. 

 

Quote

 

   Brexit is a factor but not the only factor and clearly not the “primary” factor as you suggest. It took him 2 years after the Brexit vote to move to supporting Indy and he was motivated by Scotland’s treatment by the UK government and not the Brexit decision itself. I expect you already knew that. In illustrating this he tweeted that the behaviour of many MPs would seem “appalling to many Scottish viewers” and “serves to confirm the SNP line that Scots interests are treated with disdain”.

 

Fair enough. How he justifies his change of heart is for him and him alone. I said Brexit was part of his justification. My point stands, he printed a vague set of promises and expected more than he should have from it.

 

Quote

 

If you want a fuller story it’s all in here https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/12893/independence-it-must-be-mastermind-behind-vow-switches-no-yes  including a quote from Tom Devine describing the idea that the union is based on partnership and respect as “fraud and myth”.

 

Will have a read. 

 

Quote

 

Can I now assume that you accept that the vow was primarily about Scotland being treated with greater respect and that two prominent Scots one the architect of the vow, the other our leading historian have expressed opinions that this has not happened and so the vow has been broken?

 

Scotland is not alone in being treated with disrespect at this time. I do not accept this a premeditated attack. I think it is a deeper more complex issue of misunderstanding and disinterest. 

 

Quote

 

Going by your comments above i'm still not sure that you understand that it was Foote who was the architect of the vow and that he would not feel "short changed for allowing it in his paper" He feels short changed because he feels it was not properly implemented and that is why he changed from No to Yes. Can i assume that you now understand this point too? 

 

So Foote drafted the Vow and then went got the then PM, Deputy PM and Leader of the Opposition at Westminster to sign up to it? No involvement of them or their teams on its content? Foote was the one who prescribed the setting up of a cross party commission? 

Edited by JamboX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
On 18/08/2019 at 23:09, JamboX2 said:

 

Because Scotland would be leaving a union where a majority of its business is done. A potential new currency. A border. These things will have a cost and take time to work in.

 

There is nothing wrong with accepting it might well come with a cost. Brexit certainly will.

 

The comparative  trading position will remain the same as it is now as far as the EU is concerned. Scotland will likely have a more favourable trading relationship with the ROW as we will have had our terms negotiated by the EU. rUK will not.

 

RUk will always have to exchange currency if they want to trade with other countries, so Scotland has no competitive disadvantage there either.

.

Any border will be erected rUK and not for any good reason. The current government are telling us that there will be no backstop and no border between NI and ROI. We've had this discussion before the Norway/Sweden border is the model.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

 

I remember always being told at school you should read the actual book and not rely on the reviews or notes. Only then would you know the subtitle to the book is:

 

Scotland's Past and Scotland's Present 

 

Not a "History of the Dispossessed". 

 

It's on the cover of the book if it helps.

 

Welsh institutions were eradicated by their union with England in the 15th century. There is no independent Welsh only judiciary to this day. No independent system of Welsh schooling. 

 

As for the Sutherland clearances, yes you're right. I was confused by your initial post and simply trying to clarify a point. Much of that was Scots landowners disposing of their own countrymen as much as anything else. We are not a nation immune to cruelty to one another. 

 

Again, buy the book and read it. Your local library may well stock it too. Read it. Form an opinion of Devine and his writing. His journey to backing independence is informed by decades of informed research of modern Scottish history. You can take issue with me and my opinions on his book, but at least do so from a position of having read the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

The comparative  trading position will remain the same as it is now as far as the EU is concerned. Scotland will likely have a more favourable trading relationship with the ROW as we will have had our terms negotiated by the EU. rUK will not.

 

RUk will always have to exchange currency if they want to trade with other countries, so Scotland has no competitive disadvantage there either.

.

Any border will be erected rUK and not for any good reason. The current government are telling us that there will be no backstop and no border between NI and ROI. We've had this discussion before the Norway/Sweden border is the model.  

 

And that in bold is one of the biggest myths and unicorns of the debate on Brexit. The independence debate has largely been grounded in reality but bringing in the Boris/Mogg/Farage argument on borders is nuts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

 

Welsh institutions were eradicated by their union with England in the 15th century. There is no independent Welsh only judiciary to this day. No independent system of Welsh schooling. 

 

 

I'm not sure Wales ever had any, in that Wales as a nation state has never existed, certainly not like the Kingdom of Scotland as a comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

I'm not sure Wales ever had any, in that Wales as a nation state has never existed, certainly not like the Kingdom of Scotland as a comparison.

 

The Principalities which made up Wales and the bodies they had within them were subsumed and replaced by English institutions and courts. English borough grants for market towns were established in the Welsh Marches to control commerce and Welsh law - which had existed for a few centuries as separate of English law - was applied up till Wales was incorporated into England in the 1540s. 

 

Perhaps not as established as Scotland was in terms of nationhood but it lost what it did have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cade said:

As the old adage goes:

There are three nations in the UK.

Scotland, Northern Ireland and England&Wales.

 

 

2, Scotland and England, but it's really just England/Britain/UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Good piece

 

https://theorkneynews.scot/2019/09/18/the-struggle-for-normality/

 

The truth is that it’s entirely our fault, because five years ago we handed back power to the very people who are now taking us to Brexit oblivion. We are where we are because we took the wrong path. If we’d done the right thing and voted for normality, and not become the first people in history to vote against themselves, we’d today be sitting with our feet up watching our neighbours implode in an existential crisis, our EU membership card in our back pockets.

...

Why, after everything that has happened, why isn’t it 80-20? Why does 48% of Scotland want to be run by another country’s monied elite that despises us and we can never get rid of? What does that say about us? Is 52% a staging post, or a destination? What else can I say to you, the 48%, that I haven’t already said a thousand times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Another good piece. How things have changed in ten years.

 

The union survived this decade. But only just

 

[In 2010,] with 42% of the Scottish vote, Labour won 41 out of a total of 59 seats in Scotland that year. Nine years later, in this month’s general election, it won one seat, with 18.6 % of the vote.

. . .

The arrival of the Cameron-Clegg coalition in Westminster and the start of austerity meant that an old, pre-devolutionary argument could be resurrected: Scotland had a government – and government policies – that it hadn’t voted for. In 2011, the SNP won an outright majority at Holyrood for the first time with a manifesto that, among other things, recommitted the party to a referendum on independence.

. . .

[Salmond's] remarks [about the London Riots] confirmed a suspicion that England was becoming problematic in an entirely new way: not as the cause of nationalist anger and grievance but as a troubled society to feel sorry for and be separated from.

. . .

Not easily predicted was how the fantastical version of English history embraced by English nationalism would equal and then overtake the Caledonian delusions that the SNP was beginning to shed. It had lain dormant inside the fog of British history since Empire Day was last celebrated, but now sprang angrily to life. There had been claymores in the north; there would be Spitfires in the south. The feeling of Britishness began to wither in many of us during this decade.

 

That last bit--there seems to be no signs of that letting up. Though it would appear many unionists enjoy continuing to paint independence supporters as "Freedom!" wailing, blue face-painting fantasists, that's just not the core of Indy now--at the same time the fantasies of English history have ramped up to delusional heights the likes of which I'd never even seen about the USA in America.

 

If nothing else, it's never been more stark that the two countries are headed in complete opposite directions, and something, somehow, has to give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...