Should Scotland be an independent country?

[il Duce McTarkin]

7 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

Braw = Fifeism (trust me, I know )

 

Rerr = Edinburghism 

 

Bra means good in Noggie and Swedish, so I'd imagine that braw has a Viking connection. 

[Ulysses]

15 hours ago, Smithee said:

I'm not trying to predict the future, just saying that there's no reason to state the worst case scenario as fact.

 

I'm not aware of there ever being customs controls between Scotland and England, and as someone who favours a close relationship with our neighbours I don't want to see it happen either.

 

The worst-case scenario?  In whose opinion? 

 

Fact?  Not at all, but a possibility.  All borders invite some degree of border controls, and the main border controls relate to people and goods.  Brexiteers believed that by leaving the EU they were doing a small thing.  I'm not saying they were wrong to think that, but in the end what they thought was irrelevant.  It turned out that the powers that be on the EU side of the new goods frontier thought it was a big thing, and acted accordingly.  When you have a border, it only takes one side's attitude to turn it into a hard border.  English nationalism is very closely associated with the concept of controlling its borders.  If Scotland places itself outside those borders, it simply can't and shouldn't be assumed that the remaining UK will not treat Scotland as an external third party.  It can and should be assumed that the rUK will do whatever suits its own interests.

 

Historical precedent: there were nil or negligible customs checks between Britain and Ireland prior to the 1801 Act of Union - and whatever checks there may have been had not been in effect for 120 years when the Irish Free State left the UK.  Nonetheless, customs checks came into operation very quickly indeed after the establishment of the Free State, even though the two countries had very similar tax and customs regimes, and even though they had very considerable freedom of movement of people between the two jurisdictions.  Those customs checks got more stringent over time as the two countries' tax and customs systems diverged.  They only eased a bit when the UK and Ireland both joined the EEC, and they only stopped when both countries joined the Single Market.

[Ulysses]

13 hours ago, FWJ said:

I wish there was a thread - or even a site - where you could go and have a reasoned, maybe yes maybe no discussion about what will probably be the biggest political decision any of us will make in our lifetime.  You know, a place where people can think about the pros and cons, the opportunities and difficulties than would lie ahead.

Instead we’ve got this.

Welcome to the internet.

 

 

Compare this to the massive thread that ran for about 2 years up to the 2014 referendum.  Is this thread better or worse?  Or just the same?

 

There are some people trying to offer pros and cons, opportunities and difficulties.  The best bet is to try to focus on those posts, even if they are a small number.

[1874robbo]

11 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Cool, but guess what - when Scotland becomes independent there's no reason to assume there'll be customs checks.

 

We have no idea what the agreement will be when the union's dissolved, this will undoubtedly be one of the big issues. And I don't think either country will want something that's never existed before.

 

So again, there's no reason to assume there'll be customs checks.

No reason to assume there’ll be independence either Smithee

[Ulysses]

12 hours ago, Smithee said:

The only precedent we have for a land border between the UK and a former part of the UK is the border between NI and the RoI - no customs

checks.

 

 

Wait ****ing what now?  C'mon Smithee, I don't expect Scots to be experts in the history of this island, but there were massively disruptive customs checks on this island for 72 years.

[FWJ]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Compare this to the massive thread that ran for about 2 years up to the 2014 referendum.  Is this thread better or worse?  Or just the same?

 

There are some people trying to offer pros and cons, opportunities and difficulties.  The best bet is to try to focus on those posts, even if they are a small number.

I think it’s just as bad, TBH - and like the Covid thread - the people who try to be reasonable or even just civil are drowned out.

But that seems to be the whole internet.

Pity.

[Ulysses]

11 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

If Scotland joins the single market then the same will apply, even before joining the EU. It would need England to move in the same direction to avoid customs checks.

 

It could apply anyway, whether Scotland joins the Single Market or not.  Border control is a core entitlement of any sovereign nation; if Scotland is independent of the rUK either side can impose whatever border controls they wish - and the more their tax and duty systems diverge, the more one side or the other will need to impose controls.

 

The only way Scotland and the rUK could bring certainty to the situation after independence would, of course, be to agree to establish a single market or a customs union.  But that union would come with restrictions, and an independent Scotland might not want those restrictions.

 

(I know you know this already, btw, so apologies if this seems like a lecture.)

[Ulysses]

11 hours ago, pablo said:

 

See those gangsters putting all those desperate people on dinghies in the English Channel? They're not dreaming of making it to Cumbernauld.

 

 

[Ulysses]

13 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Would gladly have a sensible discussion, but not when the slightest hesitancy in supporting independence at the current time is met with nothing but vitriol about how one must be a blue rosette-sporting Boris fan and how you hate your own country.

 

Yes.

 

Partly.

 

And the rest?

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Ulysses

[Ulysses]

12 minutes ago, FWJ said:

I think it’s just as bad, TBH - and like the Covid thread - the people who try to be reasonable or even just civil are drowned out.

But that seems to be the whole internet.

Pity.

 

I recall comparing this place to a boozer where you can hear every single line of every single conversation in every nook and cranny.  We'd never try to listen and and answer back in real life, but we do it (or something like it) here and throughout what's called social media.  The only real way to do that is to squawk and shriek.

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, jonesy said:

The rest is just good sport 🎏

 

No, the rest.  The vitriol from the other side?

[Unknown user]

23 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Wait ****ing what now?  C'mon Smithee, I don't expect Scots to be experts in the history of this island, but there were massively disruptive customs checks on this island for 72 years.

I wasn't talking about Ireland in the past.

And like I also said, there's no reason to assume we won't have customs checks either.

[Ulysses]

6 minutes ago, jonesy said:

A couple dashes of wummary, a shake of genuine affection for the Union and a strong pinch of SNP/Sturgeon-aversion, I'd imagine.

 

🧑‍🍳

 

Fair enough.  Bigotry and bias are always the other guy's fault. 

[Ulysses]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I wasn't talking about Ireland in the past.

And like I also said, there's no reason to assume we won't have customs checks either.

 

I've seen eye to eye with you on a lot of things.  But you've made a complete bollix of this one, and repeating your mantra over and over again doesn't make it less so.  Ireland is strong evidence that it would extraordinarily naive to assume that there wouldn't be customs checks between an independent Scotland and the rUK.  The sole and only reason why there were customs checks between the UK and Ireland was because the Irish Free State left the United Kingdom.  Only once has a constituent part of the UK left the rest of the country, and customs checks were imposed within days of that happening.  Days.  The part that left and the part that remained had almost identical tax, duty, customs and legal systems.  But there were customs checks within days.  I've already explained this, and GK has given it a good go as well, but you've chosen to ignore that.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Passion and conviction are all well and good, but they are no substitute for analysis.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, jonesy said:

Nae jobs, nae hopes.

 

Just folk <20 or >60 with blue face paint, sitting on the buses all day, getting off at pharmacies to pick up their free prescriptions. Will turn into one of those countries like the Philippines where all the working age population fecks off to the Middle East or the USA to earn money to send back in remittances.

 

Braw.

U know that sounds frighteningly realistic . I’m glad I’ll do a runner to Italy if it all falls apart ! 

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

U know that sounds frighteningly realistic . I’m glad I’ll do a runner to Italy if it all falls apart ! 

 

How's that not getting caught up in the Indyref 2 debate going for you, then?

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

How's that not getting caught up in the Indyref 2 debate going for you, then?

Very well as I’m just reacting very calmly to the postings and trying to be level headed . It’s great to not give a damn really about what the result is either way.  However I have said I think it’s a bleak future if it was yes . 

[Weakened Offender]

13 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

U know that sounds frighteningly realistic . I’m glad I’ll do a runner to Italy if it all falls apart ! 

 

Posts the guy who claims to have voted YES first time around. 😁

[Ulysses]

10 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Very well as I’m just reacting very calmly to the postings and trying to be level headed . It’s great to not give a damn really about what the result is either way.  However I have said I think it’s a bleak future if it was yes . 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Posts the guy who claims to have voted YES first time around. 😁

Im Hardly going to lie about posting yes the first time around ! What possible motive would I have ? How odd ! Maybe it illustrates that is humans can grow ,  change and develop . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, jonesy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61887144

 

Any ITKers care to share what options are actually open to NS if she wants a referendum and London sez no?

 

Surely she saw what happened in Catalonia when they tried to do one anyway. 

 

I assume there must be other legal options open to her?

It’s a sleikit plan of hers . She’s hoping she get sent to jail . “Wentworth”dentition centre and be the new “top dog “ 

[JudyJudyJudy]

5 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Posts the guy who claims to have voted YES first time around. 😁

Ill

need to post some of my manic face book postings from 2014 just to prove I was a big Yesser . Anonymise them Ofcourse . I cringe reading them Now . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

16 minutes ago, jonesy said:

 

Have checked whether or not Italy will take you, though? 🇮🇹⛔

Plans Jonesy plans , my good man . It’s a beautiful country , culture and people .

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, jonesy said:

And there was me trying to drag this thread out the gutter...

 

Wasting your time 😎

[FWJ]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

I recall comparing this place to a boozer where you can hear every single line of every single conversation in every nook and cranny.  We'd never try to listen and and answer back in real life, but we do it (or something like it) here and throughout what's called social media.  The only real way to do that is to squawk and shriek.

That’s a good analogy!

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by FWJ

[Ked]

4 minutes ago, jonesy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61887144

 

Any ITKers care to share what options are actually open to NS if she wants a referendum and London sez no?

 

Surely she saw what happened in Catalonia when they tried to do one anyway. 

 

I assume there must be other legal options open to her?

Let's assume that she holds one.

Let's assume that it's a yes vote of 55 or more.

She has a majority in PR devolved parliament.

A majority (overwhelming )in Westminster.

You have to say there could be no clearer mandate.

 

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, jonesy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61887144

 

Any ITKers care to share what options are actually open to NS if she wants a referendum and London sez no?

 

Surely she saw what happened in Catalonia when they tried to do one anyway. 

 

I assume there must be other legal options open to her?

 

Can't help you with the ITK thingy, but anyway...

 

I'm not sure I get your point about Catalonia, just as I'm not sure I get the FM's point about "a lawful manner".  If there's no law making having a referendum an offence, having a referendum without "going through channels" isn't unlawful - it's just meaningless because the channels are needed to give it meaning.

 

The BBC article says: "For example, voters could instead be asked of [sic] they believe the Scottish government should begin negotiations with the UK government on Scotland leaving the UK."

 

That's an interesting angle.  The BBC piece says it would be more difficult for the UK government to challenge such a referendum in the courts, which is probably true.  But it's also a better question, IMO, and I think a question along those lines should have been put in 2014.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, Ked said:

Let's assume that she holds one.

Let's assume that it's a yes vote of 55 or more.

She has a majority in PR devolved parliament.

A majority (overwhelming )in Westminster.

You have to say there could be no clearer mandate.

 

Not if no people boycott it which they will and should . 

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, FWJ said:

That’s a good analogy!

All the way down to the bar-room bores who use condescension as a weapon and when called out on it hide behind “but I was only having a laugh” …

 

 

Dunno.  A lot of people say things here they'd never dream of saying in a boozer, mainly because of what might happen to them if they did. 

[Unknown user]

29 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I've seen eye to eye with you on a lot of things.  But you've made a complete bollix of this one, and repeating your mantra over and over again doesn't make it less so.  Ireland is strong evidence that it would extraordinarily naive to assume that there wouldn't be customs checks between an independent Scotland and the rUK.  The sole and only reason why there were customs checks between the UK and Ireland was because the Irish Free State left the United Kingdom.  Only once has a constituent part of the UK left the rest of the country, and customs checks were imposed within days of that happening.  Days.  The part that left and the part that remained had almost identical tax, duty, customs and legal systems.  But there were customs checks within days.  I've already explained this, and GK has given it a good go as well, but you've chosen to ignore that.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Passion and conviction are all well and good, but they are no substitute for analysis.

As I've also said, I favour a different type of union with the rest of the uk, there's absolutely no reason we couldn't negotiate a mutually beneficial dissolution of the current union and, for example, enter a customs union and single market.

There's never been customs checks at a border between Scotland and England and I think both countries would balk at the reality.

 

That's just what I'd like though, we have no idea what our exit will actually look like, what will be agreed, so there's no reason to assume there'll be customs checks.

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Ill

need to post some of my manic face book postings from 2014 just to prove I was a big Yesser . Anonymise them Ofcourse . I cringe reading them Now . 

I believe you did mate. I don’t understand all the trolling now though I’ll admit. 
 

[Ked]

3 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Up to a point, I suppose. Would depend on whether or not the pro-UK parties actually take part or not. If only the SNP, Greens and Alba bothered campaigning and the pro-Indy folk actually vote, then it could hardly be called representative. Whatever happens, it's interesting times.

The arguments are the same.

If a majority of eligible voters went yes and less than 45 abstained its still a majority.

5 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Not if no people boycott it which they will and should . 

Why should they?

The party which fights on an independent ticket currently holdsa democratic mandate on any conceivable measure.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

8 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I believe you did mate. I don’t understand all the trolling now though I’ll admit. 
 

People change . 

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

People change . 

Yeah of course and that’s cool.
Glad you’re admitting trolling tho. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Yeah of course and that’s cool.
Glad you’re admitting trolling tho. 

Buona notte 👍

[JudyJudyJudy]

8 minutes ago, jonesy said:

 

Fair point. Whether or not that kind of turnout could be achieved in an unofficial vote is a challenge the yes organisers would have to weigh up prior to taking the leap of faith, otherwise they could end up doing more damage to their cause. I'd imagine there'd be a sizeable minority of folk who get even more pissed off with London, making them harder to govern, while a big chunk may be turned off the whole debate.

The snp are at it. They are goading BJ knowing full well that he will eventually relent and agree a section 30. It’s to his benefit that he does really . 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

13 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Didn't Puigdemont end up with a UDI after his illegal/unofficial vote (with the Spanish government coming down pretty heavy handedly)? It doesn't seem to have ended all that well for him what with arrest warrants, exile, etc.

 

I doubt Johnson would send in the riot polis or chase her all over Europe, but instead just ignore the whole thing (much like he ignores anything he doesn't like very much) - only adding fuel to the fire for those whose main gripe with the Union is that people like him get elected now and again.

 

Sturgeon, while having a responsibility towards the supposed indy mandate (although whether or not the SNP and Greens were actually voted in on that, as opposed to their other policies is debatable, I suppose - nevertheless, it was in their manifesto), also has one towards keeping the country from imploding by stoking independence furore when she knows there's no likely lawful channel.

 

Interesting point re the question. They've had almost a decade to work on it, so would imagine that whatever question they come up with will have been designed to give the best chance for independence.

 

Anyway, we haven't had any constitutional upheaval for a good ten minutes or so, so it's probably about time...

The big difference is that Spain has a written constitution which is explicit in those powers and where power resides. The UK doesn't have a written constitution. It has various pieces of legislation and conventions.

[Ulysses]

Just now, Smithee said:

As I've also said, I favour a different type of union with the rest of the uk, there's absolutely no reason we couldn't negotiate a mutually beneficial dissolution of the current union and, for example, enter a customs union and single market.

There's never been customs checks at a border between Scotland and England and I think both countries would balk at the reality.

 

That's just what I'd like though, we have no idea what our exit will actually look like, what will be agreed, so there's no reason to assume there'll be customs checks.

 

The piece highlighted is simply not the case.  It's a passionately felt and probably well-intentioned opinion, but it just isn't a fact.  There are reasons you couldn't, not least of which could be the rUK deciding that its best interests lie in not doing so (and don't quote me billions of imports and Scotch, because those factors didn't stop the EU).  Another factor is that a CU/SM would at best limit, and at worst entirely restrict, the capacity of an independent Scotland to enter into trade deals with other countries and trading blocs (including key players the EU, the USA and Japan), unless those deals were identical to - and in effect written by - the rUK.  Therefore, it might not be in Scotland or the rUK's best interests, or they might not be able to agree how best to balance their conflicting interests.

 

You think both countries would balk at the reality of customs checks?  That's a move from your previous definitive position that because they've never been present in the past they couldn't be present in the future.  They could readily exist in the future, of course, you just think they won't.  Fine, but you have no definitive evidence that they won't, and you have one big piece of UK historical precedent to show just how possible it is that customs checks could come into being.

 

There's also one big simple and fundamental reason why it's unsafe to assume there won't be customs checks. Customs is one of the fundamental markers of territory.  Sovereign nations control their frontiers, and customs is one of the core ways of doing that.  The only way sovereign nations can duck customs checks is to deliberately and painstakingly set out alternatives in a transnational agreement and in law. 

 

Some of the alternatives to customs checks are set out above - but they mean Scotland would have almost no trading policies, no food or agricultural safety policies, and no policies in relation to standards of sensitive goods like medicines, unless those policies were carbon copies of the policies of the rUK.  That begs an important question: If an independent Scotland has to do a load of policy stuff exactly the way the rUK does, what exactly is it getting by leaving?

 

So, you keep saying a thing, but you keep popping up questions and issues pointing to another and opposite thing.  Just saying. 

[Ulysses]

18 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Didn't Puigdemont end up with a UDI after his illegal/unofficial vote (with the Spanish government coming down pretty heavy handedly)? It doesn't seem to have ended all that well for him what with arrest warrants, exile, etc.

 

I doubt Johnson would send in the riot polis or chase her all over Europe, but instead just ignore the whole thing (much like he ignores anything he doesn't like very much) - only adding fuel to the fire for those whose main gripe with the Union is that people like him get elected now and again.

 

Sturgeon, while having a responsibility towards the supposed indy mandate (although whether or not the SNP and Greens were actually voted in on that, as opposed to their other policies is debatable, I suppose - nevertheless, it was in their manifesto), also has one towards keeping the country from imploding by stoking independence furore when she knows there's no likely lawful channel.

 

Interesting point re the question. They've had almost a decade to work on it, so would imagine that whatever question they come up with will have been designed to give the best chance for independence.

 

Anyway, we haven't had any constitutional upheaval for a good ten minutes or so, so it's probably about time...

 

 

Spanish law (and the continental civil legal system) aside, the key question is whether a referendum in Scotland would be a breach of the law applicable to Scotland, and if so what kind of breach.

 

If the SG go for a "should the SG seek to negotiate...." question in a referendum, what laws are broken?  And what legal offences are committed?  I suspect that the answers are none and none.

 

Apart from any tactical considerations on the SNP's part, it's also a good question to put, and in my view it's the question that should have been put in 2014.

 

The SG should put the question on the basis that it doesn't commit anyone, but that if an exit agreement is negotiated that can be put to the people in a subsequent referendum. 

 

If that advisory referendum resulted in a Yes vote, the SG could seek to negotiate.  London might give them the elbow, but the country would just have to cross that bridge when it came to it.  If an agreement could be written, people would then be voting to leave or stay knowing - for good or ill - the major implications of their vote.  That would be a far more sound and meaningful exercise than either 2014 or 2016.

 

If the advisory referendum resulted in a No vote, the SG and independence supporters would have to do a serious rethink about strategy and tactics.  Whatever about a No vote in a binding exit referendum, the Scottish electorate would be sending a very significant message if it were to vote not to give the SG a mandate to negotiate what an exit would look like, and in my view that message would have to be taken seriously by the political system in Scotland.

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

The piece highlighted is simply not the case.  It's a passionately felt and probably well-intentioned opinion, but it just isn't a fact.  There are reasons you couldn't, not least of which could be the rUK deciding that its best interests lie in not doing so (and don't quote me billions of imports and Scotch, because those factors didn't stop the EU).  Another factor is that a CU/SM would at best limit, and at worst entirely restrict, the capacity of an independent Scotland to enter into trade deals with other countries and trading blocs (including key players the EU, the USA and Japan), unless those deals were identical to - and in effect written by - the rUK.  Therefore, it might not be in Scotland or the rUK's best interests, or they might not be able to agree how best to balance their conflicting interests.

 

You think both countries would balk at the reality of customs checks?  That's a move from your previous definitive position that because they've never been present in the past they couldn't be present in the future.  They could readily exist in the future, of course, you just think they won't.  Fine, but you have no definitive evidence that they won't, and you have one big piece of UK historical precedent to show just how possible it is that customs checks could come into being.

 

There's also one big simple and fundamental reason why it's unsafe to assume there won't be customs checks. Customs is one of the fundamental markers of territory.  Sovereign nations control their frontiers, and customs is one of the core ways of doing that.  The only way sovereign nations can duck customs checks is to deliberately and painstakingly set out alternatives in a transnational agreement and in law. 

 

Some of the alternatives to customs checks are set out above - but they mean Scotland would have almost no trading policies, no food or agricultural safety policies, and no policies in relation to standards of sensitive goods like medicines, unless those policies were carbon copies of the policies of the rUK.  That begs an important question: If an independent Scotland has to do a load of policy stuff exactly the way the rUK does, what exactly is it getting by leaving?

 

So, you keep saying a thing, but you keep popping up questions and issues pointing to another and opposite thing.  Just saying. 

I don't recall saying they couldn't be present in the future and I've also said there's no reason to assume there won't be any customs checks.

 

We don't know what the state of play will be.

We're looking at a point years and years in the future with god knows what political landscape around us, god knows what national sentiment, god knows what legal and constitutional negotiations have lead up to it. 

 

I have to acknowledge that I know much less about Ireland than you, I can live with that, but we know exactly the same amount about soothsaying geopolitical matters years in advance!

[Ulysses]

13 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I don't recall saying they couldn't be present in the future and I've also said there's no reason to assume there won't be any customs checks.

 

We don't know what the state of play will be.

We're looking at a point years and years in the future with god knows what political landscape around us, god knows what national sentiment, god knows what legal and constitutional negotiations have lead up to it. 

 

I have to acknowledge that I know much less about Ireland than you, I can live with that, but we know exactly the same amount about soothsaying geopolitical matters years in advance!

 

All of this would be completely irrelevant to the referendum debate if the Scottish Government posed the "negotiation" question described in the BBC article.  In a subsequent  independence referendum, voters would know the answers to most of the things that were uncertain in 2014.  They still couldn't peer into their crystal balls and guess the future, but they'd know stuff like the trade and freedom of movement relationship with the rUK and the EU, the currency and central bank, the divvy-up of government assets, liabilities and deficits, the future defence and military relationship, and things like that.  It wouldn't make for a less passionate or committed debate, but more of the factual issues would be clarified.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Ulysses

[i wish jj was my dad]

4 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

It’s a sleikit plan of hers . She’s hoping she get sent to jail . “Wentworth”dentition centre and be the new “top dog “ 

Calm and balanced. No obsession at all. 

[Ron Burgundy]

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

All of this would be completely irrelevant to the referendum debate if the Scottish Government posed the "negotiation" question described in the BBC article.  In a subsequent  independence referendum, voters would know the answers to most of the things that were uncertain in 2014.  They still couldn't peer into their crystal balls and guess the future, but they'd know stuff like the trade and freedom of movement relationship with the rUK and the EU, the currency and central bank, the divvy-up of government assets, liabilities and deficits, the future defence and military relationship, and things like that.  It wouldn't make for a less passionate or committed debate, but more of the factual issues would be clarified.

 

 

That's the sort of information responsible people need to make an informed choice. 

As that is unlikely to happen many will stick rather than twist.

[jack D and coke]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

All of this would be completely irrelevant to the referendum debate if the Scottish Government posed the "negotiation" question described in the BBC article.  In a subsequent  independence referendum, voters would know the answers to most of the things that were uncertain in 2014.  They still couldn't peer into their crystal balls and guess the future, but they'd know stuff like the trade and freedom of movement relationship with the rUK and the EU, the currency and central bank, the divvy-up of government assets, liabilities and deficits, the future defence and military relationship, and things like that.  It wouldn't make for a less passionate or committed debate, but more of the factual issues would be clarified.

 

 

I don’t have a whole lot of faith in this snp lot but maybe they’d like to do that. The last time the British govt made it clear they’d enter into zero discussions until after the vote. 
I wouldn’t imagine that position would have changed. 
They don’t want you thinking it might work. Keep the confusion, muddy the waters with everything. 
Undecideds bottle it. Job done for them. 

[pablo]

8 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I don’t have a whole lot of faith in this snp lot but maybe they’d like to do that. The last time the British govt made it clear they’d enter into zero discussions until after the vote. 
I wouldn’t imagine that position would have changed. 
They don’t want you thinking it might work. Keep the confusion, muddy the waters with everything. 
Undecideds bottle it. Job done for them. 

 

Jack, you do know why the UK would maybe take that stance? It's basically because the numbers just aren't there backing Independence. If they were, the conversation would be totally different. 

[jack D and coke]

22 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Jack, you do know why the UK would maybe take that stance? It's basically because the numbers just aren't there backing Independence. If they were, the conversation would be totally different. 

I don’t believe that at all. 
They don’t want you to believe it would be ok. The problems it throws up for the British govt are enormous. 
Make you afraid is their stance. It works too. 

[Weakened Offender]

12 hours ago, jonesy said:

I imagine the Scottish National TV's main output is going to be something along the lines of a regional dialect words Quiz Show, hosted by the equivalent of that bursds that reads the news in North Korea and gets angry about America yet tearful when a leader dies. Every night, when the show draws to a close, there'll be a 20-minute 'We still hate the Tories' chant-off in which cameras, beaming live from around Scottish living rooms, show competing families aiming to out-do each other in shouting about how much they hate the aforementioned Tory *******s. Essential viewing.

 

You can always **** off back to China? 😊

[pablo]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

I don’t believe that at all. 
They don’t want you to believe it would be ok. The problems it throws up for the British govt are enormous. 
Make you afraid is their stance. It works too. 

 

But put that aside if you can. Why would the UK government get involved now? Assuming there's no legal route to holding a referendum and given support from Independence is under 50% and way down the list of priorities of people, only 17% in a recent poll put the constitution as their number one priority, why would they?

 

Now if support was at 75% and universally accepted as the settled will of the Scottish people and it was want we wanted it wouldn't matter about pretend referendums or the decision of law officers. We would have our Independence and the UK would negotiate.

 

But that's not the case, so here we are. Some might say that the UK government is respecting the democratic wishes of the majority.

[Dazo]

44 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I don’t have a whole lot of faith in this snp lot but maybe they’d like to do that. The last time the British govt made it clear they’d enter into zero discussions until after the vote. 
I wouldn’t imagine that position would have changed. 
They don’t want you thinking it might work. Keep the confusion, muddy the waters with everything. 
Undecideds bottle it. Job done for them. 

They could give answers, plans or intentions from their side though without any input from the uk government. Make things a matter of fact how they intend to deal or negotiate with things that remain unanswered. I think it’s a lazy easy option from the snp not confront these things and just blame the uk government. 

[jack D and coke]

8 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

But put that aside if you can. Why would the UK government get involved now? Assuming there's no legal route to holding a referendum and given support from Independence is under 50% and way down the list of priorities of people, only 17% in a recent poll put the constitution as their number one priority, why would they?

 

Now if support was at 75% and universally accepted as the settled will of the Scottish people and it was want we wanted it wouldn't matter about pretend referendums or the decision of law officers. We would have our Independence and the UK would negotiate.

 

But that's not the case, so here we are. Some might say that the UK government is respecting the democratic wishes of the majority.

The reason there isn’t absolutely overwhelming support for it imo is the fear factor. Weve been programmed to believe we’re subsidy junkies and will sink without trace. I’ve read some silly stuff this last few days. I saw someone on twitter last night claiming the snp would literally seize control after a Yes and they’re wouldn’t even be any elections again  

I seen on here we’d be the poorest country on earth. Yes on earth!! How has anyone been brain damaged to that extent? 
That Murdo Fraser the other day saying we still have all the benefits of North Sea oil and gas despite Nicola Sturgeons best efforts  I’m sorry but what?! They’ve been telling us it’s running oot and worthless for 40 ****ing years! The last indyref was based on oil hitting $120 a barrel it’s tipped to hit $200! I’m not basing it on oil but the lies were told to make sure we don’t think to hard about going anywhere. The British govt do not want anyone thinking it’ll all be ok.