At the bus stop #2
Posted on
June 16, 2017 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)
-
Recent Posts
- 11-25
- 11-23
- 11-22
- 11-18
- 11-17
- 11-12
- 11-09
- 11-06
- 11-04
- 11-03
- 11-02
- 10-29
- 10-26
- 10-26
- 10-21
- 10-19
- 10-16
- 10-13
- 10-11
- 10-10
A tall tale
Wee Books
Video
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
Can’t figure out if it’s a good or bad thing, campaign wise, that a No to Q1 makes the answer to Q2 entirely moot.
Brings the democratic deficit into sharp focus either way.
The second question should read “Should an independent Scotland remain part of the EU” – otherwise we could find ourselves in an impossible situation with many folk voting “No, Yes”. That’s the current irreconcilable SLab conundrum.
Certainly works for me. That man has earned his morning coffee.
Bruce L makes a good point, so perhaps we should reverse the order of questions:
1 Should Scotland remain as part of the EU?
2 Should Scotland be an independent country?
What if the answer is No to independence but YES to the EU? We’re back to where we already are?
In, oot, shake it a’ aboot
The EU question needs a third option, EFTA with Shengen which is basically everything we already have without any say on policies ala Norway.
Yes! Excellent idea. It negates some of the Tory attack lines – you won’t be in the EU, SNP supporters don’t want to be in the EU, my Remain vote was not a vote for another divisive indyref – while resolving the problem that the two referendum results we’ve had in the last three years are incompatible. There doesn’t really need to be any SNP campaigning for the EU at the time either. They can just say that if the people vote against the EU, they intend to follow the Norwegian model and join EFTA. That also provides a measure of certainty about our European status post-independence. It might even stop Jim Sillars and Alex Neil from being negatives for the campaign and turn them back into positives.
Not for me. Two questions at once will be used to muddy the waters. Better to offer Indy 1st with promise/guarantee of eu ref later.
I know it’s another vote, but gives everyone a chance to cling to hope of either going into eu or staying out.
And for those concerned at the possible contradiction still existing of a No/Yes vote, make the second question “should an *independent* Scotland be part of the EU?”
What we must do is to put EFTA Membership firmly on the table if we can’t get the CFP & CAP scrapped. Wednesday’s tragedy at the now burnt-out Grenfell Tower Block should remind us of the need of the EU and its Regulations that the Toriees so despise because it usually means that their greedy sponsors have to pay out more to complete things. It was also interesting to note that the great home of greed, the USA, seemingly banned the use of this type of cladding in construction!!! Anther point that came out overnight was the similar fire in the Melbourne Tower Block resulted in no deaths and little damage to interior of the building – could the fact that it was fitted with sprinklers stopped the fire spreading internally???
Auld Rock
Certainly the question of independence will take place. You are right that the question may have various facets but would that dilute the YES vote.?
How far do you go?
Do you wish to be independent with free higher education, prescriptions and travel for over 60’s?
Or be humped by a bigger greedier establishment nation who believe in rape clauses, private NHS, no free prescriptions and linked with extremists from Northern Ireland .
Great idea, and one that is useful when campaigning. They are totally separate issues.
The problem would come with a No/Yes vote.
We will be out of the EU before we are independent, so the question is moot.
Should Scotland be an independent country Yes/No?
With rejoining the single market asap via EFTA as part of the prospectus. Rejoining the EU is for another day
Tricky one. I would prefer EFTA option or EU but outside Eurozone as a starting position. But it gets too complex for a ballot paper. How does Scotland go about educating it’s citizens as to what the different options mean is another question.
I think we need the 2 questions to separate the issues but in separate referendums. First we get indy, then we have another EU ref a year or 2 later.
I’ve thought for some time that it should be a preference vote. Something like:
Should Scotland be
– Independent within the EU?
– Independent outside the EU?
– Part of the UK, which is leaving the EU?
Then the instructions would tell you to number them in order of preference and the scores calculated using the same STV rules that council elections use.
I think it’s about the best way of encoding the population’s actual wishes and I would hope that there would be enough pro-indy people on either side who would list the two indy options 1+2.
no
if treeza walks out in sept, as everyone believes she will, what then? will the question be, should scotland rejoin the eu?
the issue isnt about the eu, it is about being in the single market, an issue which was settled by a 62% vote in scotland.
to separate the 2 issues only one question needed
Should Scotland be an independent country ?
but the white paper will clarify that a YES vote will enable the independent scottish government to immediately apply for efta/eea membership, an action which they already have a mandate to do, and ensure access to the single market.
further integration into the eu needs to be put to the electorate once we are independent by referendum. simply because the eu membership we voted for no longer exists, even for the UK, guy verhofstadt made that very clear yesterday.
so if nicola did negotiate an indy scotland re-joining the eu, what ever type of membership, would need to be voted on anyway.
One question only.Should Scotland be an independent country. No other question con be dealt without the answer to that one.
Auld Rock says:
16 June, 2017 at 7:53 am
What we must do is to put EFTA Membership firmly on the table if we can’t get the CFP & CAP scrapped.
——————–
except if treeza walks in sept and we crash out of the eu, how will we get the CFP & CAP scrapped?
efta/eea members are not part of the CFP & CAP, popular with fishermen and farmers, re joining the eu should be punted into the long grass after indyref2 and after we have finished negotiating our indy from westminster
I would put the Independence question first and replace the EU one with an EFTA/Single Market one.
You could then state that full EU membership would be a matter for the manifestos for the parties in the first independent elections.
Membership of the Single Market is essential for our economy. As you can see now with UK GDP dropping dramatically and inflation rising the Brexit chickens are starting to come home to roost.
If it was announced that was the approach soon, it would kill off the media and the unionists neverendum daily arguments, since they seem successfully to suggest to the public that Indyref2 is happening almost tomorrow. The media consistently mis report this deliberately, as the FM always says when the Brexit deal is known. Not helped by SNP representatives that are far to polite to the media or don’t give a straight answer.
Interesting idea. I’d maybe ask the second question first though.
Pointless – when we are independent we can then decide such things, that is the point of it all.
efta/eea membership is explicitly mandated by the 62% remain vote
the eu membership we had, was also mandated by the 62%, except that membership no longer exists, too bad, the 4 opt outs and the rebate was the best eu membership that anyone in the eu had, but it is gone, over, a dead parrot.
if an indy scotland were to rejoin, we would not get that deal, so by definition, an indy scottish government would need to hold another referendum to get a mandate from the people to accept whatever eu type membership the eu offered us.
bear in mind, that an euref2 would not need to revist the option to leave or to rubberstamp our efta/eea membership, only options on joining the eu, eg
1. swedish type membership, without the euro
2. french type full membership with the euro
No. I’m with Schrodinger’s cat on this.
The first question is about whether Scotland takes hold of its natural right to make its own decisions.
The second is one of the many choices an independent country might make.
They are not on the same scale and it would be a mistake to allow the opposition to play them as such.
Roland Smith says:
16 June, 2017 at 8:19 am
I would put the Independence question first and replace the EU one with an EFTA/Single Market one.
————————–
why? we already had an euref here where 62% voted to stay in the SM? un neccessarily confusing the ballot paper
Jeez – you wait a lifetime for a referendum and then two turn up at the same time!
Actually, I think it is quite a good idea as we have to resolve the two questions as they are different issues. The sole “Scotland in EU” option splits the Yes vote.
I suspect we are are going to find out soon during the Brexit negotiations as to the EU27 views on an United Ireland and an Independent Scotland and how easily they would get into the EU if they wanted to.
The Brexit negotiations are really going to expose the failings of the UK and the Union in the coming months and the fragility of the UK economy.
Can of worms! The Three Bodies Problem writ large.
For some people these two questions are inextricably linked. and it does really confuse the issue.
Part of the reason Treeza didn’t get her majority is that voters (both sides of the border) were not prepared to trust her with her pig in a poke offer to negotiate Brexit without knowing what she would even TRY to get. Some say she wanted to go for a harder Brexit some say she was looking for a mandate to make it softer. GE 17 was all about Treeza trying to get control over her own party. Given that she was a Remainer I don’t think she gives a toss which side won that one. She’ll bat for either side.
It’s not just a question of the order of the questions on the paper that is significant; the timing of the two actual separations matters too.
Davidson’s one trick pony stunt is making so much noise nobody can think straight at present anyway.
Scotland on its own and Scotland as part of the EU is two very different propositions. I’m not trying to guess how either would play with the voters, but it offers two very different scenarios.
Scotland managing to hang-on in there in the EU by default as South Britain brexits is not the same as being forced out as part of the process then having to seek membership from a clean slate having first won Indyref.
The ideal arrangement in my estimation would be South Britain and Scotland independently part of a democratic EU. Not a likely outcome, but not totally impossible. (In theory)
Anybody else listening in on DiEM 25 discussions? It could be useful to know what the third body is thinking about all this.
Is an interesting idea alright. I wonder, however, if there is a way to phrase them that won’t up with some very confused people at the ballot box.
Otherwise, just have to decide whether to join the YesYes, the YesNo, the NoYes or the NoNo campaigns. The official ads could have Jim from Vicar of Dibley on them. 😉
OK maybe I’d need to add another option for the EFTA situation, but it would just be another preference option and not mess up the overall plan at all.
Should Scotland be
– Independent within the EU?
– Independent half-in the EU (EFTA / whatever)?
– Independent outside the EU?
– Part of the UK, which is leaving the EU?
I’ve been saying that for months now. Make the EU decision in Scotland based on an indy Scotland. Maybe offer the EFTA alternative as a choice but would need to be a 123 vote if that were done. Would get leavers back on board. I would say it would be a huge EU landslide but let’s ask people and see what they want.
Indyref2
Renaming it as #Scotref or anything else is a mute point as MSM will keep calling it Indyref2.
And we will not change MSM editors position on the Union as the majority are de facto Unionists.
And will skew any campaign in favour of the Union.
So “cybernats” calling them out for blatant bias.will not change their view now. maybe in five years or so. When Brexit unfolds and the pain kicks in.and their hypocrisy is exposed.
However even the people of NE after the decimated oil industry still vote for the Union.(shakes head) .
But Yes movement have neither the appetite or time to be nice to MSM journalists. the SNP need to capitalise on this and be more assertive against the media,
MSM have lost the respect of at least 60% of the Scottish electorate. So we need to keep calling them out because when the light is shone on the Union argument it is shown as unsustainable. Which is why Davidson keeps second referendum in headlines because it dilutes the YES support.
Divide and rule has always been the Empire way.
We can’t have a referendum unless UK Gov agrees and it won’t unless it thinks it can win again.
When we get to that point I agree I expect (hope) it will be a clear binary:
> should Scotland REMAIN in the EU, and leave the UK (become independent)
> should Scotland REMAIN in the UK, and leave the EU (not become independent).
Or something less complicated like our friends idea.
Heh! Stirrer. 😀
It was the No campaign that Said an Independent Scotland could not be part of the EU.
Then, how many who voted for their scare campaigns have now realised that they were lied to on just about everything? This alone should be grounds for a rerun.
How about the first question being changed to – Should Scotland be a nation. A lot of no voters still like to believe that they are a nation and not a region of the UK.
Events may overtake us. It’s hard to see how a second general election won’t be called. The Tories don’t seem able to rule and negotiate for any length of time.
Then Corbyn will be PM. This would suit the establish by solving the double threat of Indy and Brexit.
There are two options for the UK. Forget Brexit. Or, a bad Brexit, because all Brexit styles are bad.
A Corbyn led negotiation IMO would end with a second EURef which would have a clear choice between the negotiated deal and the status quo in the EU. Any Brexit will look bad and the establishment plus BBC will ensure Remain wins second time.
Having said that, the Tories may soldier on, get a really bad Brexit deal, and expect to simply implement it. Then IndyRef2 would kick in.
Yes, two questions, framed more sensibly as others have suggested.
the economic catastrophe about to descend on the uk is not because we are leaving the eu but because we are leaving the single market
this will become very clear in the next few weeks,
tying a yes vote to regaining access to the single market will win indyref2 for us
we dont need to tie a yes vote to eu membership, that will only ensure we lose
As quite a few have pointed out, we’ve already had an EU referendum with 62% of Scots voting to remain in the EU.
However, if it gets the odd fellows who’d rather be in a UK outside the EU and not an independent Scotland inside the EU to vote for independence then so be it. Whatever means are necessary.
Cant argue with the logic.
However lets not forget that the premise of IndyRef2 coming so soon after 2014 was Scotland being ripped out of EU against its democratic will.
Ultimately the 2014 vote (55% NO) and 2016 vote (62% REMAIN) can’t both be true. We cant stay in the UK and EU – therefore a second vote is required.
Sensible option is to play the long game now – the worst thing for SNP would be to hold a second vote too early and lose. Patience is key!
I still personally think Brexit is a time bomb that will be eventually exposed as a political and economic disaster. Theresa May has clearly made EU promises she cant keep. The UK government have still to make any real world compromises… Within 2 years it will all come out in the wash (either we get no deal or compromise on freemovement).
SNP are not only party to be divided on Europe. Time for calm and longer term focus on the main goal of independence.
Needs a 3rd question to cover all the bases …
Q. Should Jackie Baillie be allowed anywhere near Greggs at lunchtime?
[…] Wings Over Scotland At the bus stop #2 An alert reader emails with a talking point: Interesting idea, […]
I like the idea of having 2 questions but not on one ballot.
How much does a referendum in Scotland cost? It can’t be prohibitive *especially* when you’re considering the country’s future.
Referendum #1
“Do you want Scotland to be an independent country?
Yes.
No.”
If there is 50%+1 for Yes, then a second ballot some agreed time after would be held.
Referendum #2
“Should independent Scotland:
1. Apply for full membership of the EU;
2. Apply for EFTA membership of the EU;
3. Remain out of the EU entirely”
Winner is the 33.3…%+1 choice.
The first ballot would be a question of your implicit sense of self. The second ballot (assuming a Yes in the first) would be the one needing education and campaigning to make people aware of the real choice they were making.
I actually feel that isolated from the noise from Westminster focused politicians and having to look purely at Scotland’s future it might be a better campaign. Maybe that’s my naive showing.
galamcennalath says:
A Corbyn led negotiation IMO would end with a second EURef which would have a clear choice between the negotiated deal and the status quo in the EU.
————
except the status quo no longer exists even for the uk
link to theguardian.com
“Britain is free to change its mind and stay in union, but would have to give up rebate, says EU parliament’s Brexit coordinator”
if we do decide to stay, there will now need to be another euref to mandate the government to accept the new conditions??
this is the same point i am making about an indy scotland re joining the eu
I don’t think multi-option referendums work because the results are open to interpretation and so probably legal challenge.
I voted remain but I’d happily accept EFTA membership as a compromise. If England/Wales are out of the single market I don’t see how we can practically be in the EU. EFTA would allow us to strike a 3rd party trade deal with England/Wales and so remove the need for a hard border. We’d have control of fishing waters so the fishermen would be happy too.
Can I suggest we stop using the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” and replace it with “Should Scotland be a sovereign state?”. The word independence seems to have become toxic.
The wee ginger dug kind of answered this last night down at the Elgin hotel with reference to a question being asked about Scotland becoming a republic. I like him thinks all these, the above question and many more can all be determined by the people of Scotland once and foremost after we become an independent nation. So no one question and one question only Should Scotland be an Independent Country.
But which of our various voting systems are to be used?
Should we rank in preferences; or is one vote transferred to other after the required 50% + 1 is reached?
Will some spurious turnout requirement be introduced.
But, but, but…
Not for me. It muddies the waters and creates opportunities for the Yoons to obfuscate.
I would prefer a question that highlights the fact that Scotland has been reduced in status.
‘Should Scotland become an Independent country again?’
It reaffirms to people that Scotland was once an Independent country, and that she has had that independence taken away from her.
Scotland has already been asked the EU question, and 62% voted to remain. Stick to the single ‘should Scotland be an independent nation?’ question in #ScotRef. Once we get our independence the parties competing to be the first independent Scottish government can set out in their manifestos where they stand on Scotland remaining in the EU, and the sovereign people will vote accordingly. If any party wants to put having another EU referendum in an independent Scotland, then they can put it in their manifesto at that first Scottish GE and let the people decide. ANYTHING is possible in an independent Scotland. NOTHING is possible beyond what Westminster tells us if we don’t first get that independence. Focus on the essential first step and all else will follow.
Remember this is Scotland
What colour curtains will we have
What currency will we pay for our curtains in
What version of EU curtains will they be
Our country is full of troublemaking “journalsts” who will deliberately create stupidity for morons to argue about
Keep it simple for simple local people who think everything’s simple without simply complicating things
No, no, no, no, no.
We had a referendum on EU membership last year. Scotland voted by a nearly two-thirds majority to remain in the EU, just about the strongest mandate anybody has for anything out of all the recent votes. To Brexiters, in the current parlance, ‘you lost – get over it’.
Once we’re independent, Brexiters can form a party or campaign and seek a referendum on EU membership if they want. Not fancy your chances? You might need some convincing arguments this time though, don’t think you’ll get away with £350m on the side of a bus this time. Plus we’ll have the example of how rUK are faring, with no trade deals, inflation, weak currency, loss of EU specialists in key roles and unemployment.
EU membership and continued imprisonment in the Union are not of the same scale and we shouldn’t allow people to suggest they are or conflate the issues.
Orlando Quarmby says:
Once we get our independence the parties competing to be the first independent Scottish government can set out in their manifestos where they stand on Scotland remaining in the EU, and the sovereign people will vote accordingly
————————-
we will be out by this september, any manifesto will need to state “re-join”
For me, the logical option has always been to suggest indyref with the promise of a follow on referendum within 6 months of a yes vote.
The ref would consist of 2 topics
– EU membership
– Monarchy
The exact wording and content could be debated later. Whether it’s in or out for the EU or some other option. The point is it would be taking away any discussion about indy meaning 100% in the EU which would bring people on side to a yes vote.
LETS DO IT
I’d rather see just the independence question (with a later 2nd referendum on EU once we know what is available as an independent country).
Too much opportunity for media to muddy waters if we try to combine the 2 questions into the one referendum day.
Keep it simple!
Nah, not for me. A few months ago, this very site put its finger on the one snag; No and Yes puts us exactly where we are now, and is arguably the most likely outcome.
The only way to decouple the argument is to offer a referendum on independence, with one on the EU after that’s won.
Not sure how this clarifies anything, as the reason given for indyref2 is maintain our place in the single market. adding the option just open another attack line ss to why the referendum is being held.
O/T
It looks clear, to me anyway, what the current Davidson propaganda is trying to achieve. It is mainly aimed at England but there are enough people in Scotland with little interest in politics for it to work also. The proclamation of Ruth Davidson winning the election is to let these people believe she now speaks for Scotland, and her agreement of the Brexit deal will be taken as Scotland’s agreement.
So the plan was to reduce the SNP to below 50% of the seats, this failed, but lets just give the impression it succeeded, ably assisted by the media and enthusiastically by the BBC.
This was evident when John Nocholson was invited onto This Week to be ridiculed, at no point did he point out the SNP won in Scotland even when goaded by Kendel that it was about seats. Meanwhile Portillo, who is an obvious fan of Davison and seems to want her as leader, smirks away.
Also watching Newsnight some BBC journalist producing a stream of reasons why T.May failed to engage with the public at Grenfell Tower. Then an interview with a Tory who then uses the BBC journalists comments in return to justify May’s action, you will rarely see such hand and glove cooperation.
It’s an interesting idea but, as Gaelstorm has said, it allows our opponents plenty of room to obfuscate and twist.
Our relationship with the EU should be decided after we gain independence. I can’t understand some SNP voters (if they really want independence) putting the European issue above being completely in charge of our own future.
I’m with Paula Rose on this one.
I would be opposed to holding a two question Scottish independence referendum, as others have pointed out could very well see a no yes result.
Which would suit the unionist agenda down to the ground in undermining the case for Scottish independence.
For pity’s sake can we please stop talking about a referendum and instead start talking about what an independent Scotland would look like? Then wait until the people are clamouring for independence because they realise with their own currency, own bank, own defence policy, own economic levers, own foreign policy, they could join the other small nations with high happiness index who also care for the vulnerable in society.
And I mean detailed policies, not vague ideas.
Real policies need work and costing and some unpleasant realities but banging on about the referendum is counter-productive (why do you think MSM and Torres are doing it so much?)
Once 60% of the population are ready to go through the independence process then we can talk about Europe …as an independent country. By then we’ll see if the EU has managed to bring about any reform. We’ll know more clearly what effect leaving has. We may even know how long it takes to make new trade treaties. (I’m an optimist)
And perhaps our new Scottish government and broadcasting corporation will explain clearly the pros and cons of single market, customs union and WTO conditions. I siuspect a great deal of the public don’t really understand the links between these and the European Court of Justice. I read that lots of MPs don’t even know the difference between the debt and the deficit!
Perhaps politicians are afraid that if they spell things out in detail people will disagree or run a mile from the cost implications. However if you expect people to take a leap in the dark – and the world is a very uncertain place – you owe it to them to give as much information as possible.
What next, The United Nations?, Should the SFA be a member of UEFA?
Independence is nothing to do with EU.
It should never have been tied to it or pitched it as an excuse.
People have to want Independence to make up their own minds away from Westminster rule.
Why not just pitch
“Should Scotland continue to be ruled from Westminster?”
Cal makes an interesting point about substituting the word ‘Soverignty’ for independence. (except it’s difficult to spell:-)
That’s an idea that could have legs.
schrodingers cat says:
Having lit the Brexit fuse, no UK government can stop it now without going back to the country with a referendum. There are too many English nationalist nutters with the bit between their teeth. 50+% saying they rejected the deal would have to be accepted.
I take your point about the rebate etc.. However this would be part of the decision folks would need to make.
The rebate was never quite what it seemed. More than half of EU dosh goes on agricultural payments. The Tories objected to this (and VAT based contributions). The UK got its rebate however DEFRA negotiates CAP payments and the UK always gets a comparatively low lump sum. The rebate and lower CAP payments do in part negate one another.
If a wee croft on Islay were actually in Connemara, the crofter’s CAP payments would be much higher.
NO. Too much choice. Keep it simple stupid. Yes or no.
without independence, the only certainty is we will be out of the eu.
it is leaving the single market which will hurt us, offering a way back into the single market with a yes vote in indyref2 is a winner.
it is the one issue that confuses the yoon.
see the discussion on QT last night about the SM, look at ruth’s u turn upon u turn on this very issue.
we need to clarify all of the new yoon mps position on the SM,
I don’t think we need ask the second question at all sounds like chaos to me.I think we offer another vote on the EU after the independence vote. The costs of Brexit will be clear by then.
Now thinking more on this, it make me think that maybe the next tactic should be highlighting the mystical Union is just a Union, just that. A simple political decision and one that can be easily changed by the peoples will like the Brexit.
Its no grand event like taking to arms and conflict. Its one proud nation saying “This no longer works for us, thanks but no thanks, take care” to another.
Most people seem to assume England took over Scotland and using phrases like “be an independent nation” implies that we are lesser.
Independent of what?
We are already a nation. Simplify the argument. Remove the demonization. Take it down to its bare bones. The deal no longer works. We seek a better deal.
At the end of the day we just wish to remove ourselves from an old and tired agreement that worked for some in the past. Simplify that and people will realise how shaky the Union truly is. Start the doubts and the rest will follow.
Pull back the curtain and all that.
Westminster has no power OVER us, it only has the execution rights that we allow them to execute. Quicker we remember that the better.
As someone mentioned here, “when Westminster talks about the north of the country..where are they talking about?”. A point I would recommend folk use when they hear folk talk up the Union or Westminster rule.
The 1997 Referendum was a two question referendum to placate those a bit iffy on tax raising powers. It worked.
I’m in agreement with Andrew. Sort out the Independence question first, then have further Referendums as necessary to sort out bones of contention, for example to authorise the Scottish Government to open negotiations with EU/EFTA on the peoples preferred option, or to decide whether the Queen would be our head of state etc.
For me, the Swiss model of going to the people to decide on any major changes tot he country has merit but needs safeguards. For example, 50%+1 on a realistic Minimum Turnout to be binding, otherwise advisory only. Single Transferrable Vote for Questions with Multiple Choices to whittle down to the choice most would settle for.
Voters handled two questions in 97 OK. Don’t have a problem with Independence yes or no and then a clear supplementary question on the EU.
It ensures that there is a clear understanding of where we are going and heads off delays with “I never voted for that” arguments.
Of course it might be entirely unnecessary in a couple of years and following Brexit with the decision a no brainer.
The imperial mps and the bbc would definitely accuse our side of trying to cheat hence the 1 question last time remember then they wanted the 2nd question on devomax when yes was in the lead hence the vow was created by brown and signed by tory pm David Cameron deputy pm nick Clegg and ed I will hand the torys power Millaband and we all know they had no intention of keeping that vow bad idea those should be done separate otherwise the imperials will just cry foul again
The more useful question might be
Who is best to make a decision about Scotland’s membership of the EU?
The UK government or an independent Scotland?
I say that in the full expectation that leaving the EU will be an economic disaster which will become steadily more obvious
“Should Scotland regain its Independence” short and positive for the masses.
A two part question isn’t a referendum, it’s a plebiscite.
The problem with a plebiscite is the risk it delivers conflicting conclusion, say for example a certain number of people wanted Independence in Europe and the same number wanted Independence out of Europe, that isn’t a mandate for independence because half those votes are cancelled out by the other. The two pro Indy halves do not make a whole. You have two opposing views held in deadlock and no resolution of the issue. Stalemate.
Why do people not see this? Independent in Europe means our EU membership is continual and unbroken. At no time do we have to worry about maintaining our compliance with membership criteria or renegotiating the Euro, Schengen, the Spanish veto, etc, whereas if we come out of Europe, our capacity to re-enter falls before a whole different set of criteria, which happen while our economy is plummeting like a stone thanks to Brexit.
Our mandate for ScotRef2 comes from the 62% majority to remain in Europe, that is, our decision NOT exit Europe. Period. That’s it. The subsequent Holyrood Parliamentary vote is ratification of that mandate. The General Election triple lock is still a ratification of that same initial mandate. If we deviate from staying in Europe, if we fudge it into some halfway house, we FORFEIT that whole triple locked Brexit mandate, and we gift the Unionists substance to their baseless whining that we have no mandate to do what we are doing.
Second massive point, is our mandate is staying in Europe. That is a constitional issue with a more than decent claim to be the voice of a sovereign people. The issue is not the mandate we gave, the grey area is the sovereignty, but frankly, the grey is pretty black and white. But the important significance is that Europe can throw its weight behind us if we act as a sovereign people with a democratic mandate. Europe can help us. If we forfeit that mandate, even technically, then we have no democratic benchmark to build from, and the issue of Scotland’s exit from the UK becomes a sub-sovereign matter, and becomes a matter of internal domestic UK politics into which the EU cannot intervene. Without a sovereign democratic commitment from us, Europe will not be able to help us.
I can understand there are a body of people who don’t want to be in Europe, but please, please, please, park those aspirations for a few months until we get Scotland’s sovereign freedom of choice in the proverbial bag.
We face determined and conniving underhand Unionist manipulation of our democratic process and institutions, and we NEED Europe now more than ever to hopefully some way counterbalance the shit storm of anti-independence rhetoric, threats and scaremongering heading our way.
This is classic divide and conquer thinking. What better result can Unionists hope for than a schism of YES voters who want to stay in Europe and a counter YES lobby digging their heels in to exit Europe.
FFS can we please not do this to ourselves? Get Indy. Get Indy. Get Indy. Then we can have a referendum on the EU, the Scottish Space Program, and whether neeps are turnips or swede. Get Indy first.
A referendum is a defining vote. Black vs white, yes vs No. A plebiscite can be a defining event vote if worded correctly, but more often it produces a Venn diagram come results time, and what you can end up with might well be a completely accurate profile of public opinion but which doesn’t give you a clear, unambiguous mandate to actually do anything.
If the pro Brexit YES voters insist on Eurosceptic concessions, then promise them an EU Referendum after we secure Independence. If that’s not good enough, and conflicts their capacity to vote YES, then these are not YES voters, these are Unionists we are talking about.
If we don’t scotch this fissure now, then be warned, the Unionist campaign will drive a wedge into it to divide us. Perhaps they already are. Wouldn’t that be the icing on their cake? Well done.
gala
im not sure about westminsters euref2, on what would we be voting?
if treeza storms out, as is expected, we will be out. will euref2 be on re joining? and will we need euref3 to confirm our new eu membership deal?
westminster has got itself deep in the shit, i cant see how they will get out of it. even corbyn is now saying we need to leave the sm, this is because everyone knows, the eu wont even consider the uk staying in the single market, it is a preference by corbyn, it is an accptance of the reality.
there will be no trade talks, no free access to the SM once we leave. no hard, soft, red white & blue brexit or “a good deal”
there is simply brexit. ie, what is on offer from the eu.
@Street Andrew
re Sovereignty…no one cares. its a dead end at present.
Sad but true.
The man in the street heres the word Sovereignty and thinks it means the Queen. The romantic “But the scots people are sovereign” means nothing to most in this day and age, regardless of how many people here champion it as a prized ideal and flag to follow.
Maybe by grabbing Independence we could then look to help re-instill that notion with actual Scottish History and Constitution education, but at this time, its dead.
When folk cant even be arsed to go out and vote, they sure aren’t gonna be arsed to consider emboldening their ancient noble rights regardless of how many Declaration of Arbroath tea-towels sell out.
Give them four options
Indy Scot in eu
Indy Scot out of eu
Scot in uk and eu
Scot in uk and out of eu
Pretty sure top will come first.
Keep it simple. One question only. We’ll probably have to vote on EU membership afterwards when we know the deal.
In my opinion we will not win indie ref 2 if the SNP and the MSM are allowed to sell it through the prism of SNP policy.
The next YES campaign must sell independence as a blank sheet of paper where all options are open to the Scottish population, we must be able to sell this vision across all political persuasions?.
Our opposition are already boxing in the SNP, narrowing down the indie ref message.
Well a 2 question Referendum is entirely possible. We had one on Devolution:
Should there be a Scottish Parliament? Yes/No
Should it have tax varying powers? Yes/No
So it’s not impossible. (This is from memory, no doubt the specific questions were a bit clearer).
So would these two questions provide a genuine choice for the electorate, and would their responses be clear enough (i.e. non-ambiguous) to take their decision and make it happen?
The usual four possible returns
Yes/Yes; Yes/No; No/Yes; No/No
The Independence question is clear and I think should come first. A Yes/Yes is also clear, as is a No/No. A Yes/No would be a surprise given we have already decided to stay by 62%/38% only last year, but is also clear.
The problem is the Third possibility of a No/Yes result which is where we are now, so this wouldn’t actually resolve anything should it transpire – and in considering the options, even if unlikely, this one has to be thought through.
So is it the question, or is it more basic that actually the second question is not relevant? I have always held the view that the Principle of Self-determination was lost in the focus on minutiae and questions for which NO ONE could provide an answer.
These were used to distract from the core issue, which is : WHO should make decisions for Scotland?
I really don’t think a two-question referendum will resolve this key issue; the constant distraction onto the micro-issues of economy in 5-10-25 years etc. For that we need a different strategy, and if THAT is got right, one question is enough.
But, it’s gives pause for thought, and that’s always a good thing.
Here’s a idea how about should Scotland govern itself as the question if independence is to toxic a word with a yes or no
No way Jose,
One question one answer, simples.
I would prefer one question on independence. It would be part of any campaign that all other questions can be dealt with once we are independent.
As to how the question should be worded – there are rules about that. You mustn’t use leading questions. It would have to be simple, clear and not misleading.
We could have a completely different question e.g. should the 1707 Treaty of Union be repealed?
I have always been of the opinion that the EU membership and Independence issue be separated as much as possible, because of the distribution mis-matches.
To show why, here is an illustrative logical syllogism:
IF a randomly distributed 70% of the population supported Independence AND a randomly distributed 70% of the population supported EU membership THEN an ‘independence in the EU’ option in a referendum would only win 49% support and therefore fail.
That is, even if both options had 70% support (the premises you were asked to accept for illustration purposes only and in reality, neither have as even much support as that) then neither would pass, logically speaking.
Of course, human beings are not logical machines and those who feel very strongly on one option but not so for the other may be willing to compromise.
Furthermore, while there is demonstrably a great deal of disconnect between the two there are also connection points, namely national sovereignty and economic prognosis inferences.
However, the underlying logicality should not be ignored.
Therefore, separating the issues into two questions is better than having them tied together.
However, there are problems with doing so simultaneously.
First is that an important separating mechanism is, de facto, missing. That is ‘time separation’.
People know there would be a new deal between the EU and Scotland but they do not currently know how good (or bad) that would be. They would therefore be happier to pass judgement on that aspect after the deal details are known and preferably after a proving period to see how it is working in practice.
Second the Real Politick.
Scotland’s negotiators going into new deal negotiations with the EU would be far better armed if there is to be a post deal ratification by the people of Scotland rather than going into talks where the people have effectively voted to accept whatever is decided.
Finally, consider the effect on EU politicians of including again the issue of EU membership along with the independence question. It would no doubt annoy them not to mention confuse them, because we have recently already voted for continued EU membership, it will come over as being illogical. Perhaps to the point of reducing or removing current EU support for Scottish independence.
That is why, I have always been in favour of a policy of planned deferral on the EU issue.
Adjusting my past question preference for the current post Brexit situation would be something like this:
Scotland should become independent and remain in the EU but ratification of EU membership by plebiscite will take place between 5 and 10 years after independence.
OR as two options.
1. Scotland should become independent.
2. A independent Scotland should remain in the EU but the Scottish people will ratify that position by a referendum no sooner than 5 years and no later than 10 years, after independence.
Even that circumstance is likely to annoy EU politicians a little, but at least it has the merit of some logical basis which they can understand.
From one of Nana’s links …
” The promise of Brexit was steeped in ideology from the very beginning, a fairy tale based on dark chauvinism. The Spanish Armada, Napoleon, Hitler and now the Polish plumbers who allegedly push down wages — when in reality they ensured that, after decades of lukewarmly dripping showers, the country’s bathrooms gradually returned to functionality. Brexit was never a particularly good idea. Now, following the most recent election, Brexit is defunct. That, at least, is what a member of Theresa May’s cabinet intimated last weekend. “In practical terms, Brexit is dead,” an unnamed minister told the Financial Times.”
… much has to happen before we anywhere near IndyRef2!
link to spiegel.de
Breeks says:
Why do people not see this? Independent in Europe means our EU membership is continual and unbroken.
——————–
because if next week, treeza walks out of the eu negs, we will be out of the eu.
we will no longer be members.
as for our current eu membership, it no longer exists either
link to theguardian.com
we would need a referendum just to stand still.
Why do people not see this? our EU membership is discontinued and broken.
Then you would need to choose a different leader, the FM believes we should be part of the EU.
All the other parties have caved in on the EU and oppose Independence, so they have caved in on everything that isn’t Westminster decides.
We could become the new NO campaign.
1) Should Scotland continue to be dictated to by the braying donkeys of Westminster?
2) Should Scotland allow its economy to be decimated by the xenophobes who inspire UKIP and the bloodthirsty tories?
Just kiddin’, before anybody gets a bit uppity.
Though superficially attractive, I fear that such a referendum would be illegitimate, because the only democratic mandate the Scottish Government has to hold a referendum is to prevent Scotland being taken out of Europe against the will of its people. Introducing the European question as an additional choice in an independence referendum would undercut that mandate.
schrodingers cat says:
16 June, 2017 at 9:21 am
Orlando Quarmby says:
“we will be out by this september, any manifesto will need to state “re-join”
Not if the EU puts us into a “holding pen,” which is talked about in Bruxelles, to allow us chose our own destiny without having to apply as a new member. We would be accorded continuing state status and all our laws would already be EU homologated.
We don’t need two questions, i do not and never have wanted to stay in any of our political unions, our main objective is to get independence, we are getting out of this toxic european union with all its unelected idiots running and ruining our lives all over europe, why anyone would want to stay in that shambles is beyond me, trade with them yes, ruled by them, give me a break Mrs Sturgeon, not if i have a say in stopping it happen
Do people understand, if you are part of the european union, you cannot do your own deals outside of it, now is that democracy, no its not, its a dictatorship of the worse kind, so in a nutshell, out of the union that includes germany, the country that let in over one million economic migrants to rape and pillage their country and live on welfare forever, is this what we want in scotland, not in my bloody lifetime i can assure you of that, so, we are getting out of europe, and good riddance is all i can say, now we can concentrate on getting out of the United Thiefdom Alba Gu snooker loopy!
Free Scotland
I was wondering what they meant by ‘stable’ Government, now I understand. 🙂
Are you kidding? It’s hard enough to get through to the electorate on the doorstep. Half the time they either don’t care, or don’t know who the candidate is,and it has to be explained to them in the most basic of terms. O.K, with a single referendum question it may be a bit more straightforward, but to complicate it with multiple questions would just confuse the issue.
Merely another tactic used by the establishment to try to divide and conquer. Don’t fall for it. As Benjamin Franklin said, ” If we do not hang together, we will undoubtably hang separately”.
All very valid and plausible responses, worthy of debate. These are the kinds of questions we should have conferences about, eliminating non-related matter, because, I feel, we lost a lot of the electorate because we didn’t have a solid case for our future plans, and, for those we did, we didn’t distribute it enough or in a convincing manner. The double questions, with some adjustment, are a good idea but we should debate it before we approach the idea of a referendum, to consolidate the majority way forward, ensure the message is clear and comprehensively distributed to all, and, we accept that ‘best idea wins’ and not be squabbling at the hustings, as we have seen damage other party’s in the recent past. Learn by their mistakes and their wins.
Chick says
because we have recently already voted for continued EU membership, it will come over as being illogical. Perhaps to the point of reducing or removing current EU support for Scottish independence.
——————-
what is illogical is arguing to remain even once we have left.
the eu brexit neg agenda mentioned ireland but not scotland, the eu has also stated catagorically that an indy scotland will need to RE-JOIN via article 49.
this is specifically to remove indy scotlands status as a successor state to the ruk, it removes our claim to at least 8.4% of the rebate and the 4 opt outs.
EFTA have already said we can join, but article 49 means we need all 27 eu members to agree on us joining the EEA, (article 50 would have needed only a majority of the 27)
the eu cant and wont help us anymore than they already have, we need to do this ourselves
they didnt help us in indyref1 and will offer little help in indyref2. they owe us nothing.scotland is only world famous in scotland.
eu supporters need to realise, no yes vote in indyref2 then scotland will be out of the eu for the rest of your lifetime.
the idea that if we tie indyref2 to efta/eea membership, with a promise of an euref on rejoining the eu once indy, that this will cause the eu to storm off in a huff with scotland, is for the birds
I don’t think that Holyrood has power over the question put. They have to agree with Westminster and I don’t think, somehow that they like these two questions.
However if “not at this time” prevails forever, we can have our own referendum and ask whatever questions we like.
btp,
the holding pen idea is if we have indyref2 before the uk leaves,
how will that work if on monday treeza leaves ?
the wto barriers will fall overnight,
scotland will be out, you think that the eu will create a holding pen for scotland, a part of a non member state?
what will our status be then? will the eu erect tarrif barrier boundaries along the scottish borders??
short answer NO simple yes – no dont confuse people ,
all the details will be our choice after we gain independence .
Flower of Scotland says:
I don’t think that Holyrood has power over the question put.
————-
correct fos, and the previous question asked in indyref1 was approved by the electoral commission, setting a precident
however, we can publish a white paper, scotlands future 2, (currently being drafted) which lays out exactly what a yes vote means, eg efta/eea status with an euref2 after we have finished leaving the uk.
O/T
Apologies but this is important. North Lanarkshire Council and their plan to get rid of 190 classroom assistants. Now they have blocked an SNP motion to discuss it
link to fultonmacgregor.scot
iScotland wouldn’t require or pursue a UK type EU rebate.
The UK’s rebate is tied to lower Common Agricultural Payments.
iScotland, with a proportionally much bigger agricultural sector, would get far more out off CAP.
gala
i know
but nicola only has a mandate for the eu membership which ceased to exist yesterday when guy verhofstadt stated that if the uk opted to stay, their membership deal would change.
eg, what if the eu states the uk, and or an indy scotland needs not only to promise to join the euro (via ERM2) but to adopt the euro within 4 years?
I think we are looking at this the wrong way. Instead we have to create a situation where the Scottish government has control over all public finance raising through an Annual Ground Rent. One model I am working on just now could see public finances rise from £68 billion (GERS) to £100 billion and thus provide a citizen’s income of £10,000 per annum for every citizen of Scotland and rebate all existing UK taxes back to Scottish personal and corporate tax payers. A substantial part of the current GERS allocation for we]fare/social security payments would be included in funding the Citizen’s Income
If the Scots are confident that their public services and benefits are funded from our land then the issue of being in or out of the EU/UK is not really important to them. The above model would give Scottish producers an opportunity to re-assess their target markets in line with trade deals and regimes (which they have to do just now). The savings from other taxes would give them a considerable advantage over competitors.
While I have always been a Remainer we might find that another arrangement with the EU and other organisations may be more appealing as circumstances change.
By taking this approach and detaching the EU issue I think we could gain broad appeal from both former Brexiteers and Remainers
O/T
Still on Education. Herald has piece on student debt and how it has doubled during SNP’s time in office. It has not appeared in their on-line edition yet but is only a matter of time because education is the topic du jour after Mr Swinney’s announcement yesterday. Student debt figures were released yesterday by the Students loan company.
Headline figures: Total UK student debt is now £100 billion. By comparison credit card debt is £68 billion.
Student debt in Scotland totals £4.5billion and in England £90 billion. Scottish students have lowest debt in UK.
Full breakdown of Scottish figures here – (click on link in page to off file)
link to slc.co.uk
@schroedinger’s cat
tariff barriers and details could be managed.
If hard Brexit, the ba’s up on the dyke but it orderly phased withdrawal there could be a way
All will be revealed.
I don’t give a monkey’s anyway, as my application for French Nationality is in the post.
I’m almost certain you, Rev put an article up on this very proposition before, either that or it’s been talked about so often in general btl comments that all the arguments have been well rehearsed over the past year. Ma position is still the same, naw, especially on the back of the GE results, we’re in a state of flux, the vote would be too close to call and we’d be entangled in appeal after appeal for months or years to come.
Besides the Brexit shitstorm will probably push up Yes all by itself without muddying the waters with in or out of EU on the referendum ballot. We can decide after we’re independent, but that too plays into the unioinsts hands, they’d make hay with this…’first Sturgeon wants to stay in EU but after independence Scotland may leave the EU, so why bother leaving the UK if what’s at stake is EU membership (material change having been cited as reason for Scotref), when after leaving UK Scotland decides to leave the EU after all’ sort of thing?
Well versed as many on Wings are other options regarding relationship with EU etc, the general population aren’t as clued up, I don’t feel it’s going to be a festival of debate like 2014, by the time we get to it, it’s going to be a lot shorter period and it should be so clear that Yes is the only option in and of itlsef for Scotland to save itself on the back of Brexit reality. Cause that’s what this second indyref is hinged upon, not for us lot on here maybe, but it is in reality, if we’d voted majority Leave in Scotland we wouldn’t be where we are now, it is because we voted majority Remain that indyref2 got triggered. We’re playing with fire putting a second question on the ballot. Imo.
Bad idea, similarly to ‘The Gambit’. Here are two reasons:
Practical: I agree it would be great to attract yes-leavers. But they know there is no majority for leaving the EU in Scotland. Would giving them a vote on an issue they know they are going to lose on make a difference? I doubt it.
Principal: there is just no mandate for this. The people of Scotland have voted on the EU a number of times. Indirectly during elections, and directly during the recent referendum. The outcome is always the same.
So I agree with Hamish100, Schroedingers Cat, and others: there is no reason why there should be the second question. Why? And why not ask about Nato, free education, and whatever other things you can think of.
The problem with referendums:
The trouble with asking people things is people answer right back by asking you other things that they think are more important than the thing you asked them in order to avoid committing themselves to answering the original question you asked them in case they get the answer wrong thereby looking stupid because they can always regret it later if they were wrong, but the favourite answer usually is they didn’t understand the question
Can you hear the sheep
One question at a time please.
Autumn 2018 – Independence – yes/no
June 2019 – EU – remain/leave
That will assure leavers that whey will have a vote on the EU, but by the time it comes around, we will all be able to see what an erse the rUK government are making of Brexit.
Win/win for Indy/remain.
I could cry! We’ve just lost 21 seats to the unionists! We don’t need Indyref2 any time soon. What we do need is tough leadership and hard facts. There’s been a shortage of both since Indyref1.
If you are a member of a sports club, or a social club, and a major decision as to how that club will be run going forward, the question is put to the memberhip at an extraordinary general meeting.
At such a meeting, the matter under discussion is the single issue which can be discussed and voted on. This is the normal way of doing things.
So, it should follow – a referendum is the equivalent of an extraordinary general meeting: therefore, a single item is put up for discussion.
The order has to be:
1. Independence – yes or no.
2. Once that is settled, in the event of a Yes vote, we go to EU yes or no.
In this way, the Unionists will be forced to defend their position, they would be unable to muddy the waters and cause confusion with a multi-choice referendum.
Getting Independence is the main target. With that, we can move Scotland forward in the direction the population of Scotland wishes. Without it, we will be well-fucked, like England will be under this current lot of hopeless, criminal Tories.
@Ron Maclean
Since Indyref1 they have in fact gained 29 seats, people should stop thinking that 56/59 seats is natural or sustainable in a four party system. Not sure what hard facts you want, until the Brexit negotiations progress I’m not sure there will be any.
The one thing I do agree with is the SNP are too polite especially to the media, but as they are under constant attack it had to say anything without it being twisted.
The author asks, “Am I mad/wrong?”
Mad. But only marginally, and in a nice way. Don’t let it get you down.
Independence comes first so then we as a sovereign nation we are free to decide just what we wish to do on other matters. That is the whole point of independence.
Those questions don’t work from a logical perspective, because if Scotland votes No to independence, but also NO to leaving the EU (as they have already done, in case you hadn’t noticed), it is still beholden to what London wants.
The key is independence, then Scots will have the freedom to implement the policies they want, without England interfering. Anything else is a distraction.
N.B Just to re-iterate, Scotland has already voted to remain in the EU, by a very large majority.
Not read the whole thread so sorry if it’s already been suggested.
What about.
Should Scotland be an independent Country.
Should Scottish residents remain E.U. citizens.
OR
Should Scotland have the compromise arrangement Holyrood has requested from Westminster…(but worded better)
Then if it was a NO which it won’t be….
Nicola has a mandated position and we are not right back where we started but have moved forward a bit.
Don’t forget the plan Nicola drew up.. protected our resources asset’s and power’s.
We would still have stupid Trident though…!!
Bugger (le Panda) says:
tariff barriers and details could be managed.
If hard Brexit, the ba’s up on the dyke but it orderly phased withdrawal there could be a way
———————-
assuming there will be an orderly phased withdrawal……very unlikely
——————————
I don’t give a monkey’s anyway, as my application for French Nationality is in the post.
——————————-
oddly enough, i already have french nationality, but i do still give a monkey’s
Schrodingers cat at 1048 am,
I would have thought you would know the answer to the final question you posed regarding the Euro. Before joining the Euro a member state needs to meet key economic convergence criteria over several years, and be within the ERM for several years. The actual list of requirements is lengthy. So, the answer is, it is NOT something the EU would FORCE or demand of a nation, since nobody can predict how a countries economy will perform. Of course they ask you to commit to joining eventually, but that is as far as it goes. No hammers involved.
Scotland could not even if it desperately wanted to, become independent and then immediately adopt the Euro. That is just hard fact.
I know unionists and their muppet press say such things about demanding and forcing the Euro, but honestly, it is not how the EU works.
This was all done to death during indyref in 2014.
What do we want?
Independence.
When do we want it?
When it is effectively already won by weight of public opinion.
It would be great if all YES voters were also REMAINERS. But they are not.
Let us therefore decouple the EU from independence and deal with it as first business in an independent Scotland. Hopefully, we can still be in that holding pen.
@Graeme McCormick
Ref annual ground rent. This is precisely the thinking we need. It’s a simple fact that there isn’t enough money in the Scottish economy and scot govt doesn’t control the money supply so we have to be innovative. I would also add the leveraged opportunities of a nati Nap investment bank.
We are in a fiscal trap where the majority of the population believes that scotgov has the power it needs to grow the economy. As things stand It simply doesn’t.
I just wonder when the penny is going to drop.
jfngw at 1202pm
Very well said. It was AFTER the referendum that membership of the SNP soared and their number of MP’s were increased. People have short memories.
If anything, given how it BOOSTED the SNP, we need another indyref ASAP 🙂
@ScottieDog
The penny will not drop while most people still trust what the BBC/STV says. One thing I didn’t think about until a few days ago is that on here we praise (rightly) the alternative views on the web, but there are many people who simply can’t even access it on a consistent basis. This is one affect of the pathetic coverage in many parts of Scotland.
Me @ 12.09
And I forgot to add they can’t campaign against more power’s
Then offer Devo Max at the last minute.
They would also be put in the position of being a seen to be campaigning against more power’s.
They should agree EFTA membership with the EFTA members, run Indy ref2 on a ticket of EFTA and Customs union etc with a proviso that there will be a referendum on full European Membership in the first term of an Independent Scots Government.
Lenny Hartley at 1231
That sounds like a good idea, until we recall that the vast majority of Scots have already said they want to stay within the EU.
It’s not so easy to decouple EU from independence, because voters are able to reason based on cause and effect.
The anti-EU but pro-independence-as-long-as-Scotland’s-not-in-the-EU voter will think like this:
Question 1 – OK. I am in favour. That’s a Yes, then.
Question 2 – Right. I am against. No.
…whoa wait, haaannng on a minute…
If I vote Yes to 1 and we become independent, given that most people are pro-EU, that’s us independent and in the EU. I don’t want that. Ah well.
Question 1 – NO.
Question 2 – NO.
Cunning plan foiled.
Robert Louis says:
I would have thought you would know the answer to the final question you posed regarding the Euro. Before joining the Euro a member state needs to meet key economic convergence criteria over several years, and be within the ERM for several years.
————————–
i am well aware of that robert (although it is now called the ERM2)
i am trying to make the point that there are different types or levels of eu membership and eu integration
eg
full membership (like france, germany etc)
partial membership (like sweden, ie no euro)
uk membership (rebate, opt outs etc)
efta/eea (not eu members but in the single market, eg norway, iceland etc)
the 62% who voted remain gives Nicola
the mandate to apply for efta/eea membership
the mandate to apply to retain the type of uk membership we presently have, (this no longer exists even for the uk)
the 62% who voted remain did not give Nicola the mandate to apply for full or partial membership, or any type of membership which deviates from the present uk type membership we presently hold
the point about the euro was only to highlight this point.
@Lenny Hartley
Interesting idea but I fear that other governments will not negotiate until we are independent or at least until we have voted for it. Governments normally only deal with other governments, they would look pretty stupid if they came to an agreement then we voted no.
schrodingers cat says:
Just a personal opinions …
I reckon the EU would be glad to see the back of the UK. I would interpret talk of new arrangements as signaling , “FFS just go”.
iScotland on the other hand is another matter. We aren’t tainted with all the BritNat entitlement and exceptionalism which causes the trouble. It wouldn’t suprise me if the EU falls over themselves to accommodate Scotland and NI if they chose to part company with the troublesome UK.
To deal with the two questions specifically, what if Scotland voted No to Independence, but Yes to staying Europe?
You would have the more dominant question influenced and perhaps determined by a lesser question which could not then be delivered.
Sovereign Independence is a much superior issue to EU Membership, so it just isn’t correct to have the two issues of the same bill of sale. Sovereign Independence is a primary issue. EU Membership is a secondary issue. Sovereign Independence is a super user protocol. EU Membership is just user protocol.
Imagine Scotland missed out on the primary objective of Independence because the ScotRef referendum which the SNP and Scottish electorate won the right to hold, is hijacked and defeated with a split vote which pandered to the frustrations of Scottish Brexiteers.
Too many people are misunderstanding the actual meaning of sovereignty. Its a muddy distinction we really should make crystal clear. When people talk about losing sovereignty to Europe, it’s not correct to describe acquiescence, that is to say consensual agreement, as a “loss” of sovereignty. It is no such thing. Sovereignty is the thing which gives you the power to refuse that agreement and say No, or even say no then change your mind to yes.
We misuse the word sovereignty all the time, and it really screws up the constitutional debate.
Personally, if there had been a wider understanding about the actual meaning of sovereignty as an absolute condition, then Brexit, and the whole “taking back power from Europe” argument would have run aground a long time before the actual Brexit referendum.
Only Independence is a question of sovereignty.
There is no issue of sovereignty at stake in an EU membership referendum.
If Scotland was already an independent country, it would remain a sovereign independent country whether it was in the EU or outside it.
Lenny Hartley says:
16 June, 2017 at 12:31 pm
They should agree EFTA membership with the EFTA members,
——————-
efta have already said an indy scotland can join, they also said that the uk cannot, too big etc, the eu also dismissed the uk’s efta membership
but we would also need all 27 eu members to agree to an indy scotland joining the eea, im hopeful that when treeza walks and we fall out of the single market that the eu will publicly state that an indy scotland will get full and immediate access to the eea
link to commonspace.scot
link to theguardian.com
The “Holding Pen” idea is the EU being pragmatic with a temporary solution and with protecting the interests of citizens as the result of bad decisions made by a member state.
Its purpose is to allow a present member/EU citizens the opportunity to reorganise their situation brought about through actions by others not of their making.
So it’s perfectly possible for Indyref2 after a Theresa walk-out (we are after all Sovereign, aren’t we!).
@Robert Louis
“N.B Just to re-iterate, Scotland has already voted to remain in the EU, by a very large majority.”
A point I acknowledged in my post. If that were done on its own, it would be a pointless exercise given the recent EUref and would serve only to needlessly irritate EU politicos.
However, I presumed the objective of including it inherent in the suggestion was a valid one, namely to try to encourage more anti-EUer’s to vote Yes for the indy option.
A deferred EU option, would I suggest, be even better at doing that plus would have the advantage of strengthening Scotland’s negotiating hand, annoy the EU politicos less because it is a reasonable thing to do, would engender a much more informed consideration of the matter and just to bring in the moral aspect, would be the democratically right thing to do by acknowledging the ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish people on the matter.
It is not just a case of kicking it into the long grass.
In this instance there are valid reasons for doing so.
gala
i hope you are right, but i wouldnt count on much support for an indy scotland until we actually vote yes, at which point i have no doubt they would welcome us with both hands
but before the votes are counted, i wouldnt bank on them interfering, they have their own reasons, we need to do this ourselves
Sad fact of the matter is, if majority (oops silent majority) are not screaming from the rooftops that restricting the rights of democracy to gauge support for independence via a referendum is a travesty, at the very least and do not appear to be openly demanding that so called brexit be taken off the table never mind openly supporting Independence en-mass leaves Scotland looking very stupid and weak at this stage.
I don’t know hat the hell Scottish adults really want; I know what the media and WM are force feeding us, but where is the resistance to this; where are the ‘Joe public’ voices resisting this suppression ?
Scots keep voting like absolute muppets, suggesting one thing and then running away.
NEast & borders – examples ?
jfngw
snap, i didnt see your post before posting my last
“….until we recall that the vast majority of Scots have already said they want to stay within the EU.”
Quite, Robert Louis. I can’t see how any responsible SG could allow our being dragged out without implacable resistance. We have a mandate from our parliament to deploy whenever we wish now in any case.
Not quite O/T: BBC Radio going big on “Brexit? Can’t we just call the whole thing off? Isn’t Jeremy Corbyn handling the Grenfell Tower tragedy ever so well?”
I know it’s only the Jeremy Vine (Alert! Alert!) Show but looks like the BBC are onto the next stage of the establishment plan.
Has anyone remembered JC isn’t too keen on the EU either?
By the way, what’s the point of sending our people to WM if a majority of Scottish seats is not seen as a mandate for independence? I’m a bit slow on the uptake probably but this question just occurred to me.
I have learned since the anti poll tax and housing stock transfer campaigns.
That people don’t bother their backside until, it affects them personally, and I suspect it will be the same in regard to Brexit.
They will continue naively believe despite all the facts to the contrary that Westminster will look after their interests.
Robert Louis, many of those voters who voted to remain prefer the EFTA route. We have lost a significant amount of Yes voters due to Brexit, (and gained a few) the Yoons can claim we won’t get favourable status etc or even persuade those who read the Yoons press that we will have to join the end of the queue etc. With the EFTA option we only need the agreement of four countries which is probably in the bag anyway, as remember after the Brexit vote SG representatives visited all the EFTA countries. There is a sizeable minority pro- Indy but Anti EU which would likely vote yes on EFTA membership.
We only need a 5% increase on 2014 to win.
Btw I do know that EFTA membership does not include the customs union , EEA but as the other EFTA members are also members of the customs union and the EEA itshould not be impossible to join.
I’ve always said ‘Independence first, last and always’.
It must be kept simple, purely due to the fact that a lot of people are just not interested in politics.
We had the EU ref and voted remain. I think most people will know that SNP want to stay in the EU. There’s so much unknown and won’t be known for a long time about brexit, that I don’t think any question on EU should be anywhere near a ballot paper.
However, there’s so much ‘if-ery’ about WM we should perhaps concentrate on ‘what’s so good about WM rule?’. Let them try and answer that. SNP should be promoting Independence, ‘not another referendum’ (said with a Brenda from Bristol whine).
We must be ready. Personally, I think this GE was to stop Nicola in her tracks and to try and crush all opposition. WGD referred to this last night in the Elgin Hotel during the National Roadshow.
Let the SNP deal with the tories and labour and lib dems, the grass roots Yes should be dealing with the Unionists. No more slagging off the parties ‘cos some in those parties support Independence. It will also stop those who say we hate the English. We love everybody except Unionists!
‘Should Scotland be an Independent nation again’?
Hell Yes!!!!
We are getting out of the euro/german government political union
That’s done and dusted and we don’t even need to fight to get out, what a great result that is
Now we can hammer it into westminster that we want a referendum with or without your consent, who needs your consent anyway, just have our referendum and let the scots majority decide, and keep all your english backed media out of it with their anti/SNP agenda
Scotland for the scots first and last, we will decide our own destiny
My only issues are that,
. as others have said, Q2 needs to say ‘independent Scotland’.
. Opponents will simply punt the line that you do not know what you are voting for.
. Hell, i wouldn’t put this play on last time past them…., “the ONLY way to stay OUT the EU is to vote No”.
Various opinions above on both side of the argument.
The crucial point however is that having a referendum on Scotland’s status with regard to Europe is a mechanism whereby the indyref can be won. Without a committment to a referendum on Europe, a lot of Yes voters will vote no because they want to be out of the EU. Offering a referendum post indy will get a lot of them back onside. Likely that many of them wwill have changed their minds and/or at least be prepared to accept EFTA. The crucial thing is to win the indyref and decoupling that form European participation is key to success.
Not my idea of a bright thing to do. First of all if the one question is, “Should Scotland be an independent country”? With answers simply YES or NO then Scotland has the choice of choosing to be in Europe or not be in Europe when we are an independent country. Then the people of Scotland can choose – AFTER WE ARE INDEPENDENT, if we want to remain in Europe.
The single question just means Scotland becomes sovereign and then, whatever subsequently happens, is up to ONLY the people of Scotland to decide.
If there is another question it is one that needs a democratically free Scotland to decide upon. Thus two questions could close a door Scotland wishes to remain wide open.
Furthermore, anyone who fondly imagines the EU is in any way resembles the Westminster virtual, undemocratic, dictatorship is sadly delusional, brainwashed by Westminster and ignorant of the truth.
The idea has merit but it is a merit that we really do not want to try.
With reference to a previous comment, (please excuse my ignorance), but is there any mileage / credence in repealing the Treaty of Union 1707.
This thread is a perfect example of why there should NOT be another referendum
The forces of darkness will always throw in more questions than can ever possibly be answered thereby confusing people more and more and creating the disagreement the Baddies so much enjoy in order to get the result they want
General Election and each party puts their prospectus forward as normal SNP contained within it’s manifesto an offer of Independence, no eftas iftas EU in out shake it all about just Independence
the Unionist party propose their position and the winner does what they said they would, after all the Tories do that all the time
No confusion
You can’t trust the people and you can’t trust the system
So the people either vote out the SNP leaving themselves with the Union party or Independence
Are the people going to vote out the SNP? in favour of the Tories, I don’t think so
One thing is always sure, questions and decisions are too difficult for folk, they don’t like answering them or making them so they keep asking for clarity when what they really mean is SURETY, CAST IRON GUARANTEES, UNBREAKABLE PROMISES WRITTEN IN BLOOD followed by your death if all you have said is not perfect
I agree with Robert Peffers @ 1.13 pm.
One question then can ask the second question after we are independent and know the terms of EU membership negotiated by our independent government on our behalf.
We ought to be putting clear fresh water between ourselves and BritState. The EU is the way to do that. Scotland must ditch unionist Britishness and return to what we instinctively and historically were, European.
Leave the Brexit crew to their great exceptionalist Anglosphere in the sky. We gotta get out of this rut. To that end our leaders might begin demonstrating some imagination and some boldness. We’ve seen too little recently. Through their lack of focus and clarity the initiative has been seized by the status quo. Many English people consider their country to be in a mess, for the long term. Brexit will definitely worsen the socio-political let alone economic problems. If England ‘goes down’ it will take us with it.
The EU is where we ought to be. Joining the little Englanders in some notional alternative Europe is lunacy.
To the people saying Scots already voted to remain in the EU.
There is a valid argument that the circumstances of that vote in relation to the ongoing constitutional arguments, cloud the result.
For example, i know people who voted Leave, so they could get a new referendum.
If more did that, and you presume that those wishing to stay in voted remain, then that 62% remain could be at the lowest end of the scale.
It is possible that remain is so high the 2nd question mooted in the original topic under discussion is largely irrelevent.
Better Together spent 2 years telling us that Scotland would be OUT the EU if independent.
So surely the Yes campaign can simply say that, if an independent Scotland is told we need to apply for continued membership, then the (SG) will call a referendum on an indy Scotland’s EU membership status, and present a range of preferential choices.
Takes away the No campaigns EU argument.
@ Stan Wilson – the Treaty of Union 1707 is the treaty between the kingdoms of Scotland and England which created the United Kingdom. Many of the clauses have been broken. But if Scotland became independent the treaty would have to be repealed.
The fact that you have to ask about it probably means it would be a bit too obscure to be a referendum question!
It was my suggestion to counter the problem that “independence” has become a bad word to some people. The triumph of propaganda.
Unless you have the political power it doesn’t matter what people here think or want.
The Leavers won’t get the version of Leave they wanted the Remainers won’t get anything. Both are going to get the version May or her buddies come up with, or possibly something a Labour PM cobbles together. The EU have decided where it is gong with the negotiations.
The person who does have a real plan and has been noticed by the EU is Sturgeon, but there has been a level of dumbness from voters shown in Scotland that is likely to leave us with the Tory or Labour Brexiters deciding what we will get.
1. Should Scotland be an independent country?
2. Should Scotland remain in the The Union with Holyrood sovereign in all Scottish matters?
3. Should Scotland remain in the Union with Westminster sovereign in all Scottish matters?
I give two options for Scottish sovereignty: one with full independence. One with Scottish sovereignty within the Union.
The third option is for WM sovereignty.
In response to that, it could be done on PR basis like the council election.
1st preference
2nd preference
3rd preference
Least popular option eliminated and their second choices reallocated, till we reach the most popular choice.
Much more complicated, but much more democratic too.
IF Scottish sovereignty is established Scotland then Scotland can what it wants regarding any tradin bloc.
This is a condensed version of what I have been arguing for on here and in the Herald.
One question is plenty… any more causes confusion lots of people cant even handle our voting systems.
We were never going to win indy on solely on the back of the brexit vote.
Some brexitNats still have a huge chip on their shoulder and the toys are still out the pram and they’ll put us through thirty years of tory hell rather than lose a bit of their pride.
Brexit or no brexit is too simplistic. For that second vote on the ballot paper to make any sense the independence movement needs to look at and buy into one brexit scenario that people can vote for or against. So we would need to decide –
is it hard brexit or soft brexit?
Are we in single market or out the single market?
Are we EEA/EFTA like Norway or are we aiming for something else?
Do we also need to try and define/nail down how trade with England would work?
Sillars wants brexit before indy so that rejoining would be a potentially long and difficult process and would therefor not, at that stage, be wanted, even by a lot of people who had supported remain. C’est la vie.
re elections and referendums – Carole Cadwalladr, Guardian journalist investigating the dark money and the manipulation of voters, has an interesting twitter thread. See, for instance:
link to twitter.com
Just waiting to find out what their baleful influence on Scottish voters has been, and therefore will be in any future referendum.
there seems to be a consensus forming that rejoining the eu will require another euref ONCE scotland is independent. Indeed, I seem to remember stu writing an article about this when reviewing the numbers from a poll he had commission.
however, the real issue is about what tactic we present in the indyref2 white paper wrt the single market after a yes vote.
i think this is crucial since it isnt leaving the eu which is about to cause havock with the uk economy, it is leaving the single market which will cause this.
an application for membership to efta/eea will reverse the damage caused by leaving the single market
this norway type arrangement was proposed by farage, (even though he failed to point out the obigatory free movement of people which is included in efta/eea) and would be very popular with yes supporting brexiters. also, not being in the CFP and CAP would attract many fishermen to yes. the white paper must also include a detailed explaination of what will replace the eu subsidies for farmers.
many very pro eu yesser might be less than happy with this approach but a failure to win a yes in indyref2 will ensure we will be out of the eu for a very long time. bear in mind that the white paper is unlikely to be published until the certainty of brexit negs are known, ie, by then we will very likely already be out of the eu.
If the response is
No
Yes
… then what?
Oh, and I just noticed a more basic problem with “not making indyref2 about the EU/SM”. If it’s not about that (Brexit) then there’s no reason to revisit the issue after the 2014 result.
People, generally, don’t like change (and that goes for Scots as well).
Whether it’s a change to our duties at work, or changes to bus/train timetables that require us to leave home 10 minutes earlier to get to work on time, or changes to the council’s rubbish collection regime, on the whole, we are uncomfortable with enforced change.
As others have pointed out above, asking voters one question may make some of them uncomfortable to vote for change. To ask voters 2,3 or 4 questions at the same time is a recipe for confusion and exacerbates the discomfort of facing change.
How many people, rather than face the discomfort that multi-votes would cause, would just abstain? As someone pointed out above, Keep it simple!
To me, there is no point in getting bogged down in the fine detail of what Scotland would do with its independence, when the overriding question has to be, “Should Scotland be an independent nation (country)? Nothing can be done about the fine detail UNLESS we vote for independence.
To reassure voters, it should be made clear that on the first day of independence, we’ll still be using the pound, Elizabeth will still be Queen of Scots, BBC Scotland will still be providing its valuable news service, the schools will still be open, the Scottish Health Service will still be looking after us, Police Scotland will still be protecting and serving us, the Fire Brigade will still be spending 2% of its time fighting fires, and so on.
The current Holyrood Parliament should, on Day1, become the caretaker parliament, to keep things going until the first independent Scotland general election, probably within 2-3 months.
During this campaigning period, the parties can put forward their manifestos, telling us how they see the way forward for independent Scotland. Proposals regarding currency, monarchy, banking – in other words, all the fine detail required in an independent nation – could be set out for our perusal.
Whatever status that Scotland has in relation to the EU on the date of independence, should remain static until after this first general election. I would expect one or more of the Scottish parties to propose that there should be a referendum on EU membership within a year, or when Scotland’s terms of membership are known. This referendum could include a question about EFTA membership.
As I typed, these matters are, until we have independence and the ability to choose, irrelevant. Let’s concentrate on the main issue, independence. If someone says to you, “But which currency will we use?”, it’s simple to answer, “We, the people of Scotland, will decide that through our votes in the first general election.”
And so on…
One last thing – we should all arm ourselves with the info to debunk all the lies that will be spread by the unionists, once the independence referendum date is known. I still believe it has to be after the details of the UK’s leaving the EU are known but well(?) before the actual leaving date.
Check out the links below for campaigning materials.
link to ayemail.scot
link to indyposterboy.scot
link to weeblackbook.info
link to theweebluebook.com
Oh sorry – one really last thing…
David Caledonia typed at 10:23 am,
” we are getting out of this toxic european union with all its unelected idiots running and ruining our lives all over europe”
Unelected? In the EU Parliament, all the MEPs are ELECTED by the citizens of the EU.
The EU Council is made up of ELECTED ministers from the 28 member states.
The only unelected part of the EU is the EU Commission, which is the EU’s ‘civil service’. It employs around 29,000 staff, who deal with the administration of the EU, which has 28 members and around 500 million people.
To contrast, as at March 2016, the UK Civil Service employment was 418,343, down 15,469 (3.6%) on 31 March 2015.
There were 316,792 full-time civil servants, 6,198 (1.9%) fewer than 31 March 2015. The number of civil servants working part-time fell by 9,271 (8.4%) to 101,551.
That’s 418,343 staff to look after ONE UK and around 60 odd million citizens.
All those “unelected idiots” for one wee country…
naebd
which is why we should make indref2 about re-joining the SM
Problem with this is that it will be a very obvious throwing the bone while knowing that the public opinion is around 40/60 against it.
So would it even work? Would you vote for independence just because there was a question asked, that will (very likely) be irrelevant. Same with any promise of 2nd EU ref after independence.
I think it would be far more effective it engage with the pro-Indy, pro-Brexit voters and convince them that Independence is a more important factor than Brexit.
Where confusion reigns, deceit, depravity, division, disaffection, disillusionment, disinterest and despair are in close attendance. Democracy, thanks to our thoroughly corrupt news media and ridiculous voting systems, doesn’t make it to the list and doesn’t get a seat.
As things stand, we have millions of people voting for the same snake oil presented under different labels, thousands eschewing their right to vote, many who can’t make sense of the ballot paper but feel obliged to cast a vote anyway and, worst of all, those whose choice is predetermined by a deep-seated hatred based on a history that many of them have neither studied nor understand and a religion that many of them don’t practice.
Looks, to me, like the ultimate pic’n’mix for divide and rule strategists.
Given free reign the UK government has ridden roughshod over everything and everyone in its domain. It’s perfectly clear, to me, that further cooperation with the UK should be strictly limited to those areas that provide mutual benefit. The London leech has had its fill.
I may not live long enough to see it, but my vote will always be cast in favour of Scotland taking its rightful place in the world as an independent nation-state.
From what I’ve read, here, the dividing line lies between full membership of the EU and access to the Single Market. So, what’s to stop an independent Scotland from adopting or adapting rules, regulations and legislation that preserve the rights, freedoms and protection that we currently enjoy as members of the EU?
Since when was the HoL an elected body..!
The EU is more democratic than the UK.
Apologies in advance for length. My speaking notes from a debate at Yes Edinburgh North and Leith earlier this year
Basically timing.
WHY I HAVE COME TO SUPPORT EFTA
I support independence: I want to win.
EFTA/EEA can maximise Yes support, while minimising scaremongering by the unionist camp.
And also it’s the fastest, easiest way back into the Single Market. And we will need to get back in.
It is highly likely that we will be out of the Single Market before we are independent, for potentially an extended time.
EFTA/EEA can reduce that to the absolute minimum.
EFTA/EEA maximises the chance we will get to be independent, and minimises the time we will be out of the Single Market.
It’s also a precedented route to EU membership; if we go on to choose that.
QUICK HISTORY OF EFTA
EFTA was founded by the Stockholm Convention in 1960. The 7 founding members were Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.
Finland joined in 1961, Iceland in 1970 and Liechtenstein in 1991
The basic purpose of EFTA was as an economic counterbalance and alternative to the more politically driven European Economic Community (EEC). It is explicitly not a political union. It aims for the benefits of free trade and free movement of people, capital and services – what we now call the four freedoms – but without the political union, or single currency.
Over the years, Austria, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden, Finland and the UK left to join the EU. The UK is now leaving both the EU and the Single Market. Madness!
EFTA is therefore a precedented route to EU membership.
Norway has rejected EU membership twice in referenda, preferring the looser arrangement of EFTA.
Today the EFTA Member States are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
EFTA GOVERNANCE
EFTA states are self-governing – there is no EFTA Parliament. It is not a Federal organisation and has no plans to become one.
The EFTA Council is the highest mutual ‘governing body’. It meets 8 times a year.
The legal basis of EFTA is much simpler and shorter than the EU ‘Acquis.
•THE EFTA CONVENTION covers membership, rights of member states, governance, joining and leaving. Equivalent to the Lisbon Treaty, but explicitly without political union.
•FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS. There are various free trade agreements with non EU states
•THE EEA Agreement covers the relationship between EFTA and the EU.
The EEA IS THE SINGLE MARKET!
WHY A DIRECT MOVE TO EU MEMBERSHIP IS PROBLEMATIC.
The strong probability that we will be out of the EU, and possibly the Single Market, before we are Independent. We can’t just stay in.
Basically, re-joining the EU is too slow, and means too much time out of the Single Market.
That process provides many opportunities for the No campaign to make mischief with scare stories, one of which is actually true – timing!
Things are very fluid but the likely timescale of an Independence referendum, if we get one, is late 2018 to early 2019. We may end up with a vote later than that.
On the 18 months from a Yes vote to Independence Day timescale (as intended in 2014), we will be out of the EU, and Single Market for at least a year, and possibly nearer two before independence day.
We may not achieve a referendum on that timescale. So that’s best case.
And THAT means we will be out of the Single Market for 4 to 6 years. That’s not an attractive prospect.
Being out, via Brexit, before Independence, inevitably means Scotland will be an ‘Accession State’ and to re-join the EU must use Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Wishful thinking about ‘holding pens’ or ‘special arrangements are just that – wishful thinking.
Our unionist opponents will make hay with such woolly hopes, and then some! ‘Spanish Veto’, ‘Convergence criteria’, ‘the Euro’, ‘deficit’. ‘Common Fisheries Policy’. You can just hear it now. We actually ARE hearing it now!
These scares are nonsense. We know they are nonsense. They know they are nonsense. But they work on a section of the population that is risk averse. That’s why they spout these scares.
Let’s sidestep that. No need for Plan B!
A QUICK LOOK AT ARTICLE 49 ACCESSION TO THE EU
Article 49 to join the EU requires a unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers, plus a majority vote in the EU parliament.
Every member state plus the devolved regions with a veto must agree, unanimously. The main issues there are the time to do this, and the opportunity it gives our opponents to scaremonger.
This is the text of Article 49:
“The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of its component members.”
Most recently Croatia took from 2003 to 2013 from application to EU membership. 10 years.
Obviously Scotland, being already aligned with EU procedures and the Acquis – the body of EU law – would be faster. But not fast enough.
Kirsty Hughes and Tobias Lock in European Futures suggest that normal process to re-join the EU would be 4 years, and ‘fast track’ 3 years.
link to europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk
A year. Probably 2, AFTER Brexit, to become independent. And then 3 to 4 years to re-join the EU.
That potentially means 4 to 6 years to be outside the Single Market, to lose freedom of movement and residence rights for EU citizens, and citizens of 3 of the 4 EFTA states). That is not economically, socially or politically acceptable.
Yes, maybe. Maybe. We could shorten that. But that depends on wishful thinking, and wishful thinking is a gift to our opponents. Let’s not do that.
Re-joining the EU may happen in time, but it cannot, must not, be the first choice. It’s not practical.
We are not East Germany. Expansion of a member state is simple. There was no accession when West Germany, an existing member state, simply became a little bigger. Analogously that would be Scotland becoming part of Denmark or Ireland. It has its attractions!
EFTA/EEA TO ACCESS THE SINGLE MARKET TOUTE DE SUITE!
EFTA/EEA is by far the fastest, easiest way back in to the Single Market.
By maximising political support for Yes it is also the best chance of being in the Single Market.
EU membership won’t happen if we don’t get a Yes vote. No Yes vote, no Single Market membership. We’d be stuck in an isolationist right wing Little Britain. Obtaining a Yes vote is imperative. Options that maximise the Yes vote are also imperative. EFTA/EEA is just such an option.
JOINING EFTA IS VIA EFTA CONVENTION ARTICLE 56
Very much simpler and faster than the EU accession process
This is the basic accession criterion. The first sentence of A56, Clause 1.
A56 (1) Any State may accede to this Convention, provided that the Council decides to approve its accession, on such terms and conditions as may be set out in that decision.
•We agree terms (pre-negotiated).
•We formally apply, once a State.
•If the EFTA Council accepts us – we’re in EFTA
Pre-negotiate during the run up to Independence and we can formally apply and if the Four agree, we’d be in EFTA on Independence Day + a week. Within a few months we could be in the EEA and back in the single market.
REJOINING THE SINGLE MARKET VIA THE EEA AGREEMENT, 1994
Access to the Single Market is governed by the EEA Agreement, between the EU and 3 of the 4 EFTA states. Switzerland is not a member. Scotland is a current member of the EEA, via the UK’s EU membership
Entry to the EEA from EFTA would be via THE EEA ENGLARGMENT AGREEMENT.
This was developed to expedite the membership of the new EU accession states from Eastern Europe. The EU and EFTA are flexible when the need arises.
Accession of a new (or in our case returning) state, must be ratified by all EEA membership, but is potentially much faster than the EU accession process
Bulgaria and Croatia, who did not have a 40 year membership history that Scotland has, took 8 months from joining the EU to becoming EEA members.
Scotland is fully compliant, has much goodwill in Europe post the Brexit vote.
Scottish EEA membership from within EFTA would be quick. Weeks or months.
WHAT EFTA OFFERS- SUMMARY
•THE FOUR FREEDOMS – Rights for citizens and businesses are basically identical to those with full membership of EU
Quick and simple access process
•Fastest way back into the single market
•No requirement to commit to join the single currency (even theoretically), or conform to other economic convergence criteria
•Provides an easy step to full EU membership, but likely subject to future vote
•Less threatening to some EU members – No Spanish Veto because they’re not a member!
•Big tent option for Independence to maximise vote
•Less opportunity for No to scaremonger and engage in whataboutery
One question only. Scotland already voted 62% to remain in EU. That is already clear.
Ref Indy 2 …………Should Scotland be a Free Country ?
Before we get carried away with a referendum on this and a referendum on that, do bear in mind that there may be another GE sooner than we might like.
The Unionists got their act together big-style this time round. We better be ready for Round Two. I think the Tories will be. I think Corbyn will be.
I hope this time we really show our enthusiasm for independence and its amazing potential for our country.
We need to enthuse voters with an unambiguous and positive message.
My previous post
“Given free reign”
Should have read,”Given free rein”
@Mark Fletcher at 2:31
I agree.
WM is in chaos. The Tories can’t last. A GE is likely. Corbyn will probably win.
Brexit is a total mess. Any Brexit is bad, just some worse than others.
What matters above all else to the Unionists and the Establishment? Who rules WM? Or, even how Brexit is resolved? Or the very existence of their UKOK?
I suggest whatever else is going on there will be a united and committed front against the SNP and the risk (as they see it) of Indy.
Look at the GE? Tories made a mess in England, but they ran their anti-Indy/SNP campaign much better. They didn’t win but if there is another GE the Unionist number once priority will be to take SNP seats.
We need to be prepared.
What Derick fae Yell said
westminster is teetering so another ge isnt beyond a possibility
but how would that change our existing mandate for indyref2?
corbyn now agrees with david davis that the uk must leave the single market, not because they want to but because the eu has said so. repeatedly.
the result will be the same with corbyn or treeza leading negs, economic shambles when we leave the single market.
it is this fall out which will increase the yes vote and why the indyref2 white paper must commit to efta/eea membership.
btw, we cant publish the white paper until we know the result of brexit.
we will be in the same position as the last election, caught between a rock and a hard place
Do we want independence or are we just killing time? In mainland Europe we give the impression of being a nation that just can’t make up its mind. A little of the ‘seeing ourselves as others see us’ might do us a power of good. There is sympathy for our plight but that may not last if this havering continues much longer. Independence is our year one…..everything else can wait it’s time.
Is there a problem with that? Just too in yer face for some maybe.
I’m proposing THIS through my local branch for SNP Conference:
In the light of the Wings analysis – which makes it clear that anti-EU sentiment on the part of fishing communities played a big part in the Tory “revival”, do you think we (ie the SNP) should now make it party policy that there be a referendum on the EU *AFTER* Independence is gained? I’m thinking of a more nuanced one than a straight IN/OUT, e.g.
BOTH QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED:
a)Do you want Scotland to be a member of the EU? [YES] [NO]
b) If NO is the majority view, which of these do you want? [Outside the Single Market] [EFTA membership]
Of course, that could also be incorporated as the 2nd part of an Independence Referendum. I think it vital that we don’t just have a YES/NO to the Europe question as that doesn’t solve the problem of what takes the place of the EU – witness the ongoing wrangles between “soft” and “hard” Brexit.
Michael Crick?Verified account @MichaelLCrick 2h2 hours ago
Senior HMG source denies @dngbbc report UK has agreed to EU sequence – that talks must agree citizens rights & money before discuss trade
—————–
treeza is going to get these eu negs out of the way very quickly to appease the brexiteers in her cabinet
even before she forms a government and has a queens speech.
once she storms out, that will be it, end of story
the vote in WM is to accept the no deal or to leave without a deal. some choice
we will know next week
Bob Leslie says:
do you think we (ie the SNP) should now make it party policy that there be a referendum on the EU *AFTER* Independence is gained? I’m thinking of a more nuanced one than a straight IN/OUT, e.g.
BOTH QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED:
a)Do you want Scotland to be a member of the EU? [YES] [NO]
b) If NO is the majority view, which of these do you want? [Outside the Single Market] [EFTA membership]
——————
efta/eea members are not members of the eu
in or out of the single market makes no difference to the fishermen since efta/eea members are not part of the CFP.
also, 62% voted to remain, being in efta/eea and inside the single market is explicite by the 62% vote. it doesnt need revisited
Thanks to the sad events in London the MSM know that the people are angry and turning against them, things could get very interesting re. Indy 2 .
Sovereignty?
Do what your told to do
or
You make your own decisions.
The EU / Single market issue is just one of the symptoms of lack of Scottish democracy, because the basic problem is: Scotland is not regarded as sovereign in this Union.
The Scottish Govt should be asserting Scotland’s sovereignty. Always, in all matters.
For individual issues, such as the Single Market, Holyrood has already decided as the democratically elected representatives of the people that Scotland should remain in the Single Market.
Westminster has been saying the opposite.
So it’s Holyrood vs WM contradicting each other.
Who is sovereign? Scotland’s people.
So ask the people of Scotland:
Should Scotland’s Parliament have the final say (sovereignty) on issues which affect Scotland?
Once that’s established. Then Scotland can decide other matters either by elections of politicians on manifestos or referendums.
The question should be the same as the one in 2014 but with a promise that a further referendum will be held within 5 years of Independence to decide on membership of EU or EFTA. We have to have Independence first and then have the informed debate as an independent Nation as to the benefits or otherwise of the EU.
I agree that the best course is just to have one question.
Like, Should Scotland become independent?
But, I still think that the specific notion raised, that strongly anti-EU but otherwise pro indy voters who are minded not to vote in a indyref2 or worse, vote No could be persuaded to vote Yes if they were given an assurance at a second go on the EU at some later date.
Trying to intimate that vision in a second or long-winded question would almost certainly be more confusing than its objectives merit.
Better to do so by a concomitant manifesto pledge which gives them that alternative option and making sure it is well publicized by the time of voting.
@ Derick fae Yell 2.29
Well ye learn something new every day. Thank you.
Precisely why there should be only one question – Yes/No.
As I said @ 1.05 most folks aren’t that interested. A few of my friends know that they want Independence and that’s it. They’re not into all the whys and wherefores.
I am not as expert as most on here – kind of ‘Jill of All Trades’, but I know enough to answer friends questions and of course if I can’t, I know where to come! However, if you ask a question about Indy/EU/EEA/EFTA/Single whatsit/Common thingy…. eyes glaze over.
It has to be one question on the ballot, with backing for ref on EU (in whatever form) after Independence, in the manifesto. Total democracy. One question only, or some would want Trident, Currency, the queen etc on the ballot.
Independence FIRST, last and always.
IMO, one way or another we will need access to the single market on day one of Indy.
Our fragile economy as an independent state (thanks to years of WM mismanagement) cannot function without access to Europe and all the dozens of other worldwide trade deals the EU has negotiated.
I would think iScotland starting with WTO tariffs would be a disaster.
We might be in the EU, EFTA, or have some transitional single market deal. And there may be a referendum to decide which. However, we definitely need some sort of access arrangement in place immediately.
Sorry ot but i cannot believe what i just watched on Sky News…
A Local councillor has just stated on Sky News, that a tenent of the tower block who, with her 12 year old child, saw folk burn to death as they escaped, was handed a complaint notice of anti social behaviour because of their dog barking by the Tenent Management Organisation which ran the building !!
This happened just last night !!!
Utterly disgusting.
Derick fae Yell @2.29pm
You make a lot of sense. The EFTA membership option does merit very close examination, even if only as a stepping stone to EU membership, if that is the majority will of the Scottish electorate post-independence.
EFTA does seem to be a significant, interesting organisation albeit with few members.
In addition to EFTA members’ participation in the European single market (the ‘internal market’) via the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), the EFTA states also have 27 other free trade agreements covering 38 countries outside the EU. EFTA is also engaged in another nine free trade negations world-wide, including with India.
So we would be accessing substantial existing trading relations. Contrast this with the UK following a hard BREXIT or the often referred to ’no deal’ with the EU. The UK could be starting from scratch i.e. with no free trade agreements in place.
The EFTA website (link to efta.int) provides additional information on its relationship with the EU:
“The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — throughout the 31 EEA States. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as ‘flanking and horizontal’ policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA.”
However, notably the EEA Agreement does NOT cover the following EU policies:
* Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies (although the Agreement contains provisions on various aspects of trade in agricultural and fish products)
* Customs Union
* Common Trade Policy
* Common Foreign and Security Policy
* Justice and Home Affairs (even though the EFTA countries are part of the Schengen area), or
* Monetary Union (EMU).
This EFTA ‘mix’ may well provide a way of building common ground between indy-supporting ‘leavers’ and ‘remainers’ (plus other ‘remainers’ who are not ardent unionists). It may also offer some positives for the fishing communities.
It would delay a decision on full EU membership by the Scottish electorate until after independence has been achieved and the pros/cons of full EU membership for Scotland (as distinct from a Scotland still in the UK) can be carefully considered and if appropriate, negotiated with Scotland’s (not the UK’s) circumstances to the fore.
Liz Rannoch
Agreed. Only one question. Independence, Yes or No.
Backed up with an absolute guarantee on a referendum on EU, EFTA or other within, say, one year of independence.
Anything else causes confusion.
Mark Fletcher at 231 pm
I absolutely agree. We need to be ready for an election, with objective to regain seats. To do that we need a strong message regarding Scotland and its right to choose on the EU AND independence. No wishy washy, maybe/maybe’s no rubbish. Take the fight to them next time, rather than being defensive.
I think many, even shy unionists would find it tedious if Ruth or Dugdale ran yet again with the ‘stop the SNP’ P*sh, and frankly, without that the Tories in Scotland have nothing. Add to that the fact that IF their is another election, it is a big statement that the Tory Government has failed, literally.
It would indeed be a great opportunity for the SNP, but they need to give the troops a strong message about Scotland.
And if the SNP can’t figure one out, I’ll happily do it for them.
They also need members to step up (and I include myself in that).
Just a week since the election, back on our feet, fighting. Braw.
> we should make indref2 about re-joining the SM
This I agree with, although infuriatingly you can fricking bet on people moaning about that as their reason for voting No as well.
Next GE?
The Tories will have peaked and the shiny Ruthie stop-Indy-ignore-WM approach will have been well tarnished by events outside Scotland. They will be seen as toxic as ever. Ruthie cannot escape WM fallout. We need to push them back and regain seats.
Labour will win the GE IMO. Corbyn has suddenly become credible and acceptable. This effect will spin over into Scotland with past Labour voters returning to back Corbyn at WM. This is where the SNP need a more imaginative approach. They need to convince those voters that an SNP MP will defend their interests more than a Labour MP who is part of the WM ruling party. That is the big challenge.
Stewartb
There is a case for EFTA + customs union.
Out of the customs union makes trade with rUK (if they are out) easier
In CU makes trade with EU 27 easier
Liz Rannoch
Short version 1 (hot off the press this instant!)
‘Independence with Europe, like Norway and Iceland’
My opinion is that staying in the EU initially is mandatory.
Other options might be OK, but we need to consider the response of RUK to independence. I fear they will throw everything at us.
Being an EU nation provides us with protection. RUK couldn’t put tanks in Glasgow or introduce Aliens Act 2, without a significant response from the EU. We would also have a veto on any Brexit deal. We would be in a position of considerable strength.
In any case, why abandon a huge market for a smaller market. I see the EU as a benign Union. We need to be in the EU to allow us to rebalance our economy away from 80%? reliance on RUK. The U.K. Is probably the least attractive European country to trade with given its massive debts, unstable politics and near hostility to Scotland.
Also, someone mentioned the fear of change as a barrier to independence. An excellent point. Staying in the EU removes a lot of change.
Scotland voted to stay in the EU.
Staying in the EU is also SNP policy. I don’t think Alex Salmond is stupid.
a distinct absence of trolls on this thread, how refreshing
it appears that the only issue or disagreement is whether a yes vote means an automatic request to join efta/eea or not.
btw, many very pro eu yessers might find this thread dissapointing but they tend to be of the more enlightened variety of voters an I believe we could convince them to buy into this.
it would also guarentee the rights of eu citizens in an independent scotland.
Sorry again ot…
Herald reporting that any increased infrastructure spending for N.I. in return for DUP support, will NOT trigger barnett consequentials for Scotland and Wales….
link to archive.is
Fireproofjim at 358pm, and Liz rannoch.
Wholly agree. Get independence, then the Government elected can ask any old questions/hold referendum it likes.
Two questions on unrelated matters would be confusing.
geeo at 343pm,
I do hope at least some of the individuals responsible for the fire get put in jail. It is the very least they deserve.
Keep it simple stupid. So one question indy now question will be just lovely. The way its going, England under Mayhem and the DUP may not even be a functioning state very soon.
Derrick fae Yell
Thanks for giving us what we’re all missing – real information!
Too many of us, me included, are starved of it and thus unsure of the way forward for Scotland.
I live/work in the heart of Europe so for me it’s a normal fact of everyday life which nobody in the majority really wants to miss. We moan an’ groan sometimes but life is easier within it.
Nicola has as we know, good contacts to the heads of the EU and member states and I would presume that she talks to them about the problematic facing Scotland and how to move forward should the idiots in London decide to pull a fast on the EU and Scotland.
Her declarations to be seeking access to the Single Market and not specifically the EU may be part of the background info that gets swapped between them.
One thing is certain ONLY independence will save Scotland.
Oh FGS, the multi-question referendum fallacy raises its ugly head once again.
We’ve just observed an election where irrelevant issues were deliberately dragged in to confuse the electorate and muddy the result. Consequently we have no idea what many voters thought they were actually voting for.
How smart then would it be to deliberately introduce multiple factors into a referendum?
As the contributions to this thread well illustrate, you end up with a cacophany of views which merely serves to divert from the crucial point of it all:
without independence, all else is void!
There is never going to be sufficient flexibility within the Union to permit any of these second-order alternatives to ever be available.
(In fact as we have readily observed, Scotland’s real accomplishments vs rUK’s are constantly rubbished and undermined in the media specifically in order to depress any further demand for greater autonomy.)
I really wish some of the woolly-headed posters on here would wake up and realise that the Union is never going to allow anything like sufficient diversity to make that possible. Like the infamous “Vow”, it is happy to dangle such tempting prospects in front of people beforehand, then afterwards they vanish as fast as the proverbial snowball in hell.
There is only one question needed, and by answering it in the affirmative, all other possibilities become available in due course according to our own choice. Answering it in the negative excludes everything else and puts the choice in the hands of others.
Be under no illusion: a multi-choice referendum is just another less-obvious way of scuppering a future ScotRef.
Why don’t we just announce that every election will be that a majority of votes for pro indy parties will be us declaring independence. No campaign as such, just an ongoing discussion of how our country should be run and by who. The BBC and other media are constantly on a war footing anyway. When the people are ready. We go. That’s democracy is it not? Should never be the case that we have to beg or fight for a referendum and we should really stick the boot in for the unionist parties even suggesting that we should not be able to choose our future
This is a link to a letter in the Financial Times about soft Brexit and how it may not be the solution some people think it is.
I posted it on another thread but relevant here.
link to t.co
Lesley Riddoch had an article in the National with a similar theme.
Before we all get excited with the question/s.
What if the UK Govt, says: No, we’re no giving permission for indyref?
Face facts, we only got indyref one cos indi looked impossible in 2014. Now, it seems within touch, there is no way WM will voluntarily agree to one.
Most on here seem to accept WM is sovereign – Scotland can’t be sovereign-
until independence is achieved. ( I don’t).
On that basis, WM only has to say No to another referendum and your f****d.
So, Scotland is already faced with the situation that she must FIRST assert her sovereignty – ultimate right to decide – whilst within the Union, if she wants independence ( or anything else, if WM says No).
If she is sovereign enough to decide she can hold an indi-ref without permission, she’s sovereign enough to say Scotland’s Parliament must be able to review and amend or veto any legislation that affects Scotland, such as Brexit.
If Scotland’s Parliament and Scot Govt find the moral courage to defy WM, then she is already sovereign – even within the Union.
Independence would just be another expression of sovereignty, based on the pros and cons of a partnership v full independence.
Only one question. Would you like to see Scotland in charge of itself as an independent country?
But on the lead up to this get everyone (well as many as possible) to understand that this question is not about or on behalf of any political party, and that AFTER independence then there can be discussions, debates, manifestos from all parties about EU etc for the people of an independent country to vote on in Scotland’s first very own General Election.
So much more fair than the system we have now where we do not have a say in anything that goes on in the UK as a whole as was proved when there were 56 Scottish MPs representing one party and they got us nowhere really in the great big scheme of things known as Westminster.
Two questions on the same paper? What will us males do? The women will be OK as they can multitask.
geeo @ 3.43
That’s disgusting but not surprising….
Must admit that I have wondered a few times about the pets that had to be in that tower too.
Haven’t heard so far any stories about some getting saved, I know on the scale of things it’s no much.
But it might be a crumb of comfort to somebody in it all.
schrodingers cat
“it appears that the only issue or disagreement is whether a yes vote means an automatic request to join efta/eea or not.”
Not relevant to anything that is actually happening or likely to happen.
Doug M @ 5.18
LOL…. follow the ladies instructions ofcourse..
colin Alexander @ 17:12:
You keep sayin that, but would you care to explain how you propose to achieve it? Other, that is, than by waving your little magic wand?
I do wish we could have something better to consider than what seems to be nothing more than repeatedly regurgitated diversionary Labourite federalist pish. (To put it politely.)
@Auld Rock says: 16 June, 2017 at 7:53 am:
“What we must do is to put EFTA Membership firmly on the table if we can’t get the CFP & CAP scrapped.”
EFTA is a crazy choice and should not even be considered. Scots taxpayers would pay the same fees as full EU member states but have no say in making the laws or rules we would be paying for.
That’s the main reason Scotland needs out of the UK. We pay more than our fair share to the treasury as taxation and duty and the Scottish per capita GDP is usually higher than every other UK country. Remember that everyone pays indirect taxation, income tax and the other direct taxation raises nothing like as much as indirect tax, yet Scotland really has no say in UK matters.
EFTA would just be jumping from the frying pan into the fire – we would pay in the same fees as full EU members but have no say in making the rules.
Like being in the UK EFTA is the worst of both worlds. It is Westminster Establishment brainwashing that the EU dictates laws & rules to member states. Even the smallest and poorest EU states have a veto on EU matters and no syate gets dictated to.
The daft claims of bad treatment to the likes of Greece are blown out of all proportion. The cold hard truth is that Greece failed to balance its books and ran up massive debts. The UK is going down the same road and that’s the real reason the government wants a BREXIT – they want to jump before they are pushed.
Collin Alexander @ 5.12
I suggested days ago Colin that you go look up what a section 30 order actually is and it functions for a referendum vote.
We don’t need one to have a referendum .
One of those nice but not essential to have things.
And we don’t need to establish Sovereignty…. espically not Sovereignty within the Union!!
By default the person who would decide on Scotland being Sovereign has no right to do so otherwise Scotland is not Sovereign….the “Decider” person is.
Think of it like this…you don’t take your neighbour to court to stop them building an extension they aren’t attempting to build?
You only go to court if they actually attempt to build one!
We don’t go to Court to ask for a ruling on our Sovereignty unless and until our Sovereignty is denied to us.
And I don’t know why you keep insisting on Sovereignty within the Union, that’s no good to us now..and no compromise on Independence.
Two separate Sovereignty’s can’t have one boss/ruler/decider… neither would be truly Sovereign and to equalise the power to share it would reduce Westminster Sovereignty….The ONE thing Westminster is forbidden to do.
Can you tell me Colin when have Westminster ever said Scotland can’t have a referendum?
And why do they keep trying to pressure Holyrood to rule it out.
If they want it off the table so badly why don’t they take it off the table then?
Black Donald @ 16 June, 2017 at 4:23 pm
It’s hard to know how much of this trade from Scotland to rUK is actual trade between the two and what is exporting from Scotland to the rest of the world.
I don’t doubt that big Scottish companies benefit from trade with the rUK. However, considering the distinct lack of awareness of Brand Scotland in the rest of the UK as well as the unwillingness to promote it, would smaller companies, using being Scottish as a selling point, be better off in the UK or European market?
I voted to leave the eu because I want a truly independent Scotland I don’t want to swap one country England telling me what to do for 26 other countries telling me what. To do where is the sense on that ? I do not want to belong to NATO or the United Nations or anything else and certainly no special relationship with America unity is strength is a myth ,. In means outsiders having a say in your affairs no one will look after Scotland’s affairs better than the Scots so look in the dictionary and see what the word independence means as for 2 questions on ref 2 wake up divide and rule
Hi colin Alexander at 5:12 pm.
You typed,
“What if the UK Govt, says: No, we’re no giving permission for indyref?”
The Holyrood Parliament does NOT need permission from Westminster to a hold a referendum. It can hold a referendum on any topic it likes, whenever it likes.
You are confusing a Section 30 Order with “permission”. The section 30 agreement was an agreement for both sides to accept the outcome of indyref1, from a legal point of view. Legally biding powers were passed, temporarily, to Holyrood. If we had voted YES, the two governments would have entered into negotiations for the dismantling of the United Kingdom.
When Holyrood organises indyref2 with, possibly, no Section 30 agreement and we vote YES, we will have every global institution on our side. Westminster will have to comply, under international pressure.
Hi
Blair Paterson at 5:53 pm.
You typed,
“I don’t want to swap one country England telling me what to do for 26 other countries telling me what. To do “[sic]
Like this, you mean? (One of indyposterboy’s cards.)
link to s3.spanglefish.com
In means outsiders having a say in your affairs no one will look after Scotland’s affairs better than the Scots so look in the dictionary and see what the word independence means as for 2 questions on ref 2 wake up divide and rule”
Bollox.
EU does not tell other countries what to do. Its all collegiate agreement. Look at how the EU actually tries to look after everyone, not just the filthy rich? Take EU work time directives, limiting working hours for crucial jobs, ensuring people can have decent work/life balances, fairer and higher pay, safer working conditions, providing far higher productivity and services, its an endless list of benefit from just that one EU directive, if that’s what its called.
And all of it was fcuked off by the UK gov, red and blue tory, even as an EU member. EU has bent over backwards to accommodate the UK and now we’ve flounced out for a tory party in-fight.
Idiots like you Blair Paterson says: will be the ruin of us all. Or you’re just another Heil/Express/BBC sucker.
Vote to leave the eU ? What we have witnessed over the last 48 hours should make you think again. Health and Safety legislation being rescinded would mean whoever was responsible for the corporate murder in Kensington would have no real case to answer.
Alasdair Stirling at 7:46 am
“Bruce L makes a good point, so perhaps we should reverse the order of questions:
1 Should Scotland remain as part of the EU?
2 Should Scotland be an independent country?”
You can see how, to logical sane peeps this would be agreeable, but to professional Yoons, it would be an open goal for “How can you be indy, but subservient to the EU ya bawbags”, whichever way round, and Q1 is irrelevant with a No to Q2 here anyway.
Pandering to an “element” who are hard of thinking, and easily swayed to the status quo.
Howevs, if there was a way of shaking them up a bit, by stating the bleeding obvs, that we would be on a par with the other 27 Politically Indy Nations, who share a stable currency, and add to your Foreign policy clout, rather than diminishing it…
£ Strong & stable? hehehehe. How the worm is turning here !
The currency issue can be played to our advantage this time. We all Know (I hope) that Indy1 came as a shock, and Salmond would have had an easy time just saying fuck yer pound, we are going for the larger stable currency, but events…
Maybe Q1. ‘Should Scotland be an Independent Nation ?’
Q2. ‘Should an Independent Scotland remain in the EU?’
This isn’t likely to put the 62%ers off Q2, if they have already said Yes to Q1, and this is the group who will get us beyond 50% + 1.
Or the 45, who can just vote No to Q2. Think about it 🙂
Yes/No we still win !
The difference between 62 and the 45 is where our main pitch should be made.
If we can persuade just a third of these, the jobs a good ‘un there alone, and if we can educate the soft yoons, and energise and empower the disaffected…
Carpe Diem Nicola. Announce we intend to hold a ref Spring next year, and watch the Tory party finally implode as they realise they have lost the use of us as bargaining chips in the Brexit negs. The EU WILL back us, each and every way they can.
Brexit means brexit, so the bloody difficult woman says.
The phrase carpe diem appears in Horace’s Odes (I.11) as part of the injunction “carpe diem quam minimum credula postero,” which can be translated as “pluck the day, trusting as little as possible in the next one.”
Ron Maclean at 11.53
You just made the point – we need the campaign for IndyRef2 NOW
Oops thought I had read it through…
Spring 2019
Blair Paterson @ 5.53pm
FFS man, with your lack of understanding, you should vote Tory.
An independent Scotland, within the EU would not be, as you suggested: “swapping one country England telling me what to do for 26 other countries telling me what to do”.
For more than 300-years, courtesy of that “parcel o’ rogues in a nation”, Scotland has been tied-into a Union in which, because the other partner is so-much bigger and richer, regardless of what Scotlan wants – it is forced to do what the other party wants.
Scotland inside the EU would be an EQUAL partner with the other 27 members. Decisions are made by negotiation and agreement, not by dictat from the largest country. And, if Scotland felt: “No, we simpy cannot agree to this”, then it would have the right of veto.
That is the difference, Scotland in the EU would have far-more say in the big decisions than it currently has at Westminster.
If you cannot understand this simple fact – there is no hope for you.
Having observed Theresa May over the last few days and weeks, I have come to the conclusion that she may well be the most hapless ineffective Prime Minister the UK has ever had.
If my life depended on a good deal from Brexit, she would be the last person I would send.
Legerwood says:
Full soft, something like Norway, would certainly be far from what the English Nationalist faction want. Little control of areas the EU dictates on is ‘taken back’ and payments will be made. People will move freely.
During EURef voters were sold fantastical possibilities which can be summarised by all the good bits and none of the bad bits. Full trade yet no meddling, no payments, no movement of people. Pure fantasy.
Then hard. How hard? To avoid all the bit the EngNats don’t like, hard.
I suppose it all comes down to who is driving the UK’s agenda, and to what extent they are willing to face down the loony right fringe, or not.
There is no good Brexit, only degrees of bad.
Forgot to add…
If the Westminster elites try any snash with their ‘Supreme’ Court shtick, as current citizens of the EU, the EC top trumps it anyways, on human rights grounds.
I do seem to remember Cameron B going on and on about it 🙂
Blair Paterson says:
16 June, 2017 at 5:53 pm
I voted to leave the eu because I want a truly independent Scotland I don’t want to swap one country England telling me what to do for 26 other countries telling me what. To do where is the sense on that ?….
Well, for a start it’s nonsense.
In a crude parallel, its like joining a golf club. When you join the golf club, the golf club has rules, like not wearing your spikes in the clubhouse. Nobody has a tantrum about the loss of national sovereignty because the damned golf club is forcing you to remove your spikes before entering the clubhouse. It’s a club rule you agreed to respect when you joined the club. It is not an infringement of your civil liberties, you did not surrender your spike wearing sovereignty, and nor is it a rule designed to expressly frustrate your freedom to wear spikes indoors.
The UK signed up to join the EEC, and has been whining about it ever since. Nobody forced the UK to join. People bent over backwards to accommodate the UK’s histrionics throughout, and now one of the UK’s juvenile petulant stunts has gone too far and in its delusional stupidity the UK opted to exit Europe, and Europe cannot believe its good luck. The awkward rude boy is leaving, and it’s all his own idea. Hallelujah! Rejoice!
The whole point about the EU is that it is a consensual Union where the sovereignty of nations is respected. If a nation doesn’t want to sign up to the rules it has a veto. If it does sign up to the rules, then frankly it’s a bit to rich to complain about it afterwards.
Compare that to the UK “Union” where Scotland’s sovereign status is treated with utter contempt and we have no veto over anything, and scarcely even any influence over UK policy. Do what your told and keep your trap shut Scotland! You ungrateful spongers!
The EU is a flexible progressive Union which accommodates 28 vastly different and diverse nations which don’t even speak the same language, and they achieve marvels in peace and relative harmony. The UK Union isnt even big enough to suffer Scotland having its own opinion, nevermind a sovereign veto.
I give the EU a big thumbs up. Big time! But I couldn’t give a stuff about UK’s contemptible Act of Union. Tear the crooked thing up and burn it.
@Mike D says: 16 June, 2017 at 8:02 am:
“I think we need the 2 questions to separate the issues but in separate referendums. First we get indy, then we have another EU ref a year or 2 later.”
I’ve been pointing out that all the EU needs to do, in fact it must do or the EU treaty will not be worth the paper it is written upon, is to rule that as the United KINGDOM , is exactly what its title describes it as <A KINGDOM that is composed of only two equally sovereign kingdoms and that it is not, A COUNTRY.
It thus protects its EU Citizen’s from Scotland right to remain within the EU as they democratically voted to do and it also protects its EU citizens from England, Wales and N. I. their democratic right to leave the EU as they voted to do.
If the EU doesn’t do that then the EU cannot ever again operate as the European Union. The EU is far more than a group of member states with a few things in common. It has made all those peoples from its member states EU citizens and it has given each and every one of them their EU Citizen’s rights.
If the EU cannot guarantee to protect its own citizens then the EU fails to exist. It is a fact that any EU citizen has the legal right to claim protection from ant EU member states foreign embassies.
In the case of the United Kingdom the EU accepted the bipartite union of kingdoms as a joint member state but if the United Kingdom disunites then there is no United Kingdom but both sets of citizens remain EU citizens but cease to be UK citizens.
Put simply – if the kingdoms of Scotland and England divorce from each other it doesn’t mean they both divorce from the EU.
Too many of the referendums I have encountered in my life have been undermined before voting even took place.
Going back to 1979 and the 40% rule.
IndyRef1 was supposed to be Indy versus status quo. The offer was made to add a second question on DevoMax. WM declined because it wanted to hold DM in reserve as a torpedo to fire if things got close.
EURef. Cameron negotiated a ‘new deal’. This should have been tested as changed relationship versus status quo. If there was demand to Leave then that should have been pre negotiated, then put as an entirely separate referendum as a clear plan to Leave versus a simple stay. Combining the two where no one actually knew what Leave meant (still don’t) was incomprehensible stupidity.
A sceptic would wonder if there are powers at play which purposely invalidate referendums.
And so to IndyRef2. Whatever we do, we must ensure clarity, simplicity, and not allow it too to be invalidated. We can be certain WM will dream up ways to undermine democracy!
We’ll just have an indyref without a Section 30, because it looks the majority will back independence. And the UK Govt will just say: Okay.
Nonsense. We know what they said: wait.( wait till the SNP and Greens can’t get a Holyrood majority in 2021 ).
If we don’t need a Section 30, why did the ScotGovt ask for one first time and is again seeking one?
If the WoS amateur constitutional law experts are so clever: You tell me. The Scotland Act says constitutional matters are reserved. In that case, how can you have a legally binding indyref without a Section 30?
Asserting Sovereignty:
1.The Scottish Govt could put forward a motion to the Scottish Parliament that this parliament does not recognise the authority of the UK Govt to negotiate Scotland’s exit from the Single Market without the democratic consent of the Scottish people represented by the Scottish Parliament.
This parliament calls on the UK Govt to open negotiations with the Scottish Govt and EU on how Scotland can remain in the Single Market, if the rUK leaves it.
2. If the UK Govt refuses to allow the democratically elected Scottish Parliament to decide if Scotland should remain in the Single Market, this Parliament calls on the Scottish Govt to organise and undertake a referendum to ask the people of Scotland:
Should the Scottish Parliament have the right to decide if Scotland should stay in the Single Market?
Aye or No
If Aye wins, Scotland’s Parliament has a democratic mandate to keep Scotland in the Single Market.
Scotland has marked a democratic line in the sand.
Either WM / UK Govt backs down or they directly oppose a democratic mandate of the people of Scotland.
If they oppose the Scottish democratic mandate, a constitutional crisis ensues.
The issue then becomes WM / UK Govt refused Scottish democracy. That would be the time for indyref2. And then we ask:
Should Scotland be an independent country?
I may have posted this before. Apologies.
The folks down here just don’t get why we want to be independent but stay with the EU. I know, ,they don’t get how much Scotland is still bossed by England.
I’m guessing there are many in Scotland who think the same out of a mixture of believing the media and not caring enough to find out the truth.
Anyway, I think the question should be ‘Do you think Scotland should be an normal self governing country?’ Even if you take out ‘normal’ how can you say No?
The SNP should maybe drop independence and talk about being a normal self governing country every time AND of course good allies and friends of the rest of these is islands.
Michael @ 07.49
Agree 100%. Let’s get the independence issue out of the way. Let’s get people knowing what they are voting for. Then, tackle the issue of membership of the EU at a subsequent date, keeping in close contact with the EU throughout.
The original 1707 Treaty is being completely ignored. Conditions have been broken time & time again. As far as I am concerned, the civil law, the contract of the Treaty, has been completely usurped. Any court would have a field day.
Here’s another choice:
link to scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk
@Brian Doonthetoon
Thanks for addressing my issue. I know the ScotP can debate and vote on issues it wants to. I know they can organise referendums. But none of it is legally binding on the Scot or Uk Govts.
“Westminster will have to comply, under international pressure”. If Scotland voted Aye on an advisory referendum.
I disagree. The international community don’t give a monkey’s toss. The Pope, the president of USA etc etc etc all come out saying they think Scotland should stay part of the UK,so do people seriously believe they will then organise sanctions and boycotts just to please us?
Given the confusion over the Local election voting system, I would prefer one question.
There will be a white paper coming out that will give the Unionists a chance to smear the SNP plans,(at which time sensible Dave will be back) but there will also be bad news on a daily basis coming from the Brexit negotiations,
It will be plan versus no plan
Blair Patterson @ 5.53
Don’t? you think Blair that an independent Scotland is perfectly capable of writing a constitution that would forbid Holyrood to sign up to any more Unions that would take our voting power?
Europe’s law’s usually always say … according to each individual countries constitutional arrangement…
That’s why it takes so long sometimes to write European law’s.
Did you notice the EU take any part in the Brexit referendum?
Didn’t Europe have to wait Westminster’s pleasure as to when article 50 was triggered?
These are, as others have said two very, very different Unions.
Here is a bit of a curve ball…..!!!?????
I am sure you know that American President’s can only sit for TWO … FOUR year terms.
And that’s because it says so in the Constitution…Right??
Time barred stuff AYE???
How about if Scotland’s Constitution had within it the instruction that…
Every fourth Parliament (20 year’s) the ballot MUST also contain the question? do you as a Sovereign Scott agree that Holyrood still be bound by all current international Treaty’s ?
That’s the EU,NATO,The UN…the whole lot…that have to be ratified by us the Sovereign Scots every Four Parliament’s.
A perfectly understandable position to take given that when we signed the 1707 Treaty we had a hell of a time getting out of it!!
Would that no suit ye?
We give Holyrood the power to join the world and it’s organisations.
And then!
It’s not in the governments Interest to blame these organisations for “stuff”!!
But should any of These organisations go ” rouge ” and or undermine Scotland’s democracy we have a get out clause.
The international community won’t go for it…fine..em but..aye right..
Might actually turn out to be the gold standard for keeping international organisations in line.. IE. You need the approval and ratification of your membership every 20 year’s or thereabouts buckel up buttercup!! (Not you Blair,the institution’s)
What say you Blair??
Would that be enough??
It will still be indecisive. An opportunity to create confusion. For corrupt Unionism of outside interest to try and manipulate.
The only way for an IndyRef2. ‘is should Scotland be an Independent country’. It is too important decision. It has to stand alone. Once the the result in made. If there is a demand. There should be a a question of full membership. EU Referendum.
The mess of Brexit and the Union chaos of Westminster means Scotland could already have less EU rights than the majority wishes. When an IndyRef2 takes place. Sooner rather than later. To end this chaos of Unionism. Appalling. Mismanagement. Getting just too much to bear.
Scotland has already vote 62% – 38% remain.
I think having two separate questions might make things worse as the voter might not fully grasp the consequences.
There are four possible outcomes to the two questions.
1 – Indy Scot, EU member
2 – Indy Scot, not EU member
3 – Scot in UK, EU member
4 – Scot in UK, not EU member
I lived in Austria for several years and came to the conclusion that small countries can thrive in the EU – this played a large part in turning me into a supporter of independence.
But I am frankly scared of getting an independent Scotland that is not in the EU.
So I would like to have a fifth scenario:
5 – Ireland annexes Scotland.
galamcennalath @ 18:47:
Precisely so.
Are we to become equal players on the world stage, or remain someone else’s menials, locked-up in their dressing room out of sight, and solely at their beck-and-call?
It’s likewise in the EU. Are we to become decision-takers at the top table, or fold cravenly and settle for being second-rate hangers-on in the EEA/EFTA adjoining room, paying the fees but having no say? The misguided triangulation that could so easily fail to please. Anyone.
Breeks @ 18:33,
Exactly. Perfect antidote to The Daily Slug‘s poison, which unfortunately has been peddled on the cheap for years and sadly gone unrebutted all that time.
@Defo
“Forgot to add…
If the Westminster elites try any snash with their ‘Supreme’ Court shtick, as current citizens of the EU, the EC top trumps it anyways, on human rights grounds.”
I have no doubt the UK Government will try it.
However, whether the SC Judges play ball depends on how much integrity they have.
In Canada, the SC there ruled that Quebec leaving Canada unilaterally would be illegal but even then the judges said that while it was technically illegal, if Quebec voted Yes in a referendum the other provinces would need to acknowledge that fact.
And in Canada there was a Bill of Rights which extended the purview of their SC to include constitutional status matters.
In the UK the SC has not had such powers extended to them by an enabling Bill of Rights. The proposed Bill of Rights has still not been passed.
Nevertheless, I expect in this instance UK levels of morality will apply and I expect the UKSC to rule that an indyref2 is ‘illegal’, period.
The EU, ECHR and associated courts cannot come to Scotland’s assistance on this because constitutional status has been deliberately left out of the treaties involved.
Complaint would have to be made to the UN and/or ICJ.
The ECHR and EU courts do not cover self determination in the national sense although they have dealt with self determination at the individual level, for example with individuals having the self determination right not to be hospitalized.
The EU have acted as a good offices providing broker in negotiating an indyref for Montenegro (from Serbia) but that was with no legal authority to do so.
The have also participated in helping to police the situation in Kosovo under the auspices of the UN.
Serbia took Kosovo to the UN when Kosovo declared UDI but when it was passed on to the ICJ, the ICJ ruled that Kosovo had done nothing wrong.
Kosovo is now on the official pending membership list for full EU membership even though it still has not procured the 66% support in the UN for UN membership. It also has de facto arrangements with many EU bodies already.
There is a great degree of willing across the EU political community to do the right thing but they are limited in what they can do by the treaties involved.
It is a Catch 22 situation.
If there is a hard Brexit then the UK has little to lose and a UDI even following a successful indyref2 is qite likely to be met with military occupation, recall of the Scottish Parliament and arrest of the SNP leadership.
If there is a soft Brexit, retaining the single market, then such drastic measures by Westminster become less likely, since the EU would still have considerable leverage over the UK but an indyref2 may be difficult to win or even justify in those circumstances.
Rock (26th June 2016 – “Notes from the madhouse”),
“The EU will want Scotland more than Scotland wants the EU.
Scotland is in a very strong position right now.
Nicola should get a written statement from the EU that if Scotland votes for independence, Scotland can be a full member from day 1, with the same arrangements as present regarding currency, Schengen etc, IF Scotland wants to be a member from day 1.
The independence referendum questions should then be:
Should Scotland become independent?
If Yes,
Should Scotland continue as a member of the EU, or
Should Scotland leave the EU?
If the vote is for independence outside the EU, we can leave the UK on the same day as the UK (including Scotland) leaves the EU.
We should not wait for the outcome of the Tory civil war down south.
The independence referendum should be held before Cameron’s successor takes over.”
Given recent events and Theresa Mays inability and insensitivity dealing with them, I believe if she called another General Election, she and the Tories would be comprehensively defeated.
Rock (6th December 2016 – “The Gambit”)
“No more “white papers” before the next independence referendum.
Simply promises of referendums on:
1) Monarchy
2) Sterling
3) EU
4) Nato”
@Robert J. Sutherland
If the UK Govt says No indyref2 or mibbie even: No surrender!
What then?
Peter McCulloch,
“I have learned since the anti poll tax and housing stock transfer campaigns.
That people don’t bother their backside until, it affects them personally, and I suspect it will be the same in regard to Brexit.
They will continue naively believe despite all the facts to the contrary that Westminster will look after their interests.”
Rock (2nd June 2015),
“We are a pathetic people. Even Ghandi or Mandela couldn’t have done much for us.
While their people were ready to sacrifice everything, we are meekly hoping that our 56 MPs outnumbered 10 to 1 at Westminster, and 7 to 4 on the Scottish affairs committee, will bring us independence without any suffering.
If we want to achieve anything, we will need to get out onto the streets, starting with a massive poll tax type boycott of the Pravda GB tax.”
Rock (30th September 2016 – “The green and pleasant land”)
“The EU can’t wait to get rid of England.
But England doesn’t want to leave. It just wants to blackmail the EU into granting concessions.
Fortunately the EU is having none of it.
Scotland should be fully independent by 31st December 2017 to get the best possible terms out of both the rUK and the EU.”
The UK is a political construct comprising the Kingdoms of England and Scotland. Now that the UK has decided to leave the EU, Nicola should submit Scotland’s Future to the EU negotiators saying ” this is Scotland’s view of the UK’s position after Brexit. Threasa May will present England’s view.”
The single most important question to get right is to ask if Scotland should be an independenr country. Ask that. Again.
This newly independent country just as any other will be able employ democratic procedures to decide and prosecute adherence or joining or not.
Two questions is a muddle. If not a muddle initially it would soon would become one with Kdug and Harrison and Lynton Crosby stirring.
One question only – Independence is about having the power to change everything.
@ Robert J Sutherland at 5:00pm …. ” Be under no illusion: a multi-choice referendum is just another less obvious way of scuppering a future ScotRef.”
SPOT ON ROBERT.
Rightly so Gerry a 50/50 union that is all it is , after all we only have a treaty with England. I only wish the EU would understand what the UK constitutes.
No just no.
Reason one or other has to be main issue and we sort out the other after.
Easier way is Indy first.
Why we are either going to be out of EU with brexit or not.
So Indy as its part of SNP manifesto on the one issue.
EU countries as a majority will let us in on applying.
If we want to achieve anything, we will need to get out onto the streets, starting with a massive poll tax type boycott of the Pravda GB tax.”
What a surprise, Rock forgets all about Project Fear, the Vow historic fraud, and lots of begging and pleading from all sorts of good and great, Paul McCartney was very keen to get Scots to vote NO for example. The Queen threatened Scots in her Balmoral palace chapel private car park, Hilary Clinton was very no, you can do this all day Rock, as ofcourse you know full well.
BBC in particular really went Project Fear ape shit though. So you have a point, except that even if all the liggers and gimps in Pacific Quay did just leave Scotland tomorrow, all their full on monstering of Scottish democracy would just be beamed in fron London. Assuming London is still a function city by the time the kick out Mayhem.
TGIF.
colin Alexander @ 20:13,
You claim two directly opposing things at once. You decry any possibility of a referendum because the UKGov will ignore it, yet you blithely assume UKGov will condescend to grant us “increased sovereignity” within the UK by merely asking nicely? Blue blistering barnacles! You can’t have it both ways!
Where were you when the Smith Commission were inviting responses? (Still in school, probably. But in ignorance, certainly.) If I remember correctly, there were some 18,000 responses, some of course short and utterly negative: “remove devolution entirely” but I assure you there were thousands like myself, respecting the result, with detailed constructive proposals as how best to provide “increased sovereignity” for Scotland within the UK. And what happened? Totally trashed by the cowardly subterfuge of Unionist politicians, in direct contradiction to their wonderful pre-vote assurances. Worst renegers of all were your fellow-travellers in the Labour Party.
Yet up you suddenly pop here, all ignorant or disingenuously forgetful of very recent history, and expect us to believe all your “trust the UK” drivel while simultaneously telling us it can’t be made to budge an inch?
Has it not dawned on you yet that if the UKGov had the political power to outright refuse indyref2, it would already have done so? Instead of wasting so much time and effort with this “now is not the time” wittering plus Rude Gal and her little helpers desperately trying to order us what we (according to them) don’t want?
UKGov can’t withstand a mandated demand for indyref2, and it knows it, even if you apparently don’t.
As many others above are rigtly pointing out, it is independence first. Then their is an election, the people will vote, and if desired a referendum will be held on the EU or indeed any other matter.
It is a clever unionist ‘divide and conquer’ ploy, to try to add confusion to such things by suggesting multi layers of questions.
We get independence, first because without that, ANY other referendum result will still depend upon what England wants. It ‘s simple, really.
Robert J. Sutherland at 852pm,
Very well said. Totally agree.
I see the Troll’s gang of one is out in strength tonight;
Robert J Sutherland
Ken500
Headtracker
Rock
Wise up Wingers, this Yoon muppet is over runnin your website.
Peffers and Capella will be on any time soon.
I’ll bite BBCSTLies? How do you ‘know’ this, what proof can you provide to show the veracity of your claims, by all means continue you to keep saying it if ye want, genuinely curious as to where you’re coming from?
Please provide evidence.
@Robert J. Sutherland 16 June, 2017 at 8:52 pm
“Has it not dawned on you yet that if the UKGov had the political power to outright refuse indyref2, it would already have done so?”
They don’t need to outright refuse indyref2, just let let the clock tick down on this ScotP.
“yet you blithely assume UKGov will condescend to grant us “increased sovereignity” within the UK by merely asking nicely?”
No, I’ve explained the steps.
1.ScotGovt led ScotP vote that ScotP has supreme authority(sovereignty) on remaining in Single Market(SM). If won:
2. Scottish referendum seeking democratic mandate for ScotGovt / ScotP to decide on SM.
ScotGovt says they have to do what the people have decided.
So, it’s Scottish people vs UK Govt. (Assuming Scotland votes that ScotP has the authority).
3. Either UK Govt very reluctantly accept Scottish sovereignty or
4. Constitutional crisis
ScotGovt have no option but to uphold and defend Scottish democracy.
Then talks on UDI or an indi-ref held.
Surprise, surprise, “BBC Scotland Tells Lies” tells lies.
colin Alexander,
“1.ScotGovt led ScotP vote that ScotP has supreme authority(sovereignty) on remaining in Single Market(SM).”
You are talking about the start of UDI.
If there is one people on the planet without the spine for that, it is loud-mouthed “sovereign” Scots.
It is simply not going to happen.
I am becoming more and more resigned to Scotland remaining a colony of England for at least the next 310 years.
After all, a spine doesn’t grow in less than 620 years, not in Scotland anyway.
Liz g,
“If they want it off the table so badly why don’t they take it off the table then?”
From the purring Queen’s speech next week:
“My government will not allow another divisive independence referendum in Scotland”.
Will “sovereign” Scots have the spine to defy her Majesty’s government and go ahead with a referendum before Brexit is completed?
@Robert J. Sutherland
As I’ve already said, if the UK Govt will give permission and you can get over 50% to vote Aye this time, then great. Go for it.
But the Single Market issue becomes a test case on Scottish democracy.
It puts the UK Govt in a difficult position, if the issue is not independence, but respect for Scottish democracy.
It could push enough No voters into supporting indy, if UKGovt continue to deny Scottish sovereignty. On that basis they UKGovt might cave in to SM or will grant indyref2 as refusal again would be like a dictatorship.
colin Alexander @ 21:29,
So your understanding UKGov will (against all previous experience) accede to a “sovereignity” referendum but contrariwise somehow will (against all previous indications) outright refuse an independence referendum.
Frankly, if there is to be a constitutional standoff between Scotland and UKGov, I for one would rather that it’s for something tangible – a free country totally unfettered from UK governance – than some miserable half-hearted “compromise” that will be betrayed as soon as politically convenient.
Never mind the minutiae of how (for example) one maintains any real economic independence within a Union governed by English monetary policy, etc., etc., just remember English constitutional theory: Westminster is sovereign. That’s been the nub of the problem throughout. (Refer to SC dismissal of Sewell in Scotland Act 2016.) London will never give that up, and you are wasting everyone’s time, including your own, until you understand that.
Ever get the feeling that ‘events’ are overtaking ‘plans’, the Grenfell disaster is going to potentially bring down the UK government. This is building up quite a head of steam down south. May has completely misjudged the mood in England, she can’t pull the jingoistic pish about ‘the people have spoken’ with the enormity of the backlash coming their way over this entirely preventable fire.
They’re not gong to be able to sweep this under any carpet…the right wing rags and the BBC won’t be able to protect them either.
I’ve been watching some of the footage from Rev’s feed, where people are shouting out to May as she makes her escape: ‘coward’ and ‘run back to the DUP’ etc. Tipping point has been reached in England, expect Corbyn landslide in the next GE, which will be sooner than we think. Get ready to put the ‘Ruth Harrison no surrender party’ back in their box.
—————-
Total aside from all that, I was driving down Maryhill Road earlier today and saw the big shiny signage of Adam Tomkins and Annie Wells MSP, can’t believe two Tory MSP’s surgery offices on Maryhill Road! Also struck me too where the fuck are they getting the funds from to set up such fancy signage?
Rock @ 9.43
I don’t think that I want to address you!!
Wull ye no.. try tae help us?
I don’t believe that you can be workin,fur the poor.
Street stall in Airdrie town centre, tomorrow 11am – 1pm, come along and show your support for indyref2.
link to airdrieforindependence.wordpress.com
@Liz g –
He can’t, and won’t.
He’s just a humble shit-stirrer – nothing more or less.
K 1
I’m actually quite concerned that the mood in London is prime target for the far right to foment unrest posing as left-wing supporters.
Worrying times – quite unbelievable snatches of video from London. I think things could move quite quickly this weekend. T May might not be ready to resign but she might have no option!
Tomorrow’s National front page:
It would have to say ‘If so, should Scotland remain in the EU.’ or something.
Personally I’d much much rather a devo-max/indy question.
1. Should the Scottish Government have full autonomy of its economy.
2. Should Scotland be a fully independent state.
Obviously a better word choice could be used 😛
This would be similar to the 97 referendum and has a good backup, which the MAJORITY support and have done for some time. If we vote for full autonomy and they don’t give us it, it will piss people off and they’ll want independence. If they do give us it, we get closer to our goal in a safe manner.
K1
Peace Sister!!!
You are one of the more respected ones on here.
Tomorrow’s “National” twitter pages@
link to twitter.com
K1 @ 21:55,
Yes, you could well be right about down south. “Events”, etc. Which ironically might make May even more determined to cling on regardless. Instead of arrogantly planning to do away with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, she may find she has great need of it! =hollow laugh=
Assuming her own party doesn’t fissure under the ongoing strain, of course.
Unfortunately, while I’m relatively glad for our southern cousins, I’m not at all sanguine that a Corbyn administration in London will treat us up here any more kindly than Labour has ever done in the past. Nor will they change direction over Brexit. “The English have spoken”. Yet there remains lingering doubt that any kind of “soft” Brexit is even possible.
The EU27 negotiators must be staring at the ceiling and tapping their fingers on the table now. Just who are they going to be negotiating with, for how long, and with whose resources at their disposal?
We’re going to have one-and-half more years of this? We’ll each need a popcorn mine!
What about one question:
Should Scotland be an independent nation within the United Kingdom?
Assuming the answer is Yes we would be able to disentangle ourselves from the grip of Westminster, over an agreed period then at some time in the future another referendum could be held, if necessary to decide if an independent Scotland wished to establish some other arrangement with the EU
Whatever your opinion on the Big Yin, ask yourself this.
Would he be getting measured up for the ermine, if he had been an ardent Yesser ?
boris @ 22:40,
And get London to agree to abandon its rigid ~350-year adherence to English constitutional theory: “Westminster is sovereign”?
Well, good luck with that.
Personally, I think they would rather get rid of us than change.
The question on any ballot should be “should Scotland be an independent nation”. Any more is confusing and divisive and “independent ” is entirely clear as a concept and a position.
A campaign that asks “Who is better to decide for Scotland Scotland’s position on the EU – An independent Scotland or the UK government?” could deal with the issue without complicating the actual question on the ballot while indicating an understanding of the leave voters position.
I do however believe that leaving will steadil;y become more and more unpopular
I never thought I would say it but I am beginning to feel sorry for Theresa May.
She seems to be afraid of meeting people and can’t bear opposition. She has been given a script – “Strong and Stable” or “Brexit means Brexit” and is lost without it, (Contrast with Nicola who loves a scrap).
She may well be the least effective Prime Minister in U.K. history.
Oh well. Never mind.
i think i can see a consensus forming here
1. only one question, same as indyref1
2. eu membership to be put to an independent scotland after we leave the uk
the 3rd point about staying in the single market being tied to a yes vote seems less clear
then again, i do sympathise with the idea of producing a white paper of only 1 a4 side long (or at least a very slimmed down version of scotlands future, wbb2?) this is where we would outline membership of efta/eea, currency, defence etc would be outlined
can we take a vote?
eg
1. yes
2. yes
3. no
etc
btw
this isnt about wanting or not wanting to be in the eu
it is about chosing the strategy most likely to win a yes vote in indyref2. consider this before answering
heed?
how come you always seem to attract the trolls? its like the nutter on the bus making a bee line 4 you?
Agree with posters on here that one question only should be on the ballot paper ” Should Scotland be an independent country” ( as per indyref1) . As we will ” effectively” out of the EU then this will concentrate the minds of ” remain voters”. However, a clear commitment prior to the vote by SG that our future relationshipwith Europe ( EFTA, EEA, EU ) would be subject to a further referendum and/or Holyrood election would surely satisfy “leave voters” .
Also I think that we need to get a broad based Indyref2 movement underway with a left ,centre& right leadership perhaps led by someone such as Leslie Riddoch as undoubtedly there are both Labour ,Liberal and conservative voters who would back Independence following Brexit.
K1 says:
16 June, 2017 at 9:55 pm
Ever get the feeling that ‘events’ are overtaking ‘plans’, the Grenfell disaster is going to potentially bring down the UK government. This is building up quite a head of steam down south….”
I wouldn’t get to carried away. London is different… just different.
A wee anecdote: When I was in London, I got about on a motorbike. One day at a pedestrian crossing just off Trafalgar Square, I was stopped to let people cross, when a black cab who hadn’t seen me shunted me from behind. It wasn’t a bad skelp, I wasn’t injured, but the bike was knocked from under me and smashed its indicators when it dropped to the ground. There must have been 200 people crossed that road, including 2 traffic wardens who crossed the road and must have seen what happened. But I got 1 sole witness, and he was a motorcycle courier who’d been stopped right beside me. I found that pretty shocking. If you’re ever going to take a turn or have heart or something, don’t do it London because virtually all the people there will just step over you and go about their business.
That wasn’t a one-off either. There was another time riding home to Clapham when there was a big traffic jam a couple of miles long at least and nobody going anywhere fast. Being a bike was great because you filter through the gaps and get home. I got to the problem which was a fella who’s car had broken down. I stopped, got off the bike, and helped him push his car out the way so it wasn’t obstructing the traffic. It took about 20 -30 seconds. As I was climbing back on the bike, the traffic was already moving again and a lady cheered as she drove past. But it struck me that London was the kind of place where hundreds of people will sit and be miserable in a mile long queue of stationary traffic rather than stop, get out their car and give somebody a hand so that everybody can go about their business.
London is angry today. But tomorrow it will just shrug its shoulders. London is too big. You don’t feel like a person, more like a tiny microbe just going with the flow because there isn’t really any choice. It’s kinda soulless.
Don’t get me wrong. I really liked London. A lot more positives than negatives, but it’s just like I said, … it’s different.
schrodingers cat @ 16 June, 2017 at 11:08 pm
1. No. Multiple choice: Indi, Scottish sov within union or Wm sov – decided by stv ( not the TV channel).
2.aye. Separates independence from EU. Two separate issues. Same reason why I suggest Ref on Single Market. If Scotland votes for or against Single market , we respect that whether we are leaver or remain. So, so should UK respect that vote Scotland. So, then SM is not the issue, Scottish democracy is.
So, SM issue does not split Scottish democratic voice, as that issue is already settled in Scotland.
3. No – some would see it switching English domination to French and German domination. See point 2.
ChicK McG
Ta for the reply, with the Quebec example of Supreme Court in action.
I should have been clearer, and stated that an INDIVIDUAL, any Scot would do, and could go to the EC on the grounds of a restriction to their right to self determination.
I’ll go, if it get’s me aff work 😉
To those who say one question/later.
Later = added uncertainty, which the yoons will use as a weapon.
Stating the intent to hold a two ? ref now would let a lot of cats out of the bag in the intervening period, and Brexit will be utterly altered too.
A side show for our entertainment. 🙂
Later also weakens the stance that Brexit is the ‘material change’ mandate enabler. Announcing Two questions strengthens it.
Q1. ‘Should Scotland be an Independent Nation ?’
Q2. ‘Should an Independent Scotland remain in the EU?’
Agreed all ?
Good. I knew you clever peeps would come round.
schrodingers cat @ 23:08:
This is exactly one of the ways we went wrong last time, I believe It gave the distinct impression, not entirely unjustified, that Scotland postindy would be an SNP fiefdom.
There has to be a well-thought-out policy for currency, I grant you. But the rest are just hostages to fortune. Diversionary points of weakness and division. (Like devolved issues in the last WM election.)
I agree with DMH @ 23:01. Independence pure and simple. After that, nothing is off the table, there just has to be sufficient demand for a future referendum on any issue, say 250k signatures or somesuch.
And as DMH says, by the time indyref2 is happening, it is very likely that the toxic consequences of Brexit will be all too apparent. People are trying to “ostrich” the issue right now, but just wait. (A straw in the wind: three votes in BoE MPC the other day for a raise in interest rates, only narrowly defeated.)
breeks
i remember a program discussing man watching by desmond morris which reflected and put to the test some of his assumptions
the test was to film someone fall over in the street and see how long it took for passersby to stop and enquire if the person was ok?
result, the bigger the city the longer it took, in london people did actually step over the subject, in perth, peoples reaction was instantanious
it seems to have something to do with people blocking out other people other than their close friends when they live in big cities, a bit like dogs only being able to recognise and befriend about 20 people.
it isnt really anything to do with being a londoner, eg, move the londoner to perth and he will react like all other perthites, he will not step over the subject.
but to the point, this weekend is going to be a scorcher, and the mood is very grim, tomorrow may be very carnivorous. things may well get out of hand. especially if the poor unfortunates death count continues to rise 🙁
You produce a white paper, you provide the enemy with plenty of targets. Truth or accuracy isn’t an issue. Unionist press and media is.
Breeks:
re London:
I agree with a lot of what you said – how, they’ll just get on with their lives and ignore you – but I’m not SO sure this time. Tis feels really different.
They’ve had the Westminster Bridge terrorist attack, the London Bridge/Borough Market incident and now this Tower fire all in a matter of weeks. That’s a huge amount of sh+t to have heaped on them.
This time they have an alternative- Jeremy Corbyn! ( Not that that’s any better for us!)
There are quite extraordinary scened from London tonight.
Mind you I read that the Queen will attend Ascot next week -life must go on… What, Eh? Your point entirely!
—————————
Astonishingly, it seems the Tory Government is refusing visas to the Syrian family of a Tower fire victim to attend his funeral. How callous can you get?
Robert J. Sutherland
i did say that a less comprehensive white paper should be produced, certainly not the 640 page doc from indyref1.
i think the leave white paper was only a page and a half…….they won by not being so specific…..so yes, i have a lot of sympathy 4 ure comment
we still need to produce something, something about the size of say……the wee blue book? 🙂
Robert J Sutherland ” and with whose resources?”
Spiegel- London financial centre = every country
France supplies the electricity
Germany in charge of sewage
Spanish in charge of airports
Germany, US,China, India -car manufacturers/owners
Australian/China/Quatari – majority stake National Grid
Ports – ach take your pick but not British
Lots of other things like land , no idea I don’t live in Panama
What resources you could say…
Fireproof Jim
I had the same thoughts this evening too. A little bit of me feels sorry for her too
How many more things can go wrong for her? (Tough times for any Prime Minister- but made worse by years of Tory cuts).
If she hadn’t called that snap election, I doubt if she would be getting so much flak either.
Obviously she’ll come out the other side OK- with a nice house, good pension etc. but massively humiliated and personally destroyed.
Very glad i’m not in her leopard skin shoes.
K1 wrote (9:55 pm):
“Tipping point has been reached in England, expect Corbyn landslide in the next GE, which will be sooner than we think. Get ready to put the ‘Ruth Harrison no surrender party’ back in their box.”
I too have been watching events unfold and was thinking the exact same thing earlier tonight. We need to make sure we get our pro-indy vote out for the SNP. We need to hammer it home throughout Scotland, especially Tory areas, just how toxic and detrimental to Scotland’s interests any Unionist vote is.
“News” outlets now reporting at least 70 individuals still unaccounted for. Something’s telling me we’re only scratching the surface of this scandal, the shit is about to hit the fan big style. Not very nice at all that it possibly takes something as horrible as this to bring down and expose Tories for what they truly are….utter scum!
May is in trouble
£5million to fire survivors (our money) £130million for a failed overall election bid. Millions to the bigoted unionists.
She is as cold as ice and will pay the price.
The Unionists will try to trash the white paper but the SNP have always been upfront with this stuff and they will have the strong and stable mantra on their side
Post Brexit here will be huge job losses the pound will plummet and the social support network will disintegrate.
Scotland voted to stay in the EU we do not need to re visit the question
One step at a time Independence is the first order of business
The UK Govt has already recognised the right to self-determination in various places, including Scotland. That’s why it is not the UK Govt that’s opposing an indy-ref2. They are procrastinating – putting it off: Not now. Now’s not the right time etc.
As, I said, direct opposition would frame the issue as opposing Scottish sovereignty, Scots’ democracy. That would encourage people toward indi. (That’s why I encourage Scottish votes on the Single Market.)
UK Govt don’t oppose indy-ref and instead sit it out. Undermine indy / SNP.
Then say, it’s for Scotland to decide and they’ll abide by the vote: once they are confident the ScotP won’t vote for another indyref after 2021 – or indy support has dropped to a safe level.
Some NO voters aren’t the loudest voices: they aren’t the Tories and OO or Kezia’s Red Tory politicians.
They are the ordinary folk scared that indi would lower their standard of living. People who despise WM Tory Govts as much as us, but don’t trust the SNP’s Utopia vision of indi-Scotland either.
They vote no cos: Better the devil you know. Than the devil you don’t.
Those voters DO WANT ECONOMIC UNION, but are happy to have political independence. Happy for Scotland to be sovereign, as long as their finances are not threatened. They are the same people that WON the NO vote just three years ago.
They are the people whose support you need to get to win any ref. Cos you won’t get the votes off 3/4 of the immigrants from England who vote for their English parties; the Scots Loyalists, the wealthy Tories etc.
The NO campaigners drum it in daily: £15 Billion deficit and all that crap. Poorer than Greece. Blah Blah blah. You’ve heard it all before.
Youse may refute it, but how do you disprove independent Scotland wouldn’t? It doesn’t exist. Aye, any deficit is under devolution and the Union, not indi. UK is running a huge deficit and debt.
But these people know, deficit and debt or not, their pensions and salaries are being paid NOW, as part of the Union. They just dont want the risk of them not being paid in and indy-Scotland.
If you have an answer to shift the rest to YES, brilliant.
If not, all or nothing, indi or nothing is a repeat of 2014.
Outside the Wos and Twitter SNP bubble of Yessers there’s plenty that would prefer to vote for a higher salary / wage/ an end to benefit sanctions etc now, within the Union, than rely on promises of how it’s going to be when indi.
That’s why political sovereignty first. That’s winnable and the UK Govt could be arrogant enough and stupid enough to oppose it which could increase support for YES.
Economic sovereignty is the biggest hurdle. YES is further away than ever in winning that argument right now. SNP don’t offer any arguments at all now. They don’t talk about indi. They are talking Brexit.
It’s only youse that’s obsessed with an indy-ref. You and the Tories.
Inflation rising etc = Batten down the hatches, not encouraging change, unless it becomes unbearable.
All or nothing, risks a repeat of 2014. You would get the all or nothing vote: when NO is likely to win.
Hi Robert J. Sutherlandat 11:33 pm.
You typed,
“i do sympathise with the idea of producing a white paper … where we would outline membership of efta/eea, currency, defence etc would be outlined
This is exactly one of the ways we went wrong last time, I believe It gave the distinct impression, not entirely unjustified, that Scotland postindy would be an SNP fiefdom.”
That’s part of what I typed in my post at 2.08pm Friday afternoon.
“To reassure voters, it should be made clear that on the first day of independence, we’ll still be using the pound, Elizabeth will still be Queen of Scots, BBC Scotland will still be providing its valuable news service, the schools will still be open, the Scottish Health Service will still be looking after us, Police Scotland will still be protecting and serving us, the Fire Brigade will still be spending 2% of its time fighting fires, and so on.
The current Holyrood Parliament should, on Day1, become the caretaker parliament, to keep things going until the first independent Scotland general election, probably within 2-3 months.
During this campaigning period, the parties can put forward their manifestos, telling us how they see the way forward for independent Scotland. Proposals regarding currency, monarchy, banking – in other words, all the fine detail required in an independent nation – could be set out for our perusal.”
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Stoker @ 00:04,
It becomes a competence issue. Unionism has suddenly become very vulnerable on that score.
What do you want, good people of Scotland:
+ a government close at hand you can dismiss at sensible intervals if it doesn’t perform?
or
+ a distant bunch of disorganised clueless idiots foisted on you by another country who (irrespective of party, and intentionally or otherwise) are going to sell you down the Swannee, regardless?
You choose…
Brian Doonthetoon @ 00:42,
Yes, BDtt, I believe the “maximum continuity” argument will be the most convincing, especially for the doubters.
My only departure from that was the currency thing, simply because the Unionists will try to exploit uncertainty to the max over it, as before. So, it may be necessary to be able to convince people that getting our own currency up and going is perfecly feasible. A “currency route map” if you will. So that’s maybe one issue where some form of cross-party – and indeed non-party – prior agreement could be useful. A united front.
But you are right, even that route will necessarily have to start from continuing to use the pound for a transition period. (One which we may try to shorten ASAP, given what may happen to sterling post-indy!)
So yes, we are on the same page here. First indy, then politics.
“Man jailed for posting pictures of victim online. ”
link to bbc.co.uk
19:47
16 Jun
“A man has been given a three-month prison sentence after admitting posting images of one of the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire on social media.
Omega Mwaikambo, 43, pleaded guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court to two offences contrary to section 127 of the Communications Act, Scotland Yard said.
Mwaikambo, of Testerton Walk, west London, was arrested over images posted online which appeared to show a partially-covered body.”
I’m sure those who are responsible for this foreseeable horror show will be dealt with as expediently.
‘D’ Notice !
FFS. They are only trotted out when the establishment really feel under threat, like the 100 yr one on the Dunblane massacre. Hamilton had deep establishment links.
Question1; Should Scotland be an independent country?.
Answer1: YES
Answer2: Aye
Simples!
Peace Always
The Nicola & Ruth show.
I don’t know what to think, just yet. Stunned.
link to twitter.com
Is that you apologising BBCSTLies?
Genuinely curious about your claims?
—————-
Breeks think this is bigger than the ‘London effect’. As this safety issue regarding the cladding and cost cutting potentially affects thousands of buildings in the UK, though having said that Scotland does seem to have taken the more stringent fireproofing path than England/Wales/Northern Ireland. It goes to the heart of austerity and ordinary folks being killed in their homes because of lax/de regulation and ignoring relentless warnings from industry experts as well as legislation not getting through parliament to ensure ‘social’ housing properties are adequately fit for habitation with all fire preventative measures being in place.
I said this has the ‘potential’ because of the timing too, on the back of the election results and I think especially in London with what many have spoken of as a process of ‘social cleansing’ taking place, the bedroom tax is cited as government policy that is speeding up ‘gentrification’, forcing those who have lived in the heart of that city for generations, being literally forced out and relocated to other parts of England.
Grenfell begins to symbolise all of the above, the anger is reaching boiling point. But I can see too that there could well be ‘agitators’, my feeling is that it would be more from the left than right, to capitalise on pushing for Corbyn, he’s Bill Clinton to May’s Bush. Agreed with all on it not doing us much good and even possibility detrimental to our cause, for obvious reasons.
We’ll see.
In particular Stoker, yes, exactly it becomes our opportunity to refocus on the Tories toxicity big time, there is no hiding away in Scotland, pretending they are not part of that same party aiming their guns at no referendum whilst their bosses crush everyone else with their ideologically driven austerity. They are the same party, Ruth Davidson happy to deal wi the DUP and allow their brothers in arms into our councils in Scotland, DUP quoted as describing her as ‘a hero of the Union’ just after election results last week. She needs to be exposed time and time again for the two/flip flopping ten faced lying manipulative git that she is. Repeatedly.
WTF defo! Whit is that aboot? It is real, nae doots, lost for wurdz.
@ K1
The comments on the tweet suggest it is something to do with the anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox; there are commemorative events in lots of places. I’ve no idea if that’s true, it was just a comment.
I believe the question should focus on Scotland being Independent, Yes or No. ( YES OBVIOUSLY!)
THAT is THE fundamental question and deserves to stand alone.
Scotland’s postition in Europe is ancient.
Scotland’s postition in the EU is a latter day question.
And can be asked and debated in the context of an Independent Scotland.
None of us know yet how exactly that will feel and how we would then see our country and our place in the World.
No/Brexiteers in particular might be surprised by a shift in their feelings once Scotland is an independent nation =)
K1, defo,
I couldn’t sleep so came downstairs and put on the laptop to see what was happening on
Wings.
Now I KNOW why I couldn’t sleep – is this a Jo Cox tribute or something?
Wow! Maybe they’re on the same Brexit side – for different reasons!
Brilliant sketch.
Right, well kinda get it if Jo Cox tribute, I suppose, although you can still see the awkwardness between them even if it is meant to be a lighthearted sketch. Ruth’s much better at lying (acting) than Nicola. Imo even from just watching that clip.
@ K1
Yes; it must be difficult to be half of a comedy duo with someone who’s ordered you to “sit down”, when you hold an elected office and they just lead a rabble.
I still can’t get over the way RD wasn’t reprimanded for that – of course I know how useless the Presiding Officer is.
The Grenfell fire is a turning point, no doubt about it, and the ‘Establishment’ is now on the run (Theresa May is absolutely detested – and watch your backs greedy, gluttonous millionaires / billionaires). The masses have had enough of the rich poor divide: The rich poor divide that has been engineered by the ‘shrink the state’ neo-liberal ideology of the Tory Party (Westminster in general). Their abject greed, lack of compassion and empathy, from top to bottom and inside out, has now been exposed in the most hellish of ways. I.E. babies being totally incinerated.
The biased MSM has been controlling the masses on behalf of the Establishment but that too is coming to an end, woe is me Donalda, due to the impact of Social Media (if Westminster’s surveillance plans can be scuppered to some extent). Social media that clearly outwitted the MSM propaganda machine in relation to Corbyn.
The Scots have to take some credit for the awakening down south and the fact that so many English people are now putting up a fight. A sense of hopelessness, helplessness and frustration (like us) has turned into a bl**dy seething anger. Hopefully this will be redirected into a garnering force for the betterment of all in the UK, ultimately.
Some say that the Scottish SNP MP’s had no influence at all at Westminster but WE know that they did other than highlighting the rape clause, waspi women and so on. Anyone in England / Wales watching FMQ’s and other Westminster broadcasts have had their eyes well and truly opened by OUR MP’s and thankfully we are still the third largest force at Westminster and able to put questions to numpty May.
The BBC has omitted to show scenes of EXTREME anger broadcasted by Channel 4 and it’s not over yet. FAR from it. The Tories are basically over and out but where does that leave us if Corbyn wins an election? Corbyn will just carry on with the ding-dong Tory – Labour ‘blame each other for the mess’ that we have had to endure for over 100 years now. He doesn’t want to lose Scotland (resources) either, so we will find ourselves back to square one.
If May or her successor, Johnston, Leadsom, Rudd or Gove et al, take over (or Corbyn) the trip down the Brexit lane will be a disaster due to the fact that they don’t have the calibre (or numbers) of negotiators necessary to negotiate a good deal at all for the UK. And if we get our way, block OUR resources being bartered, we will show that England has VERY little to export at all other than jam and scones (and Arms), lol. The export of Arms will also surely become a key issue in the UK to the Tories detriment. An issue that people like Dimbleby wont be allowed to cover up.
Whatever the case it looks as though another Election is looming and with this being a straight battle between May and Corbyn we, SNP, will no doubt lose even more seats.
What to do now? Well for starters we should be supporting Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP at every turn. Join the SNP. Donate, donate, donate (even if you aren’t a member) as they are totally reliant on money from you and I. No ‘dark’ money for them and no big donators, such as US, Saudi et al billionaires. And, eh, send her a birthday card on the 19th July to give her a much needed boost.
Continue to get the word (FACTS) out there. Not just on here but on Twitter, Facebook and more than anything on newspaper sites. Select a newspaper and stay with it. Bombard them with data because many individuals read the posts. Follow the news (even if you don’t have a license) and phone and complain to the BBC and STV on a daily basis.
Inform Scotland should get their billboards out (and we should back them) to highlight not just that the BBC is not to be trusted (liars), but to actually outline the LIES. Those who don’t believe in us (our targets) will just ignore ‘BBC lying’ billboards. We have to produce proof that the MSM IS lying, such as data relating to education in Scotland, which is probably the most damaging issue of all for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. For example data shows that 16-19 year olds in England are the most illiterate young adults of all countries in the developed world and the second lowest in relation to numeracy. Highlight that up until 2016 the SG had control of 7% of powers and now has 17.5% of piecemeal powers. Most Scots don’t have a clue that this is the case with Unionists constantly bleating on about us being the most powerfully devolved parliament in the world and that we should start using our fabulous range of powers. Aye right. Highlight the oil situation from McCrone to the present because I, for one, am sick and tired of being told that we have NO oil.
We’ve got to get going folks because by the looks of it the Unionists (Tories mostly) are five steps ahead of us. Theresa May of course having set up a Westminster group (money no object) focusing on Scottish Independence has some members infiltrating key support groups in Scotland (and NIreland? – more than likely). On the other hand they’ll soon be taking ten steps backwards due to being exposed in the most horrendous of ways. REALLY helpful for us.
Nicola should continue on course (steady the boat), that is, by holding a referendum when full facts (mostly) of Brexit are known in 2019 and of course outlining the full facts relating to Independence and a transition into the EU along the way.
She is surrounded by MANY enemies right now who are determined to finish her (wear her down / make her ill), the SNP and the Independence movement OFF. Don’t let it happen. This is our LAST chance so let’s pull out the stops.
The Tories honeymoon is over.
A wonder if Chris is in today.
Level UP, Scotland.
Press Start.
GO!
See if there are two kingdoms which form the ‘United Kingdom’…
Should we not then be called the ‘United Kingdoms‘.
Two being plural an awe that.
Somedy’s missing out.
Seems unfair.
Morning.
Cactus, interesting point!
From now on, United Kingdoms it is = )
One question or ten makes no difference to me. There’s only one I’m interested in. The one that returns all powers (and choices) to the Scottish electorate.
A50 HAS BEEN TRIGGERED. The clock (so far as I’m aware) IS ticking down and we are, at this point in time, leaving the EU. The clock started the second that letter was delivered. It’s a matter of legal process, action and consequence. Twenty seven nations will NOT put their democracies and economies on hold because of the UKs problems. They have their own populations needs to deal with.
They aren’t the bad guys. They didn’t initiate this process. They didn’t ask the UK to leave. They didn’t stop the UK from voting either. BUT they do have a very real say in how the outcome affects them and they’re not about to let their populations and economies suffer because of a choice the UK made.
The nature of the leaving settlement has already been decided. What happens after Brexit has been concluded, the ‘new’ relationship with the UK’s continental neighbours, is a completely different process altogether.
The SNP are a pro EU party and Scotland’s electorate voted by just over 60% with a majority in all wards to remain EU members. That is now unlikely to happen immediately, but it’s not the end of the story for a pro European outcome. There is time for Scots to consider an old relationship renewed or a new relationship altogether. Right NOW, it’s about retaining membership of the single market and Europe’s willingness to listen to Scotland’s case.
That the SNP wearing their SG hat have come halfway to leavers in investigating the Norway option and retaining single market membership speaks volumes on its own. IMO a simple pledge to not impede YES/leavers right to campaign and make their case post independence to the Scottish electorate should be acceptable. To never rule out free choice or the right to put forward representatives and campaign in the future.
Now we get to it though, the real issue.
People better be sharpish about choosing who to trust. The window of opportunity is narrow and narrowing by the day.
Who has actually put them in harms way and who has been constantly asked to mitigate and offset that harm? Bent over backwards to attempt to accommodate all views, all representations.
There are some (and we know they’re out there) who seem unwilling to ask themselves these questions, let alone contemplate the inescapable single answer. The answer would bring their belief system, their world view crashing down around their ears you see. So, no. They find it far simpler to be spoon fed their opinion via the media and hate others in blind ignorance.
They’d rather watch their communities sink to rot and ruin and their society fracture beyond repair. They’d rather fiddle while Rome burns.
Let’s make it simple. We need to set aside the petty differences which others use mercilessly to foment, to manufacture unbridgeable division and get our collective shit together. Look to what unites us and bury what divides. Lose the hate, the resentment, the petty bitching, the personal agendas the ‘I’ll only vote for indy if’ bullshittery.
We’re human beings. All colours. All creeds. All parties and no parties. All points of origin.
ALL SCOTS.
We know the KIND of country we want to live in already.
We better start acting like it before we lose the opportunity to make that country happen.
The only constant. The only protection for Scotland’s electorate over the past year’s madness especially, have been the gatekeepers of our right to choose a different path. Now I don’t care whether you support the SNP as a party or not. I’m not fussed whether you are left of centre radical or right of centre business minded. I don’t care whether you like long walks in green, clean countryside or love the smell of deisel in the morning.
You better thank your God that the current Scottish government are still exactly where they are and that they HAVE the mandate to offer you a choice. I doubt that choice would be forthcoming from anyone else.
Independence is NOT and never has been simply about the SNP. It’s NOT subject to conditions and it’s NOT a serving suggestion.
It’s about YOUR governance, YOUR rights, YOUR freedoms, YOUR needs, YOUR aspirations as mandated by YOU, to a government of YOUR choice.
P.S. Think very, very carefully about throwing that right to choose away.
My thoughts on that white paper go along the lines of yes, it’s information people need to know, but the White Paper is not the educational document to be teaching them.
All those arguments need gone through, rigorously researched with a neutral exposé of the issues before calm, objective and rational analysis is presented to the vote. Then cover the same issue with a political debate.
We really need to have the media chained to a post so they cannot stray from the task of informing the public of the arguments and issues. For the media, especially such a biased and asymmetric media, it is thoroughly unacceptable for them to be steering the agenda. It is outrageous that the wholly biased and incompetent BBC is allowed to chair discussions which purport to be neutral when by accident of design, they are a million miles off “neutral”.
I keep repeating myself but don’t care. If we compare a referendum to a physical contract document, the actual vote in a referendum is simply the ratifying signature put on the bottom of the contract. It’s the bit that comes at the end. But if the contract is just a piece of paper with a signature on it, then it isn’t a contract. It is the written clauses, text and paragraphs above the signature which frame what the Contract actual means. In the same way, in a referendum, the vote is just the signature. Its worth as a contract comes from the extended presentation of the issues, public education, analysis, discussion and rigorous consideration of the arguments BEFORE we vote. It is the substance and weight of those issues which makes a referendum worthwhile or a meaningless exercise, not the perfunctory bit at the end.
Nobody signs a contract without reading what’s on it, and agreeing to sign voluntarily.
Nobody should be bound a referendum result if the arguments have been truncated, distorted and not been properly tested. That did not happen in 2014, and consequently the YES referendum resolved absolutely nothing. It was a signature on a blank piece of paper. Or maybe not blank paper so much as BBC headed notepaper. Meaningless.
Let us not confuse the SNP’s white paper which does one thing, with the deplorable state of Scottish Broadcasting, and the vital function which mainstream broadcasting has to play in a modern democracy by which is critically lacking and deficient in Scotland. We should not have to repurpose the white paper to do the media’s job for it. We should repurpose the media or better yet, replace that defective media with proper, functional media.
Propaganda is defective media coverage that is not fit for purpose. We should correct that situation, prevent the interference happening, not repurpose the White Paper as an ad-hoc workaround to the problem.
In my opinion the ScotRef white paper should be a study in simplicity; short, concise, and focussed exclusively upon technical Independence and sovereignty. Nothing to do with tertiary issues like monarchy, Europe, currency, defence, etc. Why make something so simple hostage to fortune?
Keep It Simple Scotland.
Am I alone in being appalled that in the light of this week’s tragic fire it hasn’t even been mentioned that it might be a good idea to cancel this year’s Trooping The Colour?
Of course this annual UK Flag Waving Extravaganza is part of the Establishment’s London Season and it would never do to interfere with that.
“Cactus says:
17 June, 2017 at 5:34 am
See if there are two kingdoms which form the ‘United Kingdom’… Should we not then be called the ‘United Kingdoms‘.”
No, there is only one monarch. The clue is in the title “King” (or queen)and both countries are united by the monarch.
Agreed Breeks,,
Independence first then any other major issues to be arranged democratically by the Scottish People.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
That in my opinion should be a stand alone question, not tied to Europe or anything else but made clear that Scotland will decide how Scotland moves forward.
Also, while I’m at it, Indyref2 should not have been tied to whether Westminster does this or if Westminster does that.
We should be determining an independence referendum by voting in an independence party into government and not whether Westminster farts in our general direction or not.
The SNP have been tactically piss poor at times and this is one of them, making yourself jump through hoops to get an Indyref2 I find utterly bizarre when we already have a democratic mechanism in place.
And the way this thread is going the SNP should be laying the groundwork for Indyref3.
Now, I’m not a political strategist and have never met one but there are times I think neither has the SNP.
schrodingers cat says:
16 June, 2017 at 11:14 pm
heed?
how come you always seem to attract the trolls? its like the nutter on the bus making a bee line 4 you?
The more the merrier SC 😀
That Nicola v Ruth sketch was shown on last night’s “The Last Leg” on Channel 4 at 9pm.
They also featured Blair v Hague and Balls v Gove. You can watch it here:-
link to channel4.com
I am not sure about the dual question. I must admit I am in two minds about it.
One one side I think it will complicate matters, particularly when thinking about the campaigning and a simple yes or not answer to independence would make things easier, but always with the promise of a future referendum in the type of EU membership that Scotland wants.
On the other hand, and as somebody has already mentioned above, more than a question could be used as a way of highlighting even more strongly the fact that the only possible way to have a say in the type of membership that Scotland will have in the EU is by becoming independent first and of course the economic catastrophe for Scotland that not retaining any sort of membership to EFTA or EU would be.
In addition, and this is something I find very appealing, more than one question would kill some of the arguments that unionists would attempt to make during campaigning and would force a more open approach to campaigning, with more information out for the people to decide rather than having a repeat of the con and misinformation that has been Brexit. Several options in the ballot would naturally demand a campaign that highlights the advantages and disadvantages of every option.
I can envision that in a multiple choice scenario, the unionists could be left only with the already well chewed up mantra that ‘Scotland will not be able to trade with its biggest trading partner’, and of course a massive ‘love bomb’ from the rUK, yeah, love you to bits today but will chuck you away the day after (remember EVEL?). But I am sure between all of us we will find plenty of good reasons why that is a blatant nonsense and will neutralise it.
If we are going to include more than one question in the ballot, I am of the opinion that we should include 3 questions:
1) Do you think Scotland should be an independent country?
If you voted yes to question 1
A) do you think an independent Scotland should have access to Single market but not full EU membership?
or
B) do you think an independent Scotland should have full EU membership?
Respecting the EU referendum result in Scotland in June 2016 that had a 62% of those voting in Scotland to remain in the EU, I would not include in the ballot paper a question for an independent Scotland out of the single Market or EU. Because including that option would make the whole thing a re-run of the EU referendum and I do not think this should be the case at all.
I would not include in the ballot the word UK at all either, because I think the focus of this referendum (and the whole campaign) must be Scotland, not the UK and therefore we should not allow it to be a rerun of the 2014 referendum. This referendum should be exclusively about Scotland’s future and Scotland’s will therefore it should be Scotland and not the UK who is right at the centre of the decision in the ballot paper.
@Rock
“You are talking about the start of UDI”.
No, UDI is UDI.
What It would be, would be the start of the assertion that Scottish democracy decides the powers of the Scot Parliament, no WM Govt.
ScotP / ScotGovt would only be saying they are democratic and the people of Scotland have voted saying they give the authority to decide Scotland’s place in the SM to the ScotP/ScotGovt.
Their duty is to serve the democratic wishes of the people. The UK Govt respect the right of self-determination.
So, either respect that democratic mandate or UKGovt are opposing the democratic will of the people of Scotland.
The ScotP has already voted: Scot parliament recognises the “overwhelming vote” in Scotland to remain in the EU,and has called for “Scotland’s place in the single market to be fully protected”.
That’s not enough, it has to win a vote saying this parliament should be allowed to decide Scotland’s place in the Single Market.
If the UK Govt won’t recognise that right, the ScotGovt will hold a Scottish referendum on whether the ScotP should be able to decide Scotland’s place in the Single M instead of the UK Govt and WM.
It’s not an indi-vote, it’s not a UDI vote. Just that the ScotP can have the authority to decide on the SM.
Just for curiosity, at what point in time did the straight and simple SNP majority – UDI route to Independence become superseded by the constitutional majority in a referendum?
That begs further questions…
Were we constitutionally misguided back then it the 70-80’s, or is it now we are getting it wrong?
When and on who’s authority did the goal posts move?
For the record, I think a referendum majority is a much stronger resolution than a proxy parliamentary majority, and much less prone to challenge or civil unrest, so I’m not advocating we move the goalposts back again, but that’s not a constitutional matter.
However what niggles me is this “woolly” perception we have of our constitutional “before and after”, quite literally, our grasp of the constitutional position right now versus the constitutional position we all hope to have beyond the vote. You see, if we were to cut to the chase, remove all woollyness from our eyes, then what I see is an existing constitutional sovereignty which is already ours, always has been ours. Our Sovereignty has remained unbowed, unused but pristine for 300 years, but it’s the truth which has been grotesquely distorted for the same period. We don’t need to change a single thing about our Sovereignty, but merely debunk 300 years of misguided convention and false narrative.
Our Sovereignty, and the United Kingdom’s “constitutional ” Union cannot simultaneously exist. One of them has to be wrong and/or bogus, and I feel sure it is the Act of Union which presents a whole battery unanswerable questions and lacks fundamental integrity. Properly interpreted, the Act of Union itself doesn’t challenge Scottish sovereignty, it just misunderstands it.
Perhaps the Independence Referendum question should simply be “Should Scotland repeal the Act of Union?” But even that is not correct. See if the Act of Union is unsound, and professes to do a thing it properly cannot do, then it lacks contractual competence, and does not need repealed because as a contract, it is unenforceable and thus it is void. No vote can alter this. It’s a legal edict that is required to clarify the legitimacy of where and what constitutes Scottish Sovereignty.
Someone explain to me how we can advance so far in this quest for Independence, and for so long, and yet here and now still be so unclear and disorganised that we do not actually know the critical path of events which will resolve the constitutional conundrum and emancipate Scotland’s sovereignty from its bizarre entanglement. Frankly, what are we playing at?
Get this to Scottish Court of Session and secure judicial clarity before we do anything else. Something we should have done decades ago, indeed centuries ago.
I have not read most of the above.
Let me spell it out.
The threat of an Independent Scotland existing is a clear and present danger to the Britnat/English Establishment.
The ONLY question is independence!. We went through all this with YES.
It is a simple yes/no question. Any conditions or additional complexities gives an opportunity for obfuscation and confusion by our enemies. That shall not happen1
ALL other considerations, EU/EFTA etc, can wait. Independence is the key!
Section 30 is a red herring. It’s a nice to have and clears away possible litigation against the referendum’s legitimacy through the biased judicial system.
The threat of a possible Independent Scotland screws the Brexit negotiations totally. That is why there is so much argument and false news.
Breeks
“Just for curiosity, at what point in time did the straight and simple SNP majority – UDI route to Independence become superseded by the constitutional majority in a referendum? ”
Well, they will claim that Scottish sovereignty on constitutional matters was contractually agreed as being a Westminster prerogative in the fine print of the 1998 Scotland Act.
That will certainly be their interpretation.
However, this whole question of whether the right to national self determination can be transferred in that way has never been tested as yet.
After all, if the right to national self determination is a universal right and universal rights are considered non transferrable then it can’t be can it? Even if allegedly representative signatories to such an agreement existed.
And of course, 99.9% of the voters in the Devolution Referendum had no idea that that fine print even existed.
This sovereignty transference by agreement notion was concocted by British and Canadian mandarins during the patriation talks in the early 80s although I believe the constitutional arrangements in Spain can be considered another. It is a rare arrangement.
The UN have been largely silent on the matter.
That pronouncement will only come to a head when either Catalunya votes si and Mardid says no, Quebec votes Oui and Ottawa says Non or Scotland votes Yes and London says No.
My anticipation is that in any of those instances the UN/ICJ will come down on the side of the peoples (the collective noun of choice in such discussions) seeking secession. i.e. that Territorial Integrity arguments will be eschewed in favour of the Right to Self Determination.
Kosovo, while not an exact parallel, is a fairly clear indication of the direction of travel between those two conflicting principles.
I would like to point out that all those who rudely replied to my blog none of them are using their real names I wonder why ??? Mon brav
Got to this late but its a good idea. The SNP have been blinkered on this issue and I hope theyve woken up to it.
I think though it should just be: should Scotland be an independent country YES/NO.
The EU is something that we can decide on after. Despite all the nonsense of ‘difficulties’ in scotland rejoining the EU if we wanted thats utter pish – a look at Scotland natural resources and potential for green energy wipes that BS away. Despite the fact we are already 100% EU compliant. Any other position on the issue is either lies or coming from an utter fud.
Aweright Footsoldier ~
Cheers for the clarification on the current kingdoms.
Does that then mean that before Scotland entered into the union with England, Scotland had her own monarch… being a kingdom?
Hi Breeks…you and I have long agreed about this point.We are sovereign as a nation, ratified by the Declaration of Arbroath, and established over a thousand years of existence with almost the same borders over that period.
The sellout by aristocratic self seekers, the ‘parcel of rogues’ who took bribes from England via the ‘Equivalent’ a deal consisting of £398,000 to take on the burden of England’s debt, cannot be considered ‘democratic’ or legal, or ethically sound under the UN ‘s own definitions.
The behaviour of the ‘UK’ Parliament ever since has been of disregard and contempt for Scotland’s people and our economic and political interests. I have written before on here that AS gambled wrongly, in my opinion, by trying to use Hollyrood as the base of the new Scottish polity. And the Edinburgh agreement with the Sewel Motion/Article 30 garbage entailed due to our acceptance of the Hollyrood parish pump council as subordinate to Westminster. Something we should have never allowed.
We should have adhered to Westminster, and our representatives, as the focus of the joint sovereignty stemming from the illegal con trick of 1707.And I believe we still can by, as you say using our own SEPARATE AND EQUAL judiciary to clearly state that fact. We should have done it when we had 56 MPs. And it is looking like the biggest gaffe of all.
Now we are depending on a plebiscite that we will have to , apparently due to England’s refusal, unilaterally carry out, under the auspices of a completely corrupt and untrustworthy system. Moreover, with a larger majority of ‘No’ voters that 2014. But challenge the Act of Union we must. And it must be by our own judicial process. The Supreme Court is illegal and it must be stated to be so by both our politicians and our judiciary. The time for caution is over!
Cat among the pigeons time
Firstly let me say i agree with Breeks and Lochside re the judicial route
The opinions on the thread are many and varied but i agree there should only be one question any more only adds to confusion
BUUUUUT The one thing i will say is that asking only if Scotland should be independent gives the nawbags the excuse that not only will we be out of the great UK union but we will also be out of the EU . They will shit themselves at the thought that they will LOSE their comfort blanket and we will be on our own to be ravished and abused by the rest of the world
After all in previously voting no in 2014 they have proven that THEY already think we are TOO WEE. TOO POOR , AND TOO STUPID to be independent
We have to at least give them something to cling on to if we are even attempting to change their mindset ,IMO this would have to include remaining part of the EU although independent
We cannot underestimate their numbers , we NEED everyone we can get WE NEED INDEPENDENCE
I would favour a question that asks WOULD YOU VOTE FOR SCOTLAND TO BE AN INDEPENDENT NATION COUNTRY WITHIN THE EU SINGLE MARKET that would negate the need for 2 questions and could be EFTA initially with a further referendum to take place re full EU membership , it may also help with winning the support of fisher folk and farmers
No! It is NOT an “interesting idea”. It is an idiotic idea. Not least because the SNP has no mandate for a referendum on EU membership. Would it hurt to think these things through?