Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should the Remain Camp be able to destroy other people's independence? watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    You made he distinction in an earlier thread between nations and state. At one point Wales and Scotland were independent states- now they have been subsumed into a greater state.
    *Clears throat*

    ... England, Wales and Scotland.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    *Clears throat*

    ... England, Wales and Scotland.
    My bad!

    :console:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    A helluva lot of them would say yes. And if the Scots had not been subjected to an appallingly dishonest campaign of lies, misinformation and terrifying the old people on the doorstep Scotland WOULD be anticipating it's impending independence.
    I'm not sure what blatant conspiracy theorists you've been talking to about this. But there was nothing remotely "dishonest" about the campaign against Scottish independence.

    All that "terrifying" stuff has been demonstrated very ably. When people pointed out that Scotland's oil wealth was a declining and volatile resource, the SNP called it "scaremongering". Now it has collapsed - in March we will see the figures showing the fiscal gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK even wider than the £7 billion that was put forward during the referendum.

    The outcome of independence would have been enormously negative. Cutting public spending by the level that it would have necessitated would have created a recession, required slashing public services - and that's not even to mention other issues surrounding the currency or EU membership.

    It isn't by chance that BBC viewing figure, licence income and readership of the printed press has slumped in Scotland. They are despised though the BBC is doubly tainted
    Virtually everything you've said there is wrong.

    (1) Viewing of BBC Scotland online content has risen year-on-year. From averaging 4.0m views in 2014 to 4.7m in 2015. 95% of adults in Scotland consume BBC content each week. (BBC evidence to the Education and Culture Committee).

    (2) The most recent estimate of licence fee income in Scotland was £323 million, up substantially from the last estimate. Not that it really matters: the overwhelming majority of properties are licenced, and if you watch live broadcasts you have to have a licence - regardless of whether you watch the BBC or not.

    (3) The "printed press" is suffering across the developed world, but readership - as opposed to circulation - has grown significantly through online access. Some papers, like The Times, have seen their circulation up in Scotland against the recent trend. (ABC figures)

    I'm not sure where you're going with all this, but it seems to be some tinfoil-hat assertion that somehow Scotland was robbed in the independence referendum when in fact it was a decisive poll with an 11 point lead, with the question, timing and electoral administration in the hands of a Nationalist administration in Edinburgh.

    As a Scot, I'm extremely pleased at the outcome of the referendum - doubly so given what has happened since. The lessons from it I would find is that there will always be a vocal minority who do not accept the fair result of a referendum on important constitutional issues - and try to find every reason under the sun to pretend it was somehow corrupt or wrong, despite every bit of evidence being to the contrary. Alas I suspect we'll see that with the EU referendum too - if anyone things it will settle the question, they're kidding themselves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    And why should the other half have the right to force us to leave the EU? What makes you more deserving? Hypocrite.
    The fake "Remain" and "no political union" havent fooled anyone. The referendum is about entering a full political union. You would not be leaving much at all, as yet, but you will be leading us to perdition.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The fake "Remain" and "no political union" havent fooled anyone. The referendum is about entering a full political union. You would not be leaving much at all, as yet, but you will be leading us to perdition.
    Go put the tin hat away. The question on the ballot will be on remaining a Member of the EU or leaving. There is absolutely nothing about a full political union - especially as the Prime Minister got an explicit pledge that the UK would not have to participate if it did not want to.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Go put the tin hat away. The question on the ballot will be on remaining a Member of the EU or leaving. There is absolutely nothing about a full political union - especially as the Prime Minister got an explicit pledge that the UK would not have to participate if it did not want to.
    I didn't know you supported David Cameron? The man who had a mission to Brussels to remove "ever closer union" from the Treaties. We are supposed to be a bit cleverer than that, perhaps reading the Treaties and working out that "ever closer union" is on the wrapper, which specifies the intention of the content. Cameron did not get any undertaking that the content of the treaties would be changed so they still describe a process that leads towards ever greater penetration by "shared competences" and towards a common security and foreign policy etc. I can quote the Treaties chapter and verse if you want.

    The Establishment are splitting their sides at fooling what they consider to be a moronic electorate.

    So you are either a follower of creepy Cameron or hiding a desire for full political union, perhaps even global government. Which is it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's not the difference between a state and an empire: the United States fought a war to ensure its territorial integrity from the secessionist south. Every state has a right to do that.

    What distinguishes a normal political arrangement from an empire (other than simply the old distinction of having an emperor or an imperial monarchy) is bonds of common citizenship, equal inclusion of all in the state, not being governed externally (British India was not part of the UK, yet had many of its laws made by the UK Parliament) - in the modern world, this means everyone is part of a common democracy.
    So Scottish claims for independence are anti-imperial?

    The EU can only make legislation at EU level. it doesn't touch crime or tax or a whole host of other things. Moreover, In free movement of people the EU has precisely the same inidicia of common citizenship you propose all with a common vote in a common EU parliament. That's why c800 British people can live in Spain, for instance.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I didn't know you supported David Cameron? The man who had a mission to Brussels to remove "ever closer union" from the Treaties. We are supposed to be a bit cleverer than that, perhaps reading the Treaties and working out that "ever closer union" is on the wrapper, which specifies the intention of the content. Cameron did not get any undertaking that the content of the treaties would be changed so they still describe a process that leads towards ever greater penetration by "shared competences" and towards a common security and foreign policy etc. I can quote the Treaties chapter and verse if you want.
    For the last time, your reading of the 'shared competences' is completely wrong. Every time I point it out, your sole response is to repeat what you claim, even though it's still wrong. Abandon it.

    The Establishment are splitting their sides at fooling what they consider to be a moronic electorate.
    Oh, here we go, the 'Establishment' card being played. Change the bloody record.

    So you are either a follower of creepy Cameron or hiding a desire for full political union, perhaps even global government. Which is it?
    False dilemma. I am not Conservative, disagree with Cameron with many issues, am a proud British patriot who believes the UK can and will survive as a sovereign state and the EU is not a threat to that.

    Really, you're making this far too easy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    For the last time, your reading of the 'shared competences' is completely wrong. Every time I point it out, your sole response is to repeat what you claim, even though it's still wrong. Abandon it.
    What dont you understand about shared competences?

    Do you agree that this is an accurate list?

    Shared Competences:

    a) internal market;
    (b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
    (c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
    (d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological
    resources;
    (e) environment;
    (f) consumer protection;
    (g) transport;
    (h) trans-European networks;
    (i) energy;
    (j) area of freedom, security and justice;
    (k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

    Do you agree that the member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence and hence the EU can, without Treaty change, extend its competence in the areas of shared competence?

    "2. When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with theMember States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall exercise their competence again to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence."

    I can see that you might claim that the EU could, having set up the apparatus of government over a particular competence, relinquish it. But how often does power get relinquished in any organisation? The same argument could be applied anywhere - don't worry about Stalin, he will relinquish power back to us when he is ready.

    So what exactly is your point about shared competences? Just a bald statement that EU politicians will always relinquish power?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The lessons from it I would find is that there will always be a vocal minority who do not accept the fair result of a referendum on important constitutional issues - and try to find every reason under the sun to pretend it was somehow corrupt or wrong, despite every bit of evidence being to the contrary. Alas I suspect we'll see that with the EU referendum too - if anyone things it will settle the question, they're kidding themselves.
    The difference I'd say is that the Yes camp surprised with how well they did in the Scotland referendum - the SNP had tried to set the referendum date as far back as they could because they'd been so far down in the polls. When the final stretch ended up being a lot closer than expected, it changed the discourse slightly. For all they lost, the pro-independence side came out looking more credible than they had in say, 2011.

    In the EU, by contrast, Eurosceptics have spent years building up this idea that everyone desperately wants to leave and it's only the denial of the referendum that's stopping it. If they lose, they will look less credible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    In the EU, by contrast, Eurosceptics have spent years building up this idea that everyone desperately wants to leave and it's only the denial of the referendum that's stopping it. If they lose, they will look less credible.
    This referendum is a battle between those who are mobile and middle class and the rest. The mobile and middle class re-assure themselves with the thought that if it goes wrong they can move on. They are playing for small stakes. The "chavs", racist white van men and other "despicable" lower class people who cannot move have now been so demonised that the middle classes can comfort themselves with the thought that if it goes wrong it serves them right.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stychomythia)
    So Scottish claims for independence are anti-imperial?
    I'm not sure how you could possibly have got that out of anything I said.

    The EU can only make legislation at EU level. it doesn't touch crime or tax or a whole host of other things. Moreover, In free movement of people the EU has precisely the same inidicia of common citizenship you propose all with a common vote in a common EU parliament. That's why c800 British people can live in Spain, for instance.
    Well, yes. Thanks for pointing those two fairly obvious things out.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    If the UK were outside the EU it could obtain trade agreements etc. that would allow tariff free trade (like Canada, South Korea, Singapore etc.). This debate is not about trade, it is about sovereignty.

    This vote is about YOU denying independence to MY children and my children's children (given I have some).
    TLDR

    You (and your hypothetical children) could always leave the UK if we stay in the EU.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm not sure what blatant conspiracy theorists you've been talking to about this. But there was nothing remotely "dishonest" about the campaign against Scottish independence.





    All that "terrifying" stuff has been demonstrated very ably. When people pointed out that Scotland's oil wealth was a declining and volatile resource, the SNP called it "scaremongering". Now it has collapsed - in March we will see the figures showing the fiscal gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK even wider than the £7 billion that was put forward during the referendum.

    This is just rubbish. Scotland's economy is not dependent on oil. It is an extra.

    The outcome of independence would have been enormously negative. Cutting public spending by the level that it would have necessitated would have created a recession, required slashing
    public services - and that's not even to mention other issues surrounding the currency or EU membership.



    Virtually everything you've said there is wrong.

    (1) Viewing of BBC Scotland online content has risen year-on-year. From averaging 4.0m views in 2014 to 4.7m in 2015. 95% of adults in Scotland consume BBC content each week. (BBC evidence to the Education and Culture Committee).

    (2) The most recent estimate of licence fee income in Scotland was £323 million, up substantially from the last estimate. Not that it really matters: the overwhelming majority of properties are licenced, and if you watch live broadcasts you have to have a licence - regardless of whether you watch the BBC or not.

    (3) The "printed press" is suffering across the developed world, but readership - as opposed to circulation - has grown significantly through online access. Some papers, like The Times, have seen their circulation up in Scotland against the recent trend. (ABC figures)

    I'm not sure where you're going with all this, but it seems to be some tinfoil-hat assertion that somehow Scotland was robbed in the independence referendum when in fact it was a decisive poll with an 11 point lead, with the question, timing and electoral administration in the hands of a Nationalist administration in Edinburgh.

    As a Scot, I'm extremely pleased at the outcome of the referendum - doubly so given what has happened since. The lessons from it I would find is that there will always be a vocal minority who do not accept the fair result of a referendum on important constitutional issues - and try to find every reason under the sun to pretend it was somehow corrupt or wrong, despite every bit of evidence being to the contrary. Alas I suspect we'll see that with the EU referendum too - if anyone things it will settle the question, they're kidding themselves.
    The Scottish economy is not dependent on oil. Agriculture, food industry, manufacturing, whisky, tourism, financial services. And yes oil prices may have slumped but they will recover and we still have massive oil reserves. Deficit? Well why don't you focus on the 1.4 trillion debt created by Coke head George?
    Problem with you and others like you, you don't have much of a clue aboutvScotland, it's wealth, resources, values and culture. The WM referendum campaign was lies from start to finish - end of.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    The Scottish economy is not dependent on oil. Agriculture, food industry, manufacturing, whisky, tourism, financial services.
    I didn't say anything about the economy - I spoke about the tax base.

    We were running a £14 billion deficit - £7 billion higher, proportionally, than the rest of the UK's level. This was before the oil price crashed. Having any chance of getting into surplus in the foreseeable future would've required huge income from the North Sea - which is why the SNP inflated its forecasts.

    This did not happen. The North Sea, over the last two quarters, has actually cost more to the state than it has brought in in revenue. As such, our fiscal position is considerably worse - down from a fairly bad starting point.

    And yes oil prices may have slumped but they will recover and we still have massive oil reserves. Deficit? Well why don't you focus on the 1.4 trillion debt created by Coke head George?
    The UK will be out of its deficit by the end of the current Parliament. There is no prospect of the same happening in Scotland. This is because we receive considerably higher than average levels of public spending.

    Were it not for UK fiscal transfers to Scotland, we would either have to cut spending dramatically or increase taxes enormously. It's pretty stark, but there's not really much getting around the numbers.

    As for branding George Osborne a "coke head" - really? Get a life. Some people, including several on here I imagine, took drugs at university and in their youth. It's perfectly normal, really not all that dangerous, and I thought we'd be a bit above puritanical sneering on a student forum.

    Problem with you and others like you, you don't have much of a clue aboutvScotland, it's wealth, resources, values and culture. The WM referendum campaign was lies from start to finish - end of.
    I don't think you've demonstrated much of an awareness of any of these things. The figures I have used tax into account the revenue from all sectors of Scotland's economy - there's not much value in just listing a few of them.

    The problem with listing other parts of the economy is that they don't really grow all that quickly. Even with some of the highest growth levels of major economies in the UK, Scotland's onshore economy is not - and realistically could not - grow at anything like the rate to close the economic gap with the rest of the UK.

    We were sold that there was an oil boom over the hill, when all the evidence suggested quite the opposite. Even if the oil price did rise back to 2014 levels, it would not mean oil revenues would recover: extraction costs are now far higher, decommissioning relief is costing more. The days of the North Sea providing considerable income for the state are gone.

    We are running irresponsible levels of deficit in Scotland. Were we an independent country, we would be an economic basketcase. While I would support cutting public spending somewhat, the levels that any sort of fiscal autonomy would require would be recession-level and enormously damaging.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    And if the Scots had not been subjected to an appallingly dishonest campaign of lies, misinformation and terrifying the old people on the doorstep.
    That's exactly the kind of thing that we were subjected to for years from the yes side. Thankfully, enough Scots saw through all the shite spouted by Salmond and Sturgeon. It'll be interesting to see what new nonsense they conjure up, whilst at the same time being depressing to see how many in an ostensibly well educated and skilled country fall for it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What complete and utter *******s.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm not sure how you could possibly have got that out of anything I said.

    Well, you said "What distinguishes a normal political arrangement from an empire (other than simply the old distinction of having an emperor or an imperial monarchy) is bonds of common citizenship, equal inclusion of all in the state, not being governed externally" Pro-Independence Scots claimed precisely that they were governed externally and were not equally included (this is key to the SNP stance) and were losing out continually and so only and Out vote would leave Scotland free. So, on your analysis, they were being anti-imperialist.


    Well, yes. Thanks for pointing those two fairly obvious things out.
    Well they needed pointing out, because they demonstrate that the EU is not an empire. The point about empires is that you have no choice. The only ways out of the British Empire for India were resistance or grant of independence (or, as it turned out, a bit of both). Not a constitutionally guaranteed right of secession.
    The EU is not an empire because we are free to leave; it's also not an empire (on your analogy) because of the apparently 'obvious' points I made. But then it's not an empire in any sense at all, as I think you have realised by now.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    What dont you understand about shared competences?

    Do you agree that this is an accurate list?

    Shared Competences:

    a) internal market;
    (b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
    (c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
    (d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological
    resources;
    (e) environment;
    (f) consumer protection;
    (g) transport;
    (h) trans-European networks;
    (i) energy;
    (j) area of freedom, security and justice;
    (k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

    Do you agree that the member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence and hence the EU can, without Treaty change, extend its competence in the areas of shared competence?

    "2. When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with theMember States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall exercise their competence again to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence."

    I can see that you might claim that the EU could, having set up the apparatus of government over a particular competence, relinquish it. But how often does power get relinquished in any organisation? The same argument could be applied anywhere - don't worry about Stalin, he will relinquish power back to us when he is ready.

    So what exactly is your point about shared competences? Just a bald statement that EU politicians will always relinquish power?
    My point is:

    a) your claimed earlier that 'the Council' could unilaterally extend its competences beyond those established in the treaties. The way you write it, I think you are confused about how the Council works, and which Council is referred to.

    b) when the EU extends or retracts its powers, it does so with the unanimous agreement of all the Member States. When it adjusts the extent of shared competences, it does so will the consensus of the Member States. You seem to be trying to pain a picture of the EU being an entity separate from the Member States, when in fact those Member States *are* the EU.

    The extent by which the EU may extend a shared competence is jealously guarded by the Member States, and in many cases EU 'legislation' consists of defining processes, and parameters and leaving the execution, enforcement and a great deal of legislation scope to the Member States.

    So like many europhobes, you are hopelessly misinformed about EU politics.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stychomythia)
    Well they needed pointing out, because they demonstrate that the EU is not an empire.
    It is not. Thanks for pointing that out.

    The point about empires is that you have no choice. The only ways out of the British Empire for India were resistance or grant of independence (or, as it turned out, a bit of both). Not a constitutionally guaranteed right of secession.
    That is also true of the vast majority of ordinary, modern sovereign states. The right of territorial integrity is recognised as a core part of international law. By your definition there, the United States is an empire. It clearly isn't.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.