How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?

[SwindonJambo]

20 minutes ago, redjambo said:

Here's a little hint for those Nationalists who want to persuade folk like me to join their cause, or at least vote for Independence. We don't give a flying crap what happened in the Middle Ages or hundreds of years ago. The guys who obsess over that are the guys you already have in your ranks. It's now and the future we care about. It's practicalities. So leave that crap and the "Saor Alba!!!"'s out.

 

For those who may actually be anti-Independence but are deep behind enemy lines spouting this sort of bilge to put the rest of us off the Independence movement and its followers - well done, you're doing a great job.  

 

They are an embarrassment, as are the We arra people Rangers type flag wavers on the No side. Lots of numpties on both sides sadly. The latter group would probably riot in the event of a future ‘Yes’ win. It’ should be all about practicalities and economics. Not waving flags, watching reruns of old films and reminiscing about violent conflicts of centuries ago.

 

If Scotland ever does go independent, it needs to build a good relationship with England, which will be its most important economic partner, currently the destination of more than half of Scotland’s exports.

[Space Mackerel]

Another pro Union journalist on the journey to Yes.

 

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/england-brexit-made-mug-of-scots-voted-independence/

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Could you expand on why you think this?

 

IMO what would be destructive is to apply to join the EU immediately after, what will sadly and in all probability be a very divisive second indyref, certainly based upon the way and aftermath that recent referendum's have been conducted, Scotland would be divided and to then further divide the population along Pro & Anti EU lines would only damage the longterm stabilty of a fledgling nation.

 

What is needed is calm heads and a period of stabilty not a period of even more divisiveness amongst the electorate.

 

Because totally extracting yourself from your key regional trading partners is bonkers. You'd have a hard border in every direction. No trade deals at all. And no infrastructure to police and operate such controls. No nation in the modern world as integrated and linked up with it's neighbours has done such a reckless task. Brexit is a shambles but the UK has a global reach Scotland simply does not. Scotland would need a diplomatic and trading apparatus on a huge scale to compete in such an environment.

 

Even Norway and Iceland are so intricately linked to the EU now. I'd add they're are more expensive nations to live in too.

 

I agree. We have totally bypassed sanity. And driven straight into division. But I think what you propose is exactly what will happen in your scenario. You remove one lots British identity and anothers EU and all those who want both. You then chuck in a huge economic shock to the system and you've got the worst possible scenario.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I'm not in the party.

 

I replied to Coconut Doug earlier debunking a lot of this stuff. Labour are in coalition at a local level with more SNP councillors than Tory. The Aberdeen Group have been suspended and the West Lothian Group have a supply deal. The SNP have used Tory supply and confidence across Scotland and at Holyrood so I see no real issue in it.

 

I'm in favour of local democracy and autonomy of decision makers at a local level. I left the party as I'm not a tribalist and I never put in the dog work for it to be worth my membership. I don't vote Tory but that doesn't exclude me from saying where there's agreement there should be cross party working. The SNP stole Tory education policies for their shelved Education bill on school governance and testing. So it's "no just Labour" doing deals here. 

 

But then again in the majority of those 13 seats the SNP lost Labour weren't even close to winning. The Tories win rural and northern and borders seats from the SNP where 20 to 30 years ago they traditionally won seats. Labour has never done well in those areas. I don't think you can lay the blame for those loses at Labour's door (especially given at the time the SNP ridiculed a muddled campaign by Labour in the 17 election in Scotland!). 

 

But to go back to the point,  your fellow Scots saved May and had a huge impact on the outcome of that election. 

How do you know it was Scots, could easily of been non Scots.  Like English, Welsh, Irish, Polish, and any of the other non Scots citizens resident in Scotland. 

[JamboX2]

12 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

How do you know it was Scots, could easily of been non Scots.  Like English, Welsh, Irish, Polish, and any of the other non Scots citizens resident in Scotland. 

 

I thought the definition of a Scot in the SNP rule book, the white paper and to the Yes Movement as a whole was - as long as you live and work here you're a Scot. Clearly not to you and you're ethnic nationalism built on your blatant xenophobic posts you regularly bring up in these debates.

[SwindonJambo]

3 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I thought the definition of a Scot in the SNP rule book, the white paper and to the Yes Movement as a whole was - as long as you live and work here you're a Scot. Clearly not to you and you're ethnic nationalism built on your blatant xenophobic posts you regularly bring up in these debates.

 

He wants only Scots born residents of Scotland to be able to vote. I’d love to see how that would sit with the International Election Watchdogs.

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I thought the definition of a Scot in the SNP rule book, the white paper and to the Yes Movement as a whole was - as long as you live and work here you're a Scot. Clearly not to you and you're ethnic nationalism built on your blatant xenophobic posts you regularly bring up in these debates.

 

This. What is a definition of a Scot? It's those who live here who count - it is we who will decide how our country will be shaped, no matter where we come from. We're all invested in this country simply by living here and contributing to our society. We're all Scots.

[ri Alban]

22 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

He wants only Scots born residents of Scotland to be able to vote. I’d love to see how that would sit with the International Election Watchdogs.

Not really, but explain how the UK government were able to stop EU citizens from voting in the EU ref? 

[ri Alban]

30 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I thought the definition of a Scot in the SNP rule book, the white paper and to the Yes Movement as a whole was - as long as you live and work here you're a Scot. Clearly not to you and you're ethnic nationalism built on your blatant xenophobic posts you regularly bring up in these debates.

So you don't know then? 

[redjambo]

8 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Not really, but explain how the UK government were able to stop EU citizens from voting in the EU ref? 

 

Although I obviously disagree with the UK government's decision on this matter, EU rules state that EU citizens living in another EU country only have the right to vote and stand in European and municipal elections. As regards other votes, it is up to an individual country as to what rights it grants.

 

The rules are here: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/elections-abroad/index_en.htm

 

More info here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/european_elections/can_i_vote.html

 

In my opinion, we should all go and throw our tea in the harbour. No taxation without representation!

[JamboX2]

21 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

So you don't know then? 

 

Because it would breach a number of clauses under the European Convention of Human Rights, you know to record the ethnicity of voters and who they vote for and where they were born... bit illegal. And, well, facist.

[JamboX2]

26 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Not really, but explain how the UK government were able to stop EU citizens from voting in the EU ref? 

 

The Scottish government set the widest possible set of rules for the franchise in 2014 it could. That was their choice and was the right one.

 

The UK government didn't follow suit. 

 

It was the right of both to set the franchise as they so wished within EU rules and constitutional and electoral law. So. You're howling at the wind again.

[SwindonJambo]

25 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Not really, but explain how the UK government were able to stop EU citizens from voting in the EU ref? 

 

Because they are easily distinguished by having different passports and an obvious vested interest which would lead almost all of them to vote one way. Many  will only be temporary residents.

 

Are you really saying that U.K. passport holders resident but not born in Scotland would be excluded? Many will be born To Scottish parents who just happen to have been living elsewhere at the time of their birth. They are also likely to have worked and paid tax in Scotland for all or most of their lives and so too non Scots who arrived in Scotland as young adults and have worked and paid tax there for decades.

 

Not going to happen. It will be all U.K. passport holders, resident in Scotland, regardless of background. Anything else just doesn’t wash so you can forget it now.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Because totally extracting yourself from your key regional trading partners is bonkers. You'd have a hard border in every direction. No trade deals at all. And no infrastructure to police and operate such controls. No nation in the modern world as integrated and linked up with it's neighbours has done such a reckless task. Brexit is a shambles but the UK has a global reach Scotland simply does not. Scotland would need a diplomatic and trading apparatus on a huge scale to compete in such an environment.

 

Even Norway and Iceland are so intricately linked to the EU now. I'd add they're are more expensive nations to live in too.

 

I agree. We have totally bypassed sanity. And driven straight into division. But I think what you propose is exactly what will happen in your scenario. You remove one lots British identity and anothers EU and all those who want both. You then chuck in a huge economic shock to the system and you've got the worst possible scenario.

Who said anything about no trade deals? Of course a fledgling Scotland would seek trade deals, like every other country in the world. And why the assumption of a hard border? Independence to me represents Scottish people deciding Scottish matters, not cutting the world off and floating away in a tartan ark.

 

There would be notice period of years, and we'd try to sort these things out. I'd be open to the idea of an open border with England, reciprocal trade agreements etc. For all the dramatisation, England have been our closest partner for centuries and there's no reason to assume independence means pulling up the drawbridge. 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

Because they are easily distinguished by having different passports and an obvious vested interest which would lead almost all of them to vote one way. Many  will only be temporary residents.

 

Are you really saying that U.K. passport holders resident but not born in Scotland would be excluded? Many will be born To Scottish parents who just happen to have been living elsewhere at the time of their birth. They are also likely to have worked and paid tax in Scotland for all or most of their lives and so too non Scots who arrived in Scotland as young adults and have worked and paid tax there for decades.

 

Not going to happen. It will be all U.K. passport holders, resident in Scotland, regardless of background. Anything else just doesn’t wash so you can forget it now.

 

We're not all passport holders. Voting in a future Scottish referendum should be residency-based, full-stop (albeit with sensible restrictions on how long someone has to have been residing in Scotland to be included), open to all who live here. It shouldn't be restricted to "UK passport holders", or even UK citizens for that matter.

 

As for Brexit, the fact that nationals from other EU countries had what you call "an obvious vested interest" was not "how" the UK government excluded them, but it was almost certainly "why". How "temporary" is "temporary" by the way? As EU citizens, we are (for the moment) allowed to live and work in other EU countries as long as we want to - there is no "temporary" about it.

[SwindonJambo]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

We're not all passport holders. Voting in a future Scottish referendum should be residency-based, full-stop (albeit with sensible restrictions on how long someone has to have been residing in Scotland to be included), open to all who live here. It shouldn't be restricted to "UK passport holders", or even UK citizens for that matter.

 

As for Brexit, the fact that nationals from other EU countries had what you call "an obvious vested interest" was not "how" the UK government excluded them, but it was almost certainly "why". How "temporary" is "temporary" by the way? As EU citizens, we are (for the moment) allowed to live and work in other EU countries as long as we want to - there is no "temporary" about it.

 

I voted remain btw  I’m also well aware that other EU citizens currently have the right to remain permanently but  for many , their stay will be temporary for work or  study for 4 years or less and they will be handed a say in a major issue which will have permanentl implications for the country they temporarily live in .  When I said passport holders, citizens was more what I meant. 

 

A minimum period of residency might be a good way of doIng it. EU citizens who live there long term, say 10 years but have never bothered to apply for citizenship because until now they’ve had no need. 10 years of residency and paying tax is a stake in society for sure. I know Poles who’ve lived here 20 odd years who’ve never bothered with U.K. citizenship.

 

But to limit the vote to U.K. Citizens born in Scotland only  would be ludicrous, which was my main point.

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

Who said anything about no trade deals? Of course a fledgling Scotland would seek trade deals, like every other country in the world. And why the assumption of a hard border? Independence to me represents Scottish people deciding Scottish matters, not cutting the world off and floating away in a tartan ark.

 

This is Scottish Brexiteerism. We wouldn't have any deals on day 1. We'd be trading with WTO tariffs of 20% on everything. That's a huge jump in prices for goods and a huge headache to exporters. You'd have hard borders all over because you'd not be in the UK or the EU so there would need to border and customs at Berwick and Gretna and all ports and airports. It's the hard Brexit of the Indy movement. 

 

Scotland controlling all affairs is fine. As is the UK in a hard Brexit. But let's not say it'll be easy peasy. It'll cause huge economic shocks to walk out like that. Huge.

 

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

There would be notice period of years, and we'd try to sort these things out. I'd be open to the idea of an open border with England, reciprocal trade agreements etc. For all the dramatisation, England have been our closest partner for centuries and there's no reason to assume independence means pulling up the drawbridge. 

 

But doing it as you suggest would. Independence's biggest headache post Brexit is simply our own southern border. If it is a hard Brexit with a hard border an independent Scotland in the EU or EEA or EFTA - which is the proposition on offer at present from independence parties - will have to adopt the same practices as set out in any Brexit deal between the EU and UK.

 

The EEA is bound to follow the same rules so that's not a quick and easy fix.

 

The real reason I believe there won't be a vote this side of the next Holyrood election is that the SNP are waiting to see what the solution in Ulster is and whether they can sell that for the next time they go to the nation. 

[Cade]

Scotland would only have no trade deals on day one if we didn't negotiate deals during the exit process.

Which we would, as we're not as bonkers as the Brexit loons.

Scotland would have everything put in place and ready to go on the exit date.

 

Why do people think that independence makes you start from nothing on day 1?

Edited September 22, 2018 by Cade

[JamboX2]

10 minutes ago, Cade said:

Scotland would only have no trade deals on day one if we didn't negotiate deals during the exit process.

Which we would, as we're not as bonkers as the Brexit loons.

 

But legally the Brexiteers can't because the UK is still in the EU. These deals take years to negotiate. The EU-Canada deal took the better part of a decade.

 

This is la-la-land. This approach would drive yes into a UKIP style nut house.

 

10 minutes ago, Cade said:

Scotland would have everything put in place and ready to go on the exit date.

 

Really? Parts of welfare are now devolved. They were part of the last round of devolution in 2016. 2 years on the new Social Security Agency still is unable to run it without the DWP. 

 

10 minutes ago, Cade said:

Why do people think that independence makes you start from nothing on day 1?

 

Because it effectively does in terms of state apparatus. Scotland has no foreign or diplomatic service, no military, no security service, a minimal tax authority, no DVLA, a minimal social security service and no commercial, consumer or utilities ombudsmen of it's own. Nor does it have the experience domestically of running these services. These take years to establish. That has to be faced up to and accepted as being the case on day 1. Quite simply you are starting with little to build off. 

 

It's liberating to design your own way forward on these things. But it's only liberating and open to such wide spread development because there's little there to start with.

 

Embracing that is 50% of the battle for Yes to win. But much like Brexit - which was based on a pack of unfounded lies frankly - the mood now is to ignore that and claim otherwise.

 

The set up costs of new government departments and the development of expertise in some areas will take decades not 2 years in a transition. 

[Thunderstruck]

4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Not really, but explain how the UK government were able to stop EU citizens from voting in the EU ref? 

 

Every registration application is matched against DWP records (that is why your NI number or proof of ID such as Birth Certificate or Passport are required). This determines the right to register and at which elections the elector can vote (the franchise). 

 

The only EU citizens - permanently resident in the U.K. - who could have voted at the EU Referendum were Irish, Maltese and Cypriot (from the Greek half). 

 

If other EU citizens were not on the Registers being used for the vote, then no poll card, no postal vote and no name on the Ballot Box Register - a next to zero chance of being allowed to vote. 

 

Some might dodge the checks but the crime is committed when a vote is cast illegally. 

 

 

 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

But legally the Brexiteers can't because the UK is still in the EU. These deals take years to negotiate. The EU-Canada deal took the better part of a decade.

 

This is la-la-land. This approach would drive yes into a UKIP style nut house.

 

 

Really? Parts of welfare are now devolved. They were part of the last round of devolution in 2016. 2 years on the new Social Security Agency still is unable to run it without the DWP. 

 

 

Because it effectively does in terms of state apparatus. Scotland has no foreign or diplomatic service, no military, no security service, a minimal tax authority, no DVLA, a minimal social security service and no commercial, consumer or utilities ombudsmen of it's own. Nor does it have the experience domestically of running these services. These take years to establish. That has to be faced up to and accepted as being the case on day 1. Quite simply you are starting with little to build off. 

 

It's liberating to design your own way forward on these things. But it's only liberating and open to such wide spread development because there's little there to start with.

 

Embracing that is 50% of the battle for Yes to win. But much like Brexit - which was based on a pack of unfounded lies frankly - the mood now is to ignore that and claim otherwise.

 

The set up costs of new government departments and the development of expertise in some areas will take decades not 2 years in a transition. 

 

Lots of countries have split before without crumbling into the sea, I can't accept that it's beyond the people of Scotland to do it. 

[Cade]

Aye I must have missed the complete breakdown of Slovakia and Czechia when they split.
Or when Norway split from Sweden.

[SwindonJambo]

37 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Lots of countries have split before without crumbling into the sea, I can't accept that it's beyond the people of Scotland to do it. 

 

As a No, I 100% agree. Though a No (I can’t vote anyway so it doesn’t matter), I’m fully accepting that there might be a Yes vote at some point  in future and I’m sure there are very capable people who can manage the process. But there has to be an acceptance that the transitional period could well be very tough, with the poor, as ever, bearing the brunt. Scotland has a bloated public sector which would need some savage cuts to bring it into balance with its tax take. Once done, the public sector could be slowly built back up again, as the economy (hopefully) grows. A lot of people point to the example of Ireland, but Ireland struggled for decades after independence and only came up to speed about 20 years ago, thanks to a load of EU grants. Scotland has more natural resources and hopefully would get there far quicker. If Yes builds up a clear and consistent  lead in the opinion polls and maintains it over a lengthy period, then there should be a vote. But that hasn’t happened yet.

 

There are a lot of flag waving English hating fools who think Indy is some sort of panacea, but you’re certainly not one of them.  That’s not to say there aren’t any flag waving fools on the No side - they meet at Ibrox every fortnight.

[JamboX2]

53 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Lots of countries have split before without crumbling into the sea, I can't accept that it's beyond the people of Scotland to do it. 

 

I'm not saying we'd fall into the ocean. I'm saying we'd be worse off. For no real gain.

 

The future is interdependence between nations not the Victorian system of big boys ruling the roost and the rest sucked into their orbits.

 

It would be foolish for an independent Scotland not to join the EU or EFTA and NATO. Otherwise we are at the whims of the Trumps and Putins. 

 

Being part of more than yourself isn't a bad thing. The benefits of the EU outweigh the cons. Nothing I've seen since Brexit and before that the 2014 Indy vote has convinced me otherwise.

[Jambos_1874]

I voted no last time ans I would.most likely vote no next time. However, if the yes campaign put over a good enough arguement, and it would have to be absolutely watertight, then I may vote yes.

 

What I often find with those who are passionate yes supoorters is that they have complete and utter tunnel vision when it comes to independence. Right up to those at the top i.e. the campaign leaders/politicians it is actually terrifying how they casually dismiss serious questions regarding the economy, currency, place in the EU, debt, likely deficit etc. These people would lead this country to disaster. Westminster is not ideal but I certainly have not seen any politicians in Scotland who I feel would do a good, competent job at leading Scotland.

 

If the Brexit process has told us anything, it is that such a separation would be extremely difficult with most likely a lot of hardship ahead. And, we were part of a membership organistation for a matter of decades, not a single country linked for over 300 years. The sheer number of unknowns associated with independence and the absolute lack of detail on how it would proceed was really worrying last time and I haven't seen any extra clarity in the meantime. As for "hope over fear", **** off. Sometimes it is good to be fearful as it makes you consider your options more and prevents you from making stupid decisions.

 

But, fundamentally, when I think to myself "would I be as well off or have the same opportunities in an independent Scotland" I have to say the answer is a resounding "no". I can understand why people are enamoured/blinded by the "romance" of independence, but under the current circumstances I am not one of them.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Jambos_1874

[ri Alban]

20 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The Scottish government set the widest possible set of rules for the franchise in 2014 it could. That was their choice and was the right one.

 

The UK government didn't follow suit. 

 

It was the right of both to set the franchise as they so wished within EU rules and constitutional and electoral law. So. You're howling at the wind again.

The UK government set a precedent, nothing stopping the Scottish government following suit. So did you hear that?

 

Oh and you'd be banned too. No expats either temp or perm. 

Edited September 23, 2018 by ri Alban

[JamboX2]

12 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

The UK government set a precedent, nothing stopping the Scottish government following suit. So did you hear that?

 

Of course they can. That's my point on why the franchises were different in those two votes.

 

They won't follow your thinking as it runs counter to everything they've argued for a decade on what their idea of Scotland is. Which is inclusive of outsiders unlike your narrow views on ethnicity.

 

12 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

 

Oh and you'd be banned too. No expats either temp or perm. 

 

Yup. Don't disagree with that. I currently don't live in Scotland.

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Of course they can. That's my point on why the franchises were different in those two votes.

 

They won't follow your thinking as it runs counter to everything they've argued for a decade on what their idea of Scotland is. Which is inclusive of outsiders unlike your narrow views on ethnicity.

You do what is necessary to win. 

2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Yup. Don't disagree with that. I currently don't live in Scotland.

Yip, don't think I could live with stealing local peoples jobs and homes. If I moved I'd open a business and create jobs. 

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Of course they can. That's my point on why the franchises were different in those two votes.

 

They won't follow your thinking as it runs counter to everything they've argued for a decade on what their idea of Scotland is. Which is inclusive of outsiders unlike your narrow views on ethnicity.

 

 

Yup. Don't disagree with that. I currently don't live in Scotland.

And one thing's for sure, I wouldn't vote in any of their referenda or GE. Local election maybe after 10 yrs.

[Space Mackerel]

1 hour ago, Jambos_1874 said:

I voted no last time ans I would.most likely vote no next time. However, if the yes campaign put over a good enough arguement, and it would have to be absolutely watertight, then I may vote yes.

 

What I often find with those who are passionate yes supoorters is that they have complete and utter tunnel vision when it comes to independence. Right up to those at the top i.e. the campaign leaders/politicians it is actually terrifying how they casually dismiss serious questions regarding the economy, currency, place in the EU, debt, likely deficit etc. These people would lead this country to disaster. Westminster is not ideal but I certainly have not seen any politicians in Scotland who I feel would do a good, competent job at leading Scotland.

 

If the Brexit process has told us anything, it is that such a separation would be extremely difficult with most likely a lot of hardship ahead. And, we were part of a membership organistation for a matter of decades, not a single country linked for over 300 years. The sheer number of unknowns associated with independence and the absolute lack of detail on how it would proceed was really worrying last time and I haven't seen any extra clarity in the meantime. As for "hope over fear", **** off. Sometimes it is good to be fearful as it makes you consider your options more and prevents you from making stupid decisions.

 

But, fundamentally, when I think to myself "would I be as well off or have the same opportunities in an independent Scotland" I have to say the answer is a resounding "no". I can understand why people are enamoured/blinded by the "romance" of independence, but under the current circumstances I am not one of them.

 

Could you point out the “hardships” faced when Czech Republic and Slovakia went there seperate way recently? 

[ri Alban]

16 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Every registration application is matched against DWP records (that is why your NI number or proof of ID such as Birth Certificate or Passport are required). This determines the right to register and at which elections the elector can vote (the franchise). 

 

The only EU citizens - permanently resident in the U.K. - who could have voted at the EU Referendum were Irish, Maltese and Cypriot (from the Greek half). 

 

If other EU citizens were not on the Registers being used for the vote, then no poll card, no postal vote and no name on the Ballot Box Register - a next to zero chance of being allowed to vote. 

 

Some might dodge the checks but the crime is committed when a vote is cast illegally. 

 

 

 

I just think if EU citizens resident in Scotland are banned from Scot ref, then the SG should use it as an option. I'd rather everyone resident in Scotland had the vote and were legally obliged to do so at every election. 

[ri Alban]

35 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Could you point out the “hardships” faced when Czech Republic and Slovakia went there seperate way recently? 

The country who was seen as a hindrance and drain, overtook the bigger so called partner, Funny that. 

[Mysterion]

I think Independence last time out was built on a fantasy however my outlook was that Indie was possible but tough.

 

Nothing has really changed my mind that an Independant Scotland could work and thrive after a tough start. 

 

I am quite disheartened by how the Westminster parliament has gone with a party effectively squabbling every 5mins. Till vultures like Boris are emptied we’ll suffer from a minority of backwards f3ckwits who think England rules the waves and has some sort of Empire.

[Jambos_1874]

40 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Could you point out the “hardships” faced when Czech Republic and Slovakia went there seperate way recently? 

 

They are two completely different countries, both of which are/were most likely far more equal in terms of population, economy etc. Scotland is tiny in every regard relative to the rest of the UK and we are far more dependent on the them than I expect Czech Republic/Slovakia were. I won't pretend I know a huge amount about that particular separation but from what I do know I don't think it is a fair comparison. All sorts of parallels can be drawn with other separations that have occurred in the past but each one is unique and not necessarily a guide as to what would happen with our own.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Jambos_1874

[Thunderstruck]

29 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I just think if EU citizens resident in Scotland are banned from Scot ref, then the SG should use it as an option. I'd rather everyone resident in Scotland had the vote and were legally obliged to do so at every election. 

 

Under the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish Government decided upon the franchise and this extended to cover those listed below. 

 

You seem to over-estimate the number of such voters in Scotland and then assume that they would vote the same way as you.

[Geoff the Mince]

1 hour ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Could you point out the “hardships” faced when Czech Republic and Slovakia went there seperate way recently? 

Considering these countries had lived under communism for 50 yrs they could hardly have started at a lower point economically . If you think Scotland is somewhat similar you're a bigger fool than I thought . 

[Thunderstruck]

1 hour ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Could you point out the “hardships” faced when Czech Republic and Slovakia went there seperate way recently? 

 

Did the Czech or Slovak electors get to choose?

[SwindonJambo]

11 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Did the Czech or Slovak electors get to choose?

 

No referendum and opinion polls in both countroes showed that the majority wanted to stay together. Very strange one that.  The whole thing was engineered by manipulative politicians in the then fledgling and very poor democratic Czechoslovakia, just 3 years after the ousting of communism. Even today, many Czechs and Slovaks regret the split. I was in Prague in July.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Same as i did in the first and only one.  Once in a generation, remember?

Edited September 23, 2018 by Seymour M Hersh

[Space Mackerel]

1 hour ago, Jambos_1874 said:

 

They are two completely different countries, both of which are/were most likely far more equal in terms of population, economy etc. Scotland is tiny in every regard relative to the rest of the UK and we are far more dependent on the them than I expect Czech Republic/Slovakia were. I won't pretend I know a huge amount about that particular separation but from what I do know I don't think it is a fair comparison. All sorts of parallels can be drawn with other separations that have occurred in the past but each one is unique and not necessarily a guide as to what would happen with our own.

 

In what way are we dependent on the rest of the UK or as I’m guessing, you’re saying England. 

What can they do that we can’t do ourselves? 

 

How many countries that have left the old defunct British Empire have begged to be let back in? 

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

No referendum and opinion polls in both countroes showed that the majority wanted to stay together. Very strange one that.  The whole thing was engineered by manipulative politicians in the then fledgling and very poor democratic Czechoslovakia, just 3 years after the ousting of communism. Even today, many Czechs and Slovaks regret the split. I was in Prague in July.

No they don’t. If was concluded that a split was inevitable, so they split. The Czechs outnumbered the Slovaks 2 to 1 and they're economy was put ahead of slovak interests. The Slovaks overtook the Czechs with a centralise agenda through EU membership and heavy investment coming from adaption of the euro. The Czechs struggled because of there socialist ideology. 

No one wants to reunite, but of course there'll be some good memories. 

 

Incidentally, Scotland has a bigger GDP per capita than both. But I'd say we'd be bigger than Ireland (Pretty impressive) if we had the actual numbers and compare assets. 

[Space Mackerel]

Thunderstruck should really look at Norway’s ship building order book for 2018. Lucky them getting all these Royal Navy contracts eh? ?

 

 

[SwindonJambo]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

No they don’t. If was concluded that a split was inevitable, so they split. The Czechs outnumbered the Slovaks 2 to 1 and they're economy was put ahead of slovak interests. The Slovaks overtook the Czechs with a centralise agenda through EU membership and heavy investment coming from adaption of the euro. The Czechs struggled because of there socialist ideology. 

No one wants to reunite, but of course there'll be some good memories. 

 

Incidentally, Scotland has a bigger GDP per capita than both. But I'd say we'd be bigger than Ireland (Pretty impressive) if we had the actual numbers and compare assets. 

 

They had no referendum. It was a stitch up, all done by the fledgling parliament. You’re right about the Czech politicians thinking they could prosper by leaving Slovakia, and it did indeed backfire. At the time Slovakia was further left than Czech Republic with a very troublesome ex Communist leader in Vladimir Mecir, who the Czechs were keen to get rid of. Their location in Central Europe and low wage economy has helped them win business too.

 

The Czechs and Slovaks joined the EU the same day and both have benefited greatly from EU grants. The EU has since added 3 more members in Bulgaria, Romania and. Croatia, all recipients of grants. The U.K. is the EU’s 2nd biggest net donor and our leaving will blow a huge hole in their budgets. No wonder they don’t want us to leave. After we do, there will be far less grants to go round as I can’t see the biggest net donor, Germany picking up the slack.

 

I voted remain, but I’m so glad we never joined the Euro. It’s an absolute stitch up of a currency run for Germany’s benefit, in much the same way as the SFA runs Scottish Football for The OF’s benefit. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have all resisted joining 14 years and counting. The Euro has impoverished Southern Europe and was a bad idea from the off.

 

Ireland is fine now, but 10 years ago they got a huge bank bailout to keep them afloat, much of it from Britain.

 

Scotland could cope alone and I hope it does if it so votes in future but it will have to brutally cut its bloated public sector to balance the books, otherwise it will quickly accumulate a big national debt and a poor credit rating. Hopefully those in charge would be tough enough to take the required action, which will not be popular.

[Space Mackerel]

Maybe we will get huge EU grants too as all of Scotland is basically shite?

[ri Alban]

29 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

They had no referendum. It was a stitch up, all done by the fledgling parliament. You’re right about the Czech politicians thinking they could prosper by leaving Slovakia, and it did indeed backfire. At the time Slovakia was further left than Czech Republic with a very troublesome ex Communist leader in Vladimir Mecir, who the Czechs were keen to get rid of. Their location in Central Europe and low wage economy has helped them win business too.

 

The Czechs and Slovaks joined the EU the same day and both have benefited greatly from EU grants. The EU has since added 3 more members in Bulgaria, Romania and. Croatia, all recipients of grants. The U.K. is the EU’s 2nd biggest net donor and our leaving will blow a huge hole in their budgets. No wonder they don’t want us to leave. After we do, there will be far less grants to go round as I can’t see the biggest net donor, Germany picking up the slack.

 

I voted remain, but I’m so glad we never joined the Euro. It’s an absolute stitch up of a currency run for Germany’s benefit, in much the same way as the SFA runs Scottish Football for The OF’s benefit. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have all resisted joining 14 years and counting. The Euro has impoverished Southern Europe and was a bad idea from the off.

 

Ireland is fine now, but 10 years ago they got a huge bank bailout to keep them afloat, much of it from Britain.

 

Scotland could cope alone and I hope it does if it so votes in future but it will have to brutally cut its bloated public sector to balance the books, otherwise it will quickly accumulate a big national debt and a poor credit rating. Hopefully those in charge would be tough enough to take the required action, which will not be popular.

? Agreed. 

 

We need to have an economy and outlook that caters for a small country. Let all the others get on with the muscle flexing. 

[Thunderstruck]

17 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Thunderstruck should really look at Norway’s ship building order book for 2018. Lucky them getting all these Royal Navy contracts eh? ?

 

 

 

That’s illegible - try again and, while you’re at it, why don’t you give us similar lists for (and this is just a small sample):-

 

- Fincantieri Marine Group

- Hyundai Heavy Industries

- Gdańska Stocznia "Remontowa" im. J. Piłsudskiego S.A

- Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft

- Appledore Shipbuilders

 

In case it slipped your attention, that is called international competition. Is an independent Scotland going to invest sufficiently to compete? The short answer is “nobody has a clue”. Why? Because nobody has a clue about ANY post independence plan - not a scooby. 

 

 

 

 

 

[JamboX2]

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

You do what is necessary to win. 

Yip, don't think I could live with stealing local peoples jobs and homes. If I moved I'd open a business and create jobs. 

 

You're a ray of eternal sunshine.

[JamboX2]

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

And one thing's for sure, I wouldn't vote in any of their referenda or GE. Local election maybe after 10 yrs.

 

I pay tax in the UK. You'll be sure I'm voting locally should it arise in the area I live in. 

 

I pay tax and should therefore be represented.

[Thunderstruck]

26 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Maybe we will get huge EU grants too as all of Scotland is basically shite?

 

You have to be in it to win it. 

 

So, you’d better have a word with your fellow Nats who don’t see an immediate joining the EU as a priority. 

 

[SwindonJambo]

40 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Maybe we will get huge EU grants too as all of Scotland is basically shite?

 

Everyone currently receiving grants will get much smaller ones after the U.K. leaves. We’re the 2nd biggest net donor. I can’t see the other net donors, Germany being the biggest, filling the gap. It won’t go down well with the Voters of these countries. I don’t think anyone’s saying Scotland’s shite. Its public finances would definitely need Early and very major surgery though. Austerity big style. As long as people accept and are prepared for that, in the early years anyway, then fine.