Will Scotland vote for independence? Watch

imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by 123543)
Do you know what the criteria are for a new member state to join the EU?

If you're so oppositional to Brexit then why aren't you vehemently oppositional to Scottish independence? Surely it would be categorically worse, socially, politically and otherwise, no?
Because I’m past caring now. I’m past fighting for brexit to be stopped, let the chips fall as they may. I absolutely cannot wait to see the absolute ****show that is going to result. Job losses aplenty, economy crashes. Going to be cracking entertainment as the same people who voted to vehemently for brexit get ****ed by it!
(Original post by L i b)
As British citizens, we enjoy the right to move completely unhindered around the United Kingdom.

If you break up the United Kingdom, there's no particular reason to assume that will continue.
Possibly, but I’ll hedge my bets.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 weeks ago
#22
A more interesting question now is what is going to happen on the island of Ireland. If the UK government is stupid enough (and Parliament supine enough) to trigger a Hard Brexit, then Ireland will be in a total mess, as will Northern Ireland. There will be big pressures both sides of that border to unify. The next step after that would surely be a 'Pan-Celtic Alliance' between an independent Scotland, Ireland, Wales and - let's say the word - Cornwall. Brittany in France would want to join that. A sort of new order would arise on the north western shore of Europe.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
A more interesting question now is what is going to happen on the island of Ireland. If the UK government is stupid enough (and Parliament supine enough) to trigger a Hard Brexit, then Ireland will be in a total mess, as will Northern Ireland. There will be big pressures both sides of that border to unify. The next step after that would surely be a 'Pan-Celtic Alliance' between an independent Scotland, Ireland, Wales and - let's say the word - Cornwall. Brittany in France would want to join that. A sort of new order would arise on the north western shore of Europe.
I would like to see one country for the island of Ireland. I would not want to see it achieved this way. A hard Brexit and hard border would be used as an excuse for dissident Republicans and Loyalists to start killing again.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by barnetlad)
I would like to see one country for the island of Ireland. I would not want to see it achieved this way. A hard Brexit and hard border would be used as an excuse for dissident Republicans and Loyalists to start killing again.
Things have changed a lot in NI and the old hard men of violence have been replaced by lawless money making from drugs and so on and, less pessimistically, by people working across the border and earning better money. I'm no expert, but I wonder how much the threats of a return to violence should there be a border are just rhetoric. Even if there suddenly is a notional hard border, it's completely unenforceable as a customs frontier, it has hundreds of crossing points and is immensely convoluted and intricate, with many places having multiple crossings along a route. Even in the worst of the Troubles, with roving armed patrols, choppers, watch towers, trip wires and TV cameras everywhere, people slipped across with ease. There is a huge amount of nonsense being talked about it by both the EU and the Brexiteers. The Irish government are bigging it up as well - understandably, because they mainly trade via the UK and it is much cheaper and more efficient for them to do so.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
A more interesting question now is what is going to happen on the island of Ireland. If the UK government is stupid enough (and Parliament supine enough) to trigger a Hard Brexit, then Ireland will be in a total mess, as will Northern Ireland. There will be big pressures both sides of that border to unify. The next step after that would surely be a 'Pan-Celtic Alliance' between an independent Scotland, Ireland, Wales and - let's say the word - Cornwall. Brittany in France would want to join that. A sort of new order would arise on the north western shore of Europe.
I'm not sure debunked 19th century racial theory about "Celticism" is really all that relevant to the modern British Isles.

It was a bit like when I heard an American (inevitably with "Scottish roots") propose an independent Scotland with a "House of Lairds" composed of Scotland's clan chiefs.
Last edited by L i b; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by L i b)
I'm not sure debunked 19th century racial theory about "Celticism" is really all that relevant to the modern British Isles.

It was a bit like when I heard an American (inevitably with "Scottish roots") propose an independent Scotland with a "House of Lairds" composed of Scotland's clan chiefs.
Ha, yes, I was being amusing (or attempting to be :blush: ) with the reference to Celtica, but I do think there would be a post-Brexit strong commonality of interests between an independent Scotland and a newly united and post-religious Ireland. They could in due course even look at unifying into a new EU state, 'Atlantica'. (Joking, but who knows?)
0
reply
123543
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 weeks ago
#27
This is genuinely one of the most frustrating things I've ever read. Job losses aplenty - the economy crashes - this would just be so much worse if we went independent. You clearly recognise the dangers of Brexit, particularly in a no-deal scenario.

You think Brexit will be an "absolute sh**show", so let's just add another hundred gallons of fuel to the fire by going independent.

When you lose a couple of fingers, you don't cut off your entire arm.
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Because I’m past caring now. I’m past fighting for brexit to be stopped, let the chips fall as they may. I absolutely cannot wait to see the absolute ****show that is going to result. Job losses aplenty, economy crashes. Going to be cracking entertainment as the same people who voted to vehemently for brexit get ****ed by it!

Possibly, but I’ll hedge my bets.
1
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by 123543)
This is genuinely one of the most frustrating things I've ever read. Job losses aplenty - the economy crashes - this would just be so much worse if we went independent. You clearly recognise the dangers of Brexit, particularly in a no-deal scenario.

You think Brexit will be an "absolute sh**show", so let's just add another hundred gallons of fuel to the fire by going independent.

When you lose a couple of fingers, you don't cut off your entire arm.
The point is, brexit shouldn’t be happening in the first place. Go back a couple of years right to the start. How can you possibly take 51/49 as a mandate from the British people to leave the EU? Utterly ridiculous from the very start.

And then add to that all of politicians they suddenly changed their views to “brexit means brexit” and “carrying out the will of the British people” and it becomes an absolute joke.

Using your analogy, when it’s decided that cutting your arm off is the best way to go, however research suggests heavily in favour of keeping the arm, would you cut off the arm regardless to maintain the original decision, despite keeping it being the best form of action?

Utterly ludicrous politics from start to finish.
0
reply
123543
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 weeks ago
#29
This comes from someone that supported remain in 2016 before I get slandered as some Farage-supporting right-winger. I still believe that we are best remaining a member of the EU. Here goes...

When the Conservatives won an outright majority in the 2015 General election on a manifesto which pledged to hold an in or out referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, it has to be accepted that there was a mandate for a referendum. Consequentially, whatever the result, the government had to enact. It was 52% to 48% in favour of leave and there were around 1 million more people that voted leave than remain. Hence, the government triggered Article 50 and did what was asked of them in the referendum.

You suggest that 52-48 is too small a margin, but why should an alternative to the status quo require substantially more support than the status quo itself? If it was the other way round would you suggest that there "wasn't a mandate" for remain? If it's 52-48 in a Scottish independence referendum in favour of yes, are you suggesting that we "cannot possibly take that as a mandate?" I would suggest not.

The fact is, no matter how much you dislike or oppose Brexit, it ultimately was what the British public decided in 2016. The government, under Theresa May, were duty-bound to accept the decision and do their very best to enact it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about other politicians. Most political parties in the UK are democratic and support carrying out the will of the people, hence Labour and the Conservatives supported enacting the referendum and triggering A50. Their view in support of leaving the EU may appear "an absolute joke" to you, however, they are democrats.

Your argument that "research suggests heavily in favour of keeping the arm." Ultimately, yes, but you also negate that there are ultimately some positives in leaving, hence why 17 million people voted for it. Even though you believe that Brexit is a bad idea, it doesn't mean that the majority of people in the United Kingdom also believe it is a bad idea. We are all equal in our democracy and have a vote each. You don't get 5 votes in a general election just because you've done your research and listen to economic experts.

I also think having an SNP government is ludicrous - I am abjectly opposed to the vast majority of their policies. However, I don't believe that independence for my postcode is the solution.


(Original post by imlikeahermit)
The point is, brexit shouldn’t be happening in the first place. Go back a couple of years right to the start. How can you possibly take 51/49 as a mandate from the British people to leave the EU? Utterly ridiculous from the very start.

And then add to that all of politicians they suddenly changed their views to “brexit means brexit” and “carrying out the will of the British people” and it becomes an absolute joke.

Using your analogy, when it’s decided that cutting your arm off is the best way to go, however research suggests heavily in favour of keeping the arm, would you cut off the arm regardless to maintain the original decision, despite keeping it being the best form of action?

Utterly ludicrous politics from start to finish.
Last edited by 123543; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by 123543)
When the Conservatives won an outright majority in the 2015 General election on a manifesto which pledged to hold an in or out referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, it has to be accepted that there was a mandate for a referendum. Consequentially, whatever the result, the government had to enact. It was 52% to 48% in favour of leave and there were around 1 million more people that voted leave than remain. Hence, the government triggered Article 50 and did what was asked of them in the referendum.

You suggest that 52-48 is too small a margin, but why should an alternative to the status quo require substantially more support than the status quo itself? If it was the other way round would you suggest that there "wasn't a mandate" for remain? If it's 52-48 in a Scottish independence referendum in favour of yes, are you suggesting that we "cannot possibly take that as a mandate?" I would suggest not.
The old argument against super-majorities in referendums (or percentage of entire electorate floors etc) was that a referendum where the majority voted one way, but that failed to meet the criteria would never settle a question.

We've had a couple of major constitutional referendums in Scotland and the UK in recent years. Both have produced results: one quite narrow, one not so narrow. Neither settled the question.

Which ultimately creates the question - why bother with referendums at all if results aren't accepted and questions aren't settled? Their only use, it seems, is to help demagogues get some coverage for their positions.

Ultimately I think both referendums have to be respected and government should oppose any re-runs for a good long time. But I think we should probably learn from this experience as well and stop doing these bloody things.
1
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by StriderHort)
all the 'vows' the Tories & Labour used to talk us out of it last time were unsurprisingly broken (more powers ect)
How was this broken?

Haven't you noticed the tax changes which have now been able to be implemented? And the social security agency is up and running.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by The Mogg)
Just going to point out that even though a higher percentage of people voted leave in Wales, more people actually voted to leave in Scotland (1,018,322 in Scotland compared to Wales' 854,572) Also, if you subtract Wales' leave votes from the total leave votes, Leave still wins (17,410,742 - 854,572 = 16,556,170, for reference Remain had 16,141,241 votes) So for this Remain claim, Scotland is more to blame than Wales.
Wales?

Wales was more to blame than Lincoln, Grimsby and Middlesbrough combined!
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by DarthRoar)
Scotland: We want to leave the UK.
UK: Uh why?
Scotland: We want control of our own country, and not be controlled by some faraway central government.
UK: Okay, and what are you going to do once you have control?
Scotland: We're going to rejoin the EU, giving away control to some faraway central government.

huh
We've not left the EU.

You appear to be hypothesising about what might be said.

Scotland: We want to leave the UK.
UK: Uh why?
Scotland: The UK is banning the manufacturing of cheese and gin, we like cheese and gin.
UK: Okay, fair enough.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Quady)
We've not left the EU.

You appear to be hypothesising about what might be said.

Scotland: We want to leave the UK.
UK: Uh why?
Scotland: The UK is banning the manufacturing of cheese and gin, we like cheese and gin.
UK: Okay, fair enough.
Remainers have entire arguments based on whatever hypothesis they believe, they also treat them as fact and pass them of as such.
It's a point I've been trying to get across to some on here but they don't seem to grasp.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by ColinDent)
Remainers have entire arguments based on whatever hypothesis they believe, they also treat them as fact and pass them of as such.
It's a point I've been trying to get across to some on here but they don't seem to grasp.
Remoaners yes. Leavers work with facts.
Scotland may well turn to be a leave nation not a remoaner one.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by 123543)
This comes from someone that supported remain in 2016 before I get slandered as some Farage-supporting right-winger. I still believe that we are best remaining a member of the EU. Here goes...

When the Conservatives won an outright majority in the 2015 General election on a manifesto which pledged to hold an in or out referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, it has to be accepted that there was a mandate for a referendum. Consequentially, whatever the result, the government had to enact. It was 52% to 48% in favour of leave and there were around 1 million more people that voted leave than remain. Hence, the government triggered Article 50 and did what was asked of them in the referendum.

You suggest that 52-48 is too small a margin, but why should an alternative to the status quo require substantially more support than the status quo itself? If it was the other way round would you suggest that there "wasn't a mandate" for remain? If it's 52-48 in a Scottish independence referendum in favour of yes, are you suggesting that we "cannot possibly take that as a mandate?" I would suggest not.

The fact is, no matter how much you dislike or oppose Brexit, it ultimately was what the British public decided in 2016. The government, under Theresa May, were duty-bound to accept the decision and do their very best to enact it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about other politicians. Most political parties in the UK are democratic and support carrying out the will of the people, hence Labour and the Conservatives supported enacting the referendum and triggering A50. Their view in support of leaving the EU may appear "an absolute joke" to you, however, they are democrats.

Your argument that "research suggests heavily in favour of keeping the arm." Ultimately, yes, but you also negate that there are ultimately some positives in leaving, hence why 17 million people voted for it. Even though you believe that Brexit is a bad idea, it doesn't mean that the majority of people in the United Kingdom also believe it is a bad idea. We are all equal in our democracy and have a vote each. You don't get 5 votes in a general election just because you've done your research and listen to economic experts.

I also think having an SNP government is ludicrous - I am abjectly opposed to the vast majority of their policies. However, I don't believe that independence for my postcode is the solution.
I respect your position however I would ask one question. Give me one positive of leaving that outweighs a negative? Not just one positive, but one that outweighs a negative.
(Original post by Quady)
Remoaners yes. Leavers work with facts.
Scotland may well turn to be a leave nation not a remoaner one.
Hell of a statement to make from a campaign that promised £350m for the NHS that has yet to materialise, among countless other ‘promises.’

Remainers work with facts, as in, we will have to pay more to export our goods, fact, this will make our products less competitive, fact, this will mean less of our products will be sold, fact, this effects company profits, fact, this will result in job losses, fact. Or are you one of these idiots who thinks that job losses are inevitable so we might as well accept it?

For both, I go back to my original point, 51/49 is not a mandate and shouldn’t be taken as one. Cameron quite naively thought that the British public would not be so stupid as to vote to leave, he didn’t anticipate we would want to **** on our own doorstep...
0
reply
Alt Tankie
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 weeks ago
#37
I don’t think they would, even if they were allowed to.

That said I don’t care if that’s what they want to do. The British empire is ancient history and should be left to rot. Send the monarchy to the dole office too.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I respect your position however I would ask one question. Give me one positive of leaving that outweighs a negative? Not just one positive, but one that outweighs a negative.

Hell of a statement to make from a campaign that promised £350m for the NHS that has yet to materialise, among countless other ‘promises.’

Remainers work with facts, as in, we will have to pay more to export our goods, fact, this will make our products less competitive, fact, this will mean less of our products will be sold, fact, this effects company profits, fact, this will result in job losses, fact. Or are you one of these idiots who thinks that job losses are inevitable so we might as well accept it?

For both, I go back to my original point, 51/49 is not a mandate and shouldn’t be taken as one. Cameron quite naively thought that the British public would not be so stupid as to vote to leave, he didn’t anticipate we would want to **** on our own doorstep...
To your first question
Once independent we will be able to raise or lower national insurance rates and thresholds. That outweighs no longer being part of NATO.

To your second question
The pound will fall which will make our exports cheaper and more competitive. So it isn't a fact they will be less competatively priced.

To your third point
Ok, so what is a mandate? Does that apply just to that referendum (which actually isn't the subject of this thread) or to all votes? Does it apply to sports too? Did Man City actually win the English Premier League last season?
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by Alt Tankie)
I don’t think they would, even if they were allowed to.

That said I don’t care if that’s what they want to do. The British empire is ancient history and should be left to rot.
Scotland's part of a country called the United Kingdom. It was not a British possession, it was never a colony - it is part of the mother country that had an empire, and now has a small selection of little outposts like Bermuda and Gibraltar.

The empire has nothing to do with the constitutional construction of the United Kingdom, which is a country not an empire.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by L i b)
The old argument against super-majorities in referendums (or percentage of entire electorate floors etc) was that a referendum where the majority voted one way, but that failed to meet the criteria would never settle a question.

We've had a couple of major constitutional referendums in Scotland and the UK in recent years. Both have produced results: one quite narrow, one not so narrow. Neither settled the question.

Which ultimately creates the question - why bother with referendums at all if results aren't accepted and questions aren't settled? Their only use, it seems, is to help demagogues get some coverage for their positions.

Ultimately I think both referendums have to be respected and government should oppose any re-runs for a good long time. But I think we should probably learn from this experience as well and stop doing these bloody things.
:yep:

It's even more outrageous that the EU referendum wasn't demagogic or even a genuine attempt to resolve the issue, but a purely political piece of hubristic theatricality by a Prime Minister (Cameron) operating well above his abilities and designed to resolve a long running internal party dispute only. It's a constitutional abhorrence and placed us firmly on a path to national decline and even collapse.

One moral of the story is that simply having been to Eton is not in and of itself sufficient qualification to run the country. Oh. Wait. Er.....
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,908

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (214)
12.52%
Excited (156)
9.13%
Worried (306)
17.91%
Terrified (380)
22.24%
Meh (168)
9.83%
Confused (37)
2.17%
Putting on a brave face (234)
13.69%
Impatient (214)
12.52%

Watched Threads

View All