The 2014 referendum envisioned a gap of, iirc, around 18 months between the referendum and independence, which was explicitly for Scotland to negotiate it's day 1 position.
There is no reason to think the UK and the EU would not authorise negotiations to proceed in that interrim and, although there were some moving parts and difficulties between different negotiations (currency in particular), there was no reason to think those negotiations would not have been progressed constructively and positively, so that there could not be an agreed day 1 membership deal
Arrant nonsense. The rUK and Scotland would have had to settle their divorce, entirely - from currency to nukes to pensions to fishing - before the EU could even begin negotiations on “re-admission”. Coz the EU would need to know IScotland’s final status, and thus what kind of country it would be allowing in
Would likely have taken a decade to sort it out
I think it's highly unlikely Scotland could have joined the EU on day one. I think it's also highly unlikely that it would have been ejected from the single market on day one. The most likely course would have been a one or two year transition period followed by Efta followed by EU membership 5-10 years down the line, with minimal disruption to trade. The powerful arguments against independence are the currency and the fiscal deficit. And now Brexit complicates things on the border. But whether or not Scotland would have been allowed to join the EU and how quickly is a red herring IMHO.
But again this is just weak-minded hopecasting. “Oh it’ll probably be fine”. “Oh they’ll let us stay in that bit”. “Let’s not worry about it”
What is it about the EU that makes you think they would have or will be totally chilled about a new country in the Single Market and won’t cause any fuss about a breakaway nation?
There is zero evidence of the EU ever behaving like this. It is a huge lumbering legalistic beast (deliberately so) which proceeds at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy of 27
Everything about dealing with it is painful and prolonged. It doesn’t do brisk and casual. It can’t
If Scotland ever goes indy and decides to join the process will be difficult and slow, as it always is
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Calm yourselves. If we get a prolonged cold period over the Christmas holidays, then there will be a spate of burst pipes and flooded houses...but really only in the properties that were left empty for the Christmas break. Places like student houses and where people have gone away for a while. The pipes freeze, pop a dodgy joint, and once thawed, flood the gaff, or the next door neighbour or the flat downstairs. The Fire Service will spend the next few days after the thaw breaking into properties and turning stopcocks off. I've never been to a house with a burst pipe caused by freezing that was occupied.
That's not a terribly reassuring thought given I'm responsible for an empty house following its owner's death last month.
I have left the heating on though, and not just on frost protect. I have had the boiler serviced. And I am trying to go in once a week to check on things.
I'm just hoping I can clear it and then drain the system and turn everything off early in January.
Turn off thestopcock and drain any water in tanks/pipes etc then there is nothing to burst
I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.
The irony of course, as Mr Dancer noted, is that the SNP did want to leave the EU - just not in the way they ended up doing so.
The SNP wanted to leave the UK permanently, entailing a (hopefully) temporary exit from the EU by necessity not by design. To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off. I say this as someone who doesn't particularly like the SNP and has come to support Scottish independence lukewarmly and reluctantly.
That's still leaving the EU.
Also, I would point out they claimed that leaving the UK wouldn't mean leaving the EU, although Barroso noted this wasn't correct.
I've always found the SNP a bit dishonest, which I think is true of a lot of idealogues, eg Brexiteers, which is why I don't like them. But I think recently unionists have become just as dishonest, maybe more so. This claim that the SNP "wanted" to leave the EU is one example of that.
One implies the other.
If you say you want to drink 15 glasses of wine, that also involves 'wanting' to get drunk. Even if you'd rather not.
Like I said, if this is the standard of argument on the unionist side then it's fucked.
You put forward this argument:
To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off.
Which was a nonsensical argument. Because that wasn't inevitable. Most rock climbers do not have to saw their arms off. Only when things go disastrously wrong.
But it *was* inevitable that leaving the UK would mean Scotland leaving the EU. As in, drinking too much leads to getting drunk.
Your argument - forgive me - and your response is very typical unfortunately of the Nationalist agenda in Scotland (and Wales, which is why I've drifted away from it). You put forward a ludicrous argument, are shown why it's wrong, and then refuse to engage saying your right and reality is wrong because you don't want reality to be right.
Which, ironically, does show why Unionism in Scotland may be 'fucked' because their strongest argument is that becoming independent would be disastrous for Scotland. If independence supporters either don't care or are wilfully blind to that it's difficult to see how they won't keep hammering away until finally they're sent off to get out of everyone's hair.
At that point, as with Brexit, it will be realised they were lying and all the more sensible predictions of Remainers come true...
I'm not a nationalist, I'm a floating voter on this issue, someone who used to be a moderate unionist who has come to see the case for independence after Brexit but remains in two minds about it because of the obvious economic costs involved, in the short term at least. I'm giving you some honest advice - saying that the SNP wanted to leave the EU just isn't a convincing or meaningful argument that will sway anyone in the middle. It's just the kind of smug sophistry that will make unionists feel they are being terribly clever but to anyone who is in the centre on this issue it just sounds like bollocks. Feel free to disregard this advice of course if sounding clever is more important to you than convincing people.
You accuse someone else of smug sophistry?
Good grief.
Edit - the SNP put forward a prospectus that would have involved leaving the EU. That is a fact. They lied and said it wouldn't. That is also a fact. They may have been able to return to the EU later - in fact I think they probably would have done - but it would have had to be a medium term aspiration, as in probably 7-10 years. That is not a fact, but it's a reasonable interpretation of the situation and rules of the time.
It was this kind of nonsense that put me off them having as a (now former) Plaid supporter always rather admired them up to then.
The EU let East Germany join seconds after being a communist state. You really think they'd have put up significant barriers to an independent Scotland joining?
?
East Germany never joined the EU
Pedantic, they let the new Germany join immediately when the two countries merged.
Didn’t East Germany join West Germany?
potato patato , they merged in some fashion but it certainly was seen as two countries beforehand and became one different named single country.
A quite distinct process. East Germany joined West Germany, then the name was changed. No successor state or anything.
Actually, it even has the same name, FRG/BRD.
If Ukraine joined the EU, and at some future date was intimidated into merging with Russia, would the new Greater Russia automatically become a member of the EU?
How is that even comprable? In your scenario Ukraine would cease to exist.
I am heating only one room and that is set to a maximum of 17C at day and I turn it off altogether at night. I do have an electric blanket which is great. In the evenings I wear several layers and wrap a blanket around me. Whenever I boil a kettle I fill a flask with any residual hot water to re-use later.
My whole habits have altered and I am being extremely frugal. I now shop at Lidl and make things go further. I walk there and have sold my car and now only use public transport, but walk everywhere I can.
The CoL crisis is scarring a generation.
Sincere sympathies - but this doesn’t quite accord with several other things you’ve told us
Weren’t you living in a comfortable detached house in the Home Counties? Now you’re suddenly impoverished and heating only one room and you save heated water?!
I don’t believe it. Sorry
Maybe, maybe not, but you are perhaps a little *bold* to go challenging other posters' purported life stories!
True. And I apologise to @Heathener if she is giving us the facts. But I find the claim she is “saving boiled water for later” quite hard to accept
Because it doesn’t make sense. ChatGPT tells me it costs between 1 and 3 pence to boil a kettle. No one in the UK is so poor they have to do strange things to save two pence. Unless they are mad
Nor me, having seen the benefits people get it should not be impossible to survive, may not be rich but given rent paid, council tax reduced and a fair amount of money plus several top ups it is more than enough to survive on and have some heat and food. It is as much as many people working are getting.
If you avoided the cost of two boiled kettles a day, that would mean you save 4p every 24 hours. Which is 28p a week
No one is so skint they urgently need to save 28p a week. So it’s either a fantasy, or something else is going on
I may be misremembering but I thought you owned up to Heathener being one of yours? When they first joined I assumed they were a Russian chaos agent. If it’s not you being silly then I haven’t really changed my mind given the bizarre posting behaviour, compromised vpn and activity always starting as the sun rises over St Petersburg.
Not one of mine
If she’s a Russian bot she’s not very good. She never touches on Putin-ist talking points
But yes, her persona doesn’t add up
Maybe but I have no doubt Heathener is a genuine person. Not a Russian bot. Thanks to her sage advice I backed the Lib Dems to take Woking in the council elections. She is local to the area.
There is certainly something odd about the story that she cannot afford to heat her house but can afford to,winter in Asia. But we all lead different lives.
The cost of a flight to Bangkok - where @Heathener might spend a warm Asian winter - is around £1100 at the moment
If @Heathener saves the cost of 2 boiled kettles every day for a year, that saves £14.56 a year. So she would only have to keep this up for seventy five years, and she’ll have saved enough money to fly to Bangkok. But then there’s the price of a hotel
Yes, it is somewhat contradictory. Maybe she has free flights through a loyalty scheme ?
It may just be a little out of date. A few years ago, I got return tickets to Bangkok for £400 with a post-crash Turkish Airlines, and a flat in Chiang Mai for £200 a month.
Not possible now, alas. I have just paid almost £1000 for a return to Tokyo with BA. Good hotels in Japan can be had from £30 a night at the moment, though, due to the weak Yen and covid. If you've always wanted to go to Japan for a few weeks, now is a good time.
Flights to Asia are hideously pricey now
Yeah 5 of us flying to Sri Lanka next weekend has made a nasty dent in my bank balance.
Calm yourselves. If we get a prolonged cold period over the Christmas holidays, then there will be a spate of burst pipes and flooded houses...but really only in the properties that were left empty for the Christmas break. Places like student houses and where people have gone away for a while. The pipes freeze, pop a dodgy joint, and once thawed, flood the gaff, or the next door neighbour or the flat downstairs. The Fire Service will spend the next few days after the thaw breaking into properties and turning stopcocks off. I've never been to a house with a burst pipe caused by freezing that was occupied.
That's not a terribly reassuring thought given I'm responsible for an empty house following its owner's death last month.
I have left the heating on though, and not just on frost protect. I have had the boiler serviced. And I am trying to go in once a week to check on things.
I'm just hoping I can clear it and then drain the system and turn everything off early in January.
Turn off thestopcock and drain any water in tanks/pipes etc then there is nothing to burst
Yes, and I'm planning to, but I can't do that until I've cleared it.
(Also, I can't turn the stopcock off until Severn Trent have put one in. Yes, I'm serious.)
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
When I was talking about coming up with more convincing arguments against independence this was the sort of thing I had in mind.
The 2014 referendum envisioned a gap of, iirc, around 18 months between the referendum and independence, which was explicitly for Scotland to negotiate it's day 1 position.
There is no reason to think the UK and the EU would not authorise negotiations to proceed in that interrim and, although there were some moving parts and difficulties between different negotiations (currency in particular), there was no reason to think those negotiations would not have been progressed constructively and positively, so that there could not be an agreed day 1 membership deal
Arrant nonsense. The rUK and Scotland would have had to settle their divorce, entirely - from currency to nukes to pensions to fishing - before the EU could even begin negotiations on “re-admission”. Coz the EU would need to know IScotland’s final status, and thus what kind of country it would be allowing in
Would likely have taken a decade to sort it out
I think it's highly unlikely Scotland could have joined the EU on day one. I think it's also highly unlikely that it would have been ejected from the single market on day one. The most likely course would have been a one or two year transition period followed by Efta followed by EU membership 5-10 years down the line, with minimal disruption to trade. The powerful arguments against independence are the currency and the fiscal deficit. And now Brexit complicates things on the border. But whether or not Scotland would have been allowed to join the EU and how quickly is a red herring IMHO.
But again this is just weak-minded hopecasting. “Oh it’ll probably be fine”. “Oh they’ll let us stay in that bit”. “Let’s not worry about it”
What is it about the EU that makes you think they would have or will be totally chilled about a new country in the Single Market and won’t cause any fuss about a breakaway nation?
There is zero evidence of the EU ever behaving like this. It is a huge lumbering legalistic beast (deliberately so) which proceeds at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy of 27
Everything about dealing with it is painful and prolonged. It doesn’t do brisk and casual. It can’t
If Scotland ever goes indy and decides to join the process will be difficult and slow, as it always is
It's not wish casting, it's simply a rational analysis of the most likely outcome. Of course nothing is certain in life except death and taxes. But if the EU rolled out a bespoke transition arrangement (and would have extended it longer if needed) for a country leaving the EU it almost certainly would have done so for a country that was desperate to rejoin and had no desire to ever diverge from EU laws and standards. Similarly, it's hard to imagine why the Efta countries would have blocked Scotland joining. Then EU membership can take as long as it needs to. Like Isay, if you want to argue against Scottish independence, there are far more plausible avenues to pursue than this one.
I’m not arguing for or against Sindy. I am just marvelling at the levels of delusional thinking on PB, when 100% of the evidence points entirely the opposite way
Again, it is weirdly and strikingly reminiscent of the bilge pumped out by the maddest Brexiteers. “Never mind it will be fine. German car makers. The EU will act entirely rationally. No one is threatening our place in the single market. Ulster is not a problem. Have a sandwich”
The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.
I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.
But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.
The question wasn't "pleasant", it was "as much as you want".
Nearly everything you buy is a tradeoff between how much you want of something and how much you want to spend on it.
And that choice is up to individuals. It is none of your business.
I’m making the (reasonable) assumption that nobody is heating up their abode to the extent that it is unpleasantly hot.
The recommendation for babies is 16-20c - often taken as 18c. This was also recommended to me when we had our first child.
I don’t know anyone who keeps it that low - I was badged by my wife and daughters, later, to set it to 21c.
Part of it is expectation - people, these days want to wander round their house dressed for the beach in a hot country. Wearing a layer over your T-shirt is seen as a bit weird.
I have been in London for the last few weeks and as my son is now responsible for the bills he is taking the "save energy / save money" dictum very seriously indeed.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
The 2014 referendum envisioned a gap of, iirc, around 18 months between the referendum and independence, which was explicitly for Scotland to negotiate it's day 1 position.
There is no reason to think the UK and the EU would not authorise negotiations to proceed in that interrim and, although there were some moving parts and difficulties between different negotiations (currency in particular), there was no reason to think those negotiations would not have been progressed constructively and positively, so that there could not be an agreed day 1 membership deal
Arrant nonsense. The rUK and Scotland would have had to settle their divorce, entirely - from currency to nukes to pensions to fishing - before the EU could even begin negotiations on “re-admission”. Coz the EU would need to know IScotland’s final status, and thus what kind of country it would be allowing in
Would likely have taken a decade to sort it out
I think it's highly unlikely Scotland could have joined the EU on day one. I think it's also highly unlikely that it would have been ejected from the single market on day one. The most likely course would have been a one or two year transition period followed by Efta followed by EU membership 5-10 years down the line, with minimal disruption to trade. The powerful arguments against independence are the currency and the fiscal deficit. And now Brexit complicates things on the border. But whether or not Scotland would have been allowed to join the EU and how quickly is a red herring IMHO.
But again this is just weak-minded hopecasting. “Oh it’ll probably be fine”. “Oh they’ll let us stay in that bit”. “Let’s not worry about it”
What is it about the EU that makes you think they would have or will be totally chilled about a new country in the Single Market and won’t cause any fuss about a breakaway nation?
There is zero evidence of the EU ever behaving like this. It is a huge lumbering legalistic beast (deliberately so) which proceeds at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy of 27
Everything about dealing with it is painful and prolonged. It doesn’t do brisk and casual. It can’t
If Scotland ever goes indy and decides to join the process will be difficult and slow, as it always is
unionist wishful thinking yet again
Hey Malc, hope all is well with you and yours up in your lovely part of the world.
How are you getting on with the gee-gees these days ? Plenty of winners ?
I have been in London for the last few weeks and as my son is now responsible for the bills he is taking the "save energy / save money" dictum very seriously indeed.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
Swapping old fashioned fire for old fashioned wood burner has been life changing for me. The fire just sucks cold air in from the rest of the house, the woodburner does not. I don't really understand this, because where is the woodburner getting its air from, but it works.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.
The irony of course, as Mr Dancer noted, is that the SNP did want to leave the EU - just not in the way they ended up doing so.
The SNP wanted to leave the UK permanently, entailing a (hopefully) temporary exit from the EU by necessity not by design. To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off. I say this as someone who doesn't particularly like the SNP and has come to support Scottish independence lukewarmly and reluctantly.
That's still leaving the EU.
Also, I would point out they claimed that leaving the UK wouldn't mean leaving the EU, although Barroso noted this wasn't correct.
I've always found the SNP a bit dishonest, which I think is true of a lot of idealogues, eg Brexiteers, which is why I don't like them. But I think recently unionists have become just as dishonest, maybe more so. This claim that the SNP "wanted" to leave the EU is one example of that.
One implies the other.
If you say you want to drink 15 glasses of wine, that also involves 'wanting' to get drunk. Even if you'd rather not.
Like I said, if this is the standard of argument on the unionist side then it's fucked.
You put forward this argument:
To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off.
Which was a nonsensical argument. Because that wasn't inevitable. Most rock climbers do not have to saw their arms off. Only when things go disastrously wrong.
But it *was* inevitable that leaving the UK would mean Scotland leaving the EU. As in, drinking too much leads to getting drunk.
Your argument - forgive me - and your response is very typical unfortunately of the Nationalist agenda in Scotland (and Wales, which is why I've drifted away from it). You put forward a ludicrous argument, are shown why it's wrong, and then refuse to engage saying your right and reality is wrong because you don't want reality to be right.
Which, ironically, does show why Unionism in Scotland may be 'fucked' because their strongest argument is that becoming independent would be disastrous for Scotland. If independence supporters either don't care or are wilfully blind to that it's difficult to see how they won't keep hammering away until finally they're sent off to get out of everyone's hair.
At that point, as with Brexit, it will be realised they were lying and all the more sensible predictions of Remainers come true...
I'm not a nationalist, I'm a floating voter on this issue, someone who used to be a moderate unionist who has come to see the case for independence after Brexit but remains in two minds about it because of the obvious economic costs involved, in the short term at least. I'm giving you some honest advice - saying that the SNP wanted to leave the EU just isn't a convincing or meaningful argument that will sway anyone in the middle. It's just the kind of smug sophistry that will make unionists feel they are being terribly clever but to anyone who is in the centre on this issue it just sounds like bollocks. Feel free to disregard this advice of course if sounding clever is more important to you than convincing people.
You accuse someone else of smug sophistry?
Good grief.
Edit - the SNP put forward a prospectus that would have involved leaving the EU. That is a fact. They lied and said it wouldn't. That is also a fact. They may have been able to return to the EU later - in fact I think they probably would have done - but it would have had to be a medium term aspiration, as in probably 7-10 years. That is not a fact, but it's a reasonable interpretation of the situation and rules of the time.
It was this kind of nonsense that put me off them having as a (now former) Plaid supporter always rather admired them up to then.
The EU let East Germany join seconds after being a communist state. You really think they'd have put up significant barriers to an independent Scotland joining?
?
East Germany never joined the EU
Pedantic, they let the new Germany join immediately when the two countries merged.
Didn’t East Germany join West Germany?
potato patato , they merged in some fashion but it certainly was seen as two countries beforehand and became one different named single country.
A quite distinct process. East Germany joined West Germany, then the name was changed. No successor state or anything.
Actually, it even has the same name, FRG/BRD.
If Ukraine joined the EU, and at some future date was intimidated into merging with Russia, would the new Greater Russia automatically become a member of the EU?
How is that even comprable? In your scenario Ukraine would cease to exist.
Do you mean that if East and West Germany had merged to form a legally different entity, it would automatically have been outside the EU?
I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.
The irony of course, as Mr Dancer noted, is that the SNP did want to leave the EU - just not in the way they ended up doing so.
The SNP wanted to leave the UK permanently, entailing a (hopefully) temporary exit from the EU by necessity not by design. To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off. I say this as someone who doesn't particularly like the SNP and has come to support Scottish independence lukewarmly and reluctantly.
That's still leaving the EU.
Also, I would point out they claimed that leaving the UK wouldn't mean leaving the EU, although Barroso noted this wasn't correct.
I've always found the SNP a bit dishonest, which I think is true of a lot of idealogues, eg Brexiteers, which is why I don't like them. But I think recently unionists have become just as dishonest, maybe more so. This claim that the SNP "wanted" to leave the EU is one example of that.
One implies the other.
If you say you want to drink 15 glasses of wine, that also involves 'wanting' to get drunk. Even if you'd rather not.
Like I said, if this is the standard of argument on the unionist side then it's fucked.
You put forward this argument:
To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off.
Which was a nonsensical argument. Because that wasn't inevitable. Most rock climbers do not have to saw their arms off. Only when things go disastrously wrong.
But it *was* inevitable that leaving the UK would mean Scotland leaving the EU. As in, drinking too much leads to getting drunk.
Your argument - forgive me - and your response is very typical unfortunately of the Nationalist agenda in Scotland (and Wales, which is why I've drifted away from it). You put forward a ludicrous argument, are shown why it's wrong, and then refuse to engage saying your right and reality is wrong because you don't want reality to be right.
Which, ironically, does show why Unionism in Scotland may be 'fucked' because their strongest argument is that becoming independent would be disastrous for Scotland. If independence supporters either don't care or are wilfully blind to that it's difficult to see how they won't keep hammering away until finally they're sent off to get out of everyone's hair.
At that point, as with Brexit, it will be realised they were lying and all the more sensible predictions of Remainers come true...
I'm not a nationalist, I'm a floating voter on this issue, someone who used to be a moderate unionist who has come to see the case for independence after Brexit but remains in two minds about it because of the obvious economic costs involved, in the short term at least. I'm giving you some honest advice - saying that the SNP wanted to leave the EU just isn't a convincing or meaningful argument that will sway anyone in the middle. It's just the kind of smug sophistry that will make unionists feel they are being terribly clever but to anyone who is in the centre on this issue it just sounds like bollocks. Feel free to disregard this advice of course if sounding clever is more important to you than convincing people.
You accuse someone else of smug sophistry?
Good grief.
Edit - the SNP put forward a prospectus that would have involved leaving the EU. That is a fact. They lied and said it wouldn't. That is also a fact. They may have been able to return to the EU later - in fact I think they probably would have done - but it would have had to be a medium term aspiration, as in probably 7-10 years. That is not a fact, but it's a reasonable interpretation of the situation and rules of the time.
It was this kind of nonsense that put me off them having as a (now former) Plaid supporter always rather admired them up to then.
The EU let East Germany join seconds after being a communist state. You really think they'd have put up significant barriers to an independent Scotland joining?
?
East Germany never joined the EU
Pedantic, they let the new Germany join immediately when the two countries merged.
Didn’t East Germany join West Germany?
potato patato , they merged in some fashion but it certainly was seen as two countries beforehand and became one different named single country.
A quite distinct process. East Germany joined West Germany, then the name was changed. No successor state or anything.
Actually, it even has the same name, FRG/BRD.
If Ukraine joined the EU, and at some future date was intimidated into merging with Russia, would the new Greater Russia automatically become a member of the EU?
How is that even comprable? In your scenario Ukraine would cease to exist.
Do you mean that if East and West Germany had merged to form a legally different entity, it would automatically have been outside the EU?
I don’t think that has ever been tested, has it? My argument is that didn’t happen, and that East Germany simply joined West Germany.
I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.
The irony of course, as Mr Dancer noted, is that the SNP did want to leave the EU - just not in the way they ended up doing so.
The SNP wanted to leave the UK permanently, entailing a (hopefully) temporary exit from the EU by necessity not by design. To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off. I say this as someone who doesn't particularly like the SNP and has come to support Scottish independence lukewarmly and reluctantly.
That's still leaving the EU.
Also, I would point out they claimed that leaving the UK wouldn't mean leaving the EU, although Barroso noted this wasn't correct.
I've always found the SNP a bit dishonest, which I think is true of a lot of idealogues, eg Brexiteers, which is why I don't like them. But I think recently unionists have become just as dishonest, maybe more so. This claim that the SNP "wanted" to leave the EU is one example of that.
One implies the other.
If you say you want to drink 15 glasses of wine, that also involves 'wanting' to get drunk. Even if you'd rather not.
Like I said, if this is the standard of argument on the unionist side then it's fucked.
You put forward this argument:
To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off.
Which was a nonsensical argument. Because that wasn't inevitable. Most rock climbers do not have to saw their arms off. Only when things go disastrously wrong.
But it *was* inevitable that leaving the UK would mean Scotland leaving the EU. As in, drinking too much leads to getting drunk.
Your argument - forgive me - and your response is very typical unfortunately of the Nationalist agenda in Scotland (and Wales, which is why I've drifted away from it). You put forward a ludicrous argument, are shown why it's wrong, and then refuse to engage saying your right and reality is wrong because you don't want reality to be right.
Which, ironically, does show why Unionism in Scotland may be 'fucked' because their strongest argument is that becoming independent would be disastrous for Scotland. If independence supporters either don't care or are wilfully blind to that it's difficult to see how they won't keep hammering away until finally they're sent off to get out of everyone's hair.
At that point, as with Brexit, it will be realised they were lying and all the more sensible predictions of Remainers come true...
I'm not a nationalist, I'm a floating voter on this issue, someone who used to be a moderate unionist who has come to see the case for independence after Brexit but remains in two minds about it because of the obvious economic costs involved, in the short term at least. I'm giving you some honest advice - saying that the SNP wanted to leave the EU just isn't a convincing or meaningful argument that will sway anyone in the middle. It's just the kind of smug sophistry that will make unionists feel they are being terribly clever but to anyone who is in the centre on this issue it just sounds like bollocks. Feel free to disregard this advice of course if sounding clever is more important to you than convincing people.
You accuse someone else of smug sophistry?
Good grief.
Edit - the SNP put forward a prospectus that would have involved leaving the EU. That is a fact. They lied and said it wouldn't. That is also a fact. They may have been able to return to the EU later - in fact I think they probably would have done - but it would have had to be a medium term aspiration, as in probably 7-10 years. That is not a fact, but it's a reasonable interpretation of the situation and rules of the time.
It was this kind of nonsense that put me off them having as a (now former) Plaid supporter always rather admired them up to then.
The EU let East Germany join seconds after being a communist state. You really think they'd have put up significant barriers to an independent Scotland joining?
?
East Germany never joined the EU
Pedantic, they let the new Germany join immediately when the two countries merged.
Didn’t East Germany join West Germany?
potato patato , they merged in some fashion but it certainly was seen as two countries beforehand and became one different named single country.
A quite distinct process. East Germany joined West Germany, then the name was changed. No successor state or anything.
Actually, it even has the same name, FRG/BRD.
If Ukraine joined the EU, and at some future date was intimidated into merging with Russia, would the new Greater Russia automatically become a member of the EU?
How is that even comprable? In your scenario Ukraine would cease to exist.
Do you mean that if East and West Germany had merged to form a legally different entity, it would automatically have been outside the EU?
I don’t think that has ever been tested, has it? My argument is that didn’t happen, and that East Germany simply joined West Germany.
That argument has the advantage of actually being, you know, true.
The 2014 referendum envisioned a gap of, iirc, around 18 months between the referendum and independence, which was explicitly for Scotland to negotiate it's day 1 position.
There is no reason to think the UK and the EU would not authorise negotiations to proceed in that interrim and, although there were some moving parts and difficulties between different negotiations (currency in particular), there was no reason to think those negotiations would not have been progressed constructively and positively, so that there could not be an agreed day 1 membership deal
Arrant nonsense. The rUK and Scotland would have had to settle their divorce, entirely - from currency to nukes to pensions to fishing - before the EU could even begin negotiations on “re-admission”. Coz the EU would need to know IScotland’s final status, and thus what kind of country it would be allowing in
Would likely have taken a decade to sort it out
I think it's highly unlikely Scotland could have joined the EU on day one. I think it's also highly unlikely that it would have been ejected from the single market on day one. The most likely course would have been a one or two year transition period followed by Efta followed by EU membership 5-10 years down the line, with minimal disruption to trade. The powerful arguments against independence are the currency and the fiscal deficit. And now Brexit complicates things on the border. But whether or not Scotland would have been allowed to join the EU and how quickly is a red herring IMHO.
But again this is just weak-minded hopecasting. “Oh it’ll probably be fine”. “Oh they’ll let us stay in that bit”. “Let’s not worry about it”
What is it about the EU that makes you think they would have or will be totally chilled about a new country in the Single Market and won’t cause any fuss about a breakaway nation?
There is zero evidence of the EU ever behaving like this. It is a huge lumbering legalistic beast (deliberately so) which proceeds at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy of 27
Everything about dealing with it is painful and prolonged. It doesn’t do brisk and casual. It can’t
If Scotland ever goes indy and decides to join the process will be difficult and slow, as it always is
It's not wish casting, it's simply a rational analysis of the most likely outcome. Of course nothing is certain in life except death and taxes. But if the EU rolled out a bespoke transition arrangement (and would have extended it longer if needed) for a country leaving the EU it almost certainly would have done so for a country that was desperate to rejoin and had no desire to ever diverge from EU laws and standards. Similarly, it's hard to imagine why the Efta countries would have blocked Scotland joining. Then EU membership can take as long as it needs to. Like Isay, if you want to argue against Scottish independence, there are far more plausible avenues to pursue than this one.
I’m not arguing for or against Sindy. I am just marvelling at the levels of delusional thinking on PB, when 100% of the evidence points entirely the opposite way
Again, it is weirdly and strikingly reminiscent of the bilge pumped out by the maddest Brexiteers. “Never mind it will be fine. German car makers. The EU will act entirely rationally. No one is threatening our place in the single market. Ulster is not a problem. Have a sandwich”
I'd be interested to know who you think are the maddest Brexiteers. As I recall the kind of arguments you are attributing to them were being made by the official Leave campaign and every pro Brexit politician. I don't really see the evidence pointing away from my argument. If the EU acted entirely reasonably with the UK, which was basically telling the EU to fuck off, it's hard to imagine them acting unreasonably towards Scotland, which was trying to rush into its embrace. I agree that joining would take time, but I disagree with your assertion that the EU would have made life difficult for Scotland in the meantime. A transition period and Efta membership seems a clear and plausible path, much more so than the EU casting Scotland into the wilderness and risking Scotland deciding not to join.
True. And I apologise to @Heathener if she is giving us the facts. But I find the claim she is “saving boiled water for later” quite hard to accept
Because it doesn’t make sense. ChatGPT tells me it costs between 1 and 3 pence to boil a kettle. No one in the UK is so poor they have to do strange things to save two pence. Unless they are mad
...or misinformed. I suspect many people don't have a very clear idea of the costs of the various things they use electricity for. (Not helped by the media, who sometimes focus on small things like appliances on 'standby' and ignore more significant power drains.) So I can easily imagine people taking actions which seem like they're saving money without realizing that the amounts involved turn out to be very small.
There is quite a bit of fear and misunderstanding. Someone I know was saying she is 'too scared' to turn the heating on for more than one hour a day. But they are going to freeze and probably the pipes etc are going to freeze as well. It's better to just turn the theromostat down.
Misunderstanding is on your part. Internal pipes are at utterly minimal risk of freezing in an inhabited UK house. My interior temp hasn't dropped below 10C this last week, and that's with a couple of nights I have been out and not had a fire or other heating for 36 hours. It's vacant houses you have to worry about, or turn off the stopcock.
If you have a vaguely modern heating system, don’t “turn off” the heating system. Simply set it for a lower temperature. If you want 10c and you thermostat doesn’t go that low, change the thermostat. They aren’t terribly expensive.
On power drains - indeed. One that gets me is the way that many wireless router modems seem to be space heaters. Some you can’t put in a cupboard because they give off so much heat. Anything that is getting that toasty, 24/7…
Ovens don’t actually use vast amounts of electricity - they are actually heavily insulated boxes, designed to keep the heat in. Once up to temperature, the top up power required to keep them there is generally quite low.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I have been in London for the last few weeks and as my son is now responsible for the bills he is taking the "save energy / save money" dictum very seriously indeed.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
You would have thought after the death of that poor little lad in Rochdale due to the consequences of excessive moisture in their home this would have brought about some desire for change.
All that has happened so far is the Head of the housing association has been removed from his job.
There is an activist who is regularly on TV talking about the dire condition of social housing, but it seems little is happening to remedy it.
As for building new homes, which are desperately needed, we are in full on Nimby mode as a nation.
Calm yourselves. If we get a prolonged cold period over the Christmas holidays, then there will be a spate of burst pipes and flooded houses...but really only in the properties that were left empty for the Christmas break. Places like student houses and where people have gone away for a while. The pipes freeze, pop a dodgy joint, and once thawed, flood the gaff, or the next door neighbour or the flat downstairs. The Fire Service will spend the next few days after the thaw breaking into properties and turning stopcocks off. I've never been to a house with a burst pipe caused by freezing that was occupied.
That's not a terribly reassuring thought given I'm responsible for an empty house following its owner's death last month.
I have left the heating on though, and not just on frost protect. I have had the boiler serviced. And I am trying to go in once a week to check on things.
I'm just hoping I can clear it and then drain the system and turn everything off early in January.
Then you will be fine, almost certainly. A arrived boiler, and the heating running on minimum pretty much guarantees that things will be OK.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
Nice to see all the lovely people on here wishing and praying that Scotland do badly and that the EU will gouge them like England does at present.
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
I have been in London for the last few weeks and as my son is now responsible for the bills he is taking the "save energy / save money" dictum very seriously indeed.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
You would have thought after the death of that poor little lad in Rochdale due to the consequences of excessive moisture in their home this would have brought about some desire for change.
All that has happened so far is the Head of the housing association has been removed from his job.
There is an activist who is regularly on TV talking about the dire condition of social housing, but it seems little is happening to remedy it.
As for building new homes, which are desperately needed, we are in full on Nimby mode as a nation.
Re houses - not in Scotland. A modest (if still arguably insufficient, but useful) programme of council house building. So it is possible. But where the difference lies I'm not at all sure.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
Calm yourselves. If we get a prolonged cold period over the Christmas holidays, then there will be a spate of burst pipes and flooded houses...but really only in the properties that were left empty for the Christmas break. Places like student houses and where people have gone away for a while. The pipes freeze, pop a dodgy joint, and once thawed, flood the gaff, or the next door neighbour or the flat downstairs. The Fire Service will spend the next few days after the thaw breaking into properties and turning stopcocks off. I've never been to a house with a burst pipe caused by freezing that was occupied.
The consequences will be different in every case but it certainly does happen. It is an area however where it is probably better to defer to professional advice from a surveyor, rather than using PB.
I'm not saying it can't happen, but I think it takes a few things to align to go bang. We inherited a small wooden property by the river, the walls are basically 50mm of insulation sandwiched between ply with some wooden cladding on the exterior. The plan is to sell our place and move into the riverside place and to do a Grand Design job on it. I use Alexa to monitor temperature and humidity in the cabin and have rigged up a couple of electric heaters on a smart WiFi plug so that I can turn the heating on from home if needed. I'm currently running an experiment to see how cold it gets during this cold snap. It got down to 2.4°c last night in the coldest part of the cabin. If anyone has any ideas or experience on heating a wooden property via electricity longterm that doesn't include a heat pump, I'd like to hear from you!
My family own two wooden houses in Finland used as summerhouses. Not quite comparable in terms of climate but perhaps of some anecdotal relevance when it comes to discussing this issue. One is heated up to 5 degrees in winter with panel heaters. It is technically habitable year round and can be used as a summerhouse but the pipes froze out many years ago and there is no drainage/water supply to the house. It is not used in winter.
The other house is heated to 15 degrees and used occasionally in winter. There is an electronic heating system that involves pumping hot air throughout the house but the bills were halved when an air source heat pump was added.
The total energy consumption for the two houses is around 15,000 kwh per year (as summerhouses, not inhabited in winter), which is supposedly the same as Stuart Dickson's house in Sweden which he lives in all year round.
The long term plan is to put in an air source heat pump in the other house, that is what most people in Finland do to these houses, replacing panel heaters or oil powered central heating. No other energy saving measures (including solar panels) are economic, even with the current rise in prices. Solar Panels and battery storage are not viable if you have to borrow money to install them, but they are good for the environment - but there is a problem in that the roof areas are not quite orientated correctly and there are protected trees that shade them.
Thanks, just the sort of info /experience I'm looking for.
The 2014 referendum envisioned a gap of, iirc, around 18 months between the referendum and independence, which was explicitly for Scotland to negotiate it's day 1 position.
There is no reason to think the UK and the EU would not authorise negotiations to proceed in that interrim and, although there were some moving parts and difficulties between different negotiations (currency in particular), there was no reason to think those negotiations would not have been progressed constructively and positively, so that there could not be an agreed day 1 membership deal
Arrant nonsense. The rUK and Scotland would have had to settle their divorce, entirely - from currency to nukes to pensions to fishing - before the EU could even begin negotiations on “re-admission”. Coz the EU would need to know IScotland’s final status, and thus what kind of country it would be allowing in
Would likely have taken a decade to sort it out
I think it's highly unlikely Scotland could have joined the EU on day one. I think it's also highly unlikely that it would have been ejected from the single market on day one. The most likely course would have been a one or two year transition period followed by Efta followed by EU membership 5-10 years down the line, with minimal disruption to trade. The powerful arguments against independence are the currency and the fiscal deficit. And now Brexit complicates things on the border. But whether or not Scotland would have been allowed to join the EU and how quickly is a red herring IMHO.
But again this is just weak-minded hopecasting. “Oh it’ll probably be fine”. “Oh they’ll let us stay in that bit”. “Let’s not worry about it”
What is it about the EU that makes you think they would have or will be totally chilled about a new country in the Single Market and won’t cause any fuss about a breakaway nation?
There is zero evidence of the EU ever behaving like this. It is a huge lumbering legalistic beast (deliberately so) which proceeds at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy of 27
Everything about dealing with it is painful and prolonged. It doesn’t do brisk and casual. It can’t
If Scotland ever goes indy and decides to join the process will be difficult and slow, as it always is
unionist wishful thinking yet again
Hey Malc, hope all is well with you and yours up in your lovely part of the world.
How are you getting on with the gee-gees these days ? Plenty of winners ?
Hello Taz, All is well and getting lovely frosty sunny weather just now. Hope all well with you and family. I have been doing not too bad on the horses recently , only betting small amounts but certainly adding to my pot. Next few months will se meetings cancelled but I do like the jumping. Don't have enough time nowadays to do the necessary research but is only for fun in any case.
I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.
The irony of course, as Mr Dancer noted, is that the SNP did want to leave the EU - just not in the way they ended up doing so.
The SNP wanted to leave the UK permanently, entailing a (hopefully) temporary exit from the EU by necessity not by design. To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off. I say this as someone who doesn't particularly like the SNP and has come to support Scottish independence lukewarmly and reluctantly.
That's still leaving the EU.
Also, I would point out they claimed that leaving the UK wouldn't mean leaving the EU, although Barroso noted this wasn't correct.
I've always found the SNP a bit dishonest, which I think is true of a lot of idealogues, eg Brexiteers, which is why I don't like them. But I think recently unionists have become just as dishonest, maybe more so. This claim that the SNP "wanted" to leave the EU is one example of that.
One implies the other.
If you say you want to drink 15 glasses of wine, that also involves 'wanting' to get drunk. Even if you'd rather not.
Like I said, if this is the standard of argument on the unionist side then it's fucked.
You put forward this argument:
To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off.
Which was a nonsensical argument. Because that wasn't inevitable. Most rock climbers do not have to saw their arms off. Only when things go disastrously wrong.
But it *was* inevitable that leaving the UK would mean Scotland leaving the EU. As in, drinking too much leads to getting drunk.
Your argument - forgive me - and your response is very typical unfortunately of the Nationalist agenda in Scotland (and Wales, which is why I've drifted away from it). You put forward a ludicrous argument, are shown why it's wrong, and then refuse to engage saying your right and reality is wrong because you don't want reality to be right.
Which, ironically, does show why Unionism in Scotland may be 'fucked' because their strongest argument is that becoming independent would be disastrous for Scotland. If independence supporters either don't care or are wilfully blind to that it's difficult to see how they won't keep hammering away until finally they're sent off to get out of everyone's hair.
At that point, as with Brexit, it will be realised they were lying and all the more sensible predictions of Remainers come true...
I'm not a nationalist, I'm a floating voter on this issue, someone who used to be a moderate unionist who has come to see the case for independence after Brexit but remains in two minds about it because of the obvious economic costs involved, in the short term at least. I'm giving you some honest advice - saying that the SNP wanted to leave the EU just isn't a convincing or meaningful argument that will sway anyone in the middle. It's just the kind of smug sophistry that will make unionists feel they are being terribly clever but to anyone who is in the centre on this issue it just sounds like bollocks. Feel free to disregard this advice of course if sounding clever is more important to you than convincing people.
You accuse someone else of smug sophistry?
Good grief.
Edit - the SNP put forward a prospectus that would have involved leaving the EU. That is a fact. They lied and said it wouldn't. That is also a fact. They may have been able to return to the EU later - in fact I think they probably would have done - but it would have had to be a medium term aspiration, as in probably 7-10 years. That is not a fact, but it's a reasonable interpretation of the situation and rules of the time.
It was this kind of nonsense that put me off them having as a (now former) Plaid supporter always rather admired them up to then.
The EU let East Germany join seconds after being a communist state. You really think they'd have put up significant barriers to an independent Scotland joining?
?
East Germany never joined the EU
Pedantic, they let the new Germany join immediately when the two countries merged.
Didn’t East Germany join West Germany?
potato patato , they merged in some fashion but it certainly was seen as two countries beforehand and became one different named single country.
A quite distinct process. East Germany joined West Germany, then the name was changed. No successor state or anything.
Actually, it even has the same name, FRG/BRD.
If Ukraine joined the EU, and at some future date was intimidated into merging with Russia, would the new Greater Russia automatically become a member of the EU?
How is that even comprable? In your scenario Ukraine would cease to exist.
Do you mean that if East and West Germany had merged to form a legally different entity, it would automatically have been outside the EU?
I don’t think that has ever been tested, has it? My argument is that didn’t happen, and that East Germany simply joined West Germany.
A major part of why it was done that way, was that the United Germany was automatically the successor state - part of all the organisations that West Germany had been a part of and signatory to the various treaties it had signed.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
I don't think Spain have ever actually said they would veto Scottish entry to the EU, even in 2014. What they have consistently said however is that they would not permit any move to expedite it, although given the EU itself made the same point that's not relevant either.
The 2014 referendum envisioned a gap of, iirc, around 18 months between the referendum and independence, which was explicitly for Scotland to negotiate it's day 1 position.
There is no reason to think the UK and the EU would not authorise negotiations to proceed in that interrim and, although there were some moving parts and difficulties between different negotiations (currency in particular), there was no reason to think those negotiations would not have been progressed constructively and positively, so that there could not be an agreed day 1 membership deal
Arrant nonsense. The rUK and Scotland would have had to settle their divorce, entirely - from currency to nukes to pensions to fishing - before the EU could even begin negotiations on “re-admission”. Coz the EU would need to know IScotland’s final status, and thus what kind of country it would be allowing in
Would likely have taken a decade to sort it out
I think it's highly unlikely Scotland could have joined the EU on day one. I think it's also highly unlikely that it would have been ejected from the single market on day one. The most likely course would have been a one or two year transition period followed by Efta followed by EU membership 5-10 years down the line, with minimal disruption to trade. The powerful arguments against independence are the currency and the fiscal deficit. And now Brexit complicates things on the border. But whether or not Scotland would have been allowed to join the EU and how quickly is a red herring IMHO.
But again this is just weak-minded hopecasting. “Oh it’ll probably be fine”. “Oh they’ll let us stay in that bit”. “Let’s not worry about it”
What is it about the EU that makes you think they would have or will be totally chilled about a new country in the Single Market and won’t cause any fuss about a breakaway nation?
There is zero evidence of the EU ever behaving like this. It is a huge lumbering legalistic beast (deliberately so) which proceeds at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy of 27
Everything about dealing with it is painful and prolonged. It doesn’t do brisk and casual. It can’t
If Scotland ever goes indy and decides to join the process will be difficult and slow, as it always is
It's not wish casting, it's simply a rational analysis of the most likely outcome. Of course nothing is certain in life except death and taxes. But if the EU rolled out a bespoke transition arrangement (and would have extended it longer if needed) for a country leaving the EU it almost certainly would have done so for a country that was desperate to rejoin and had no desire to ever diverge from EU laws and standards. Similarly, it's hard to imagine why the Efta countries would have blocked Scotland joining. Then EU membership can take as long as it needs to. Like Isay, if you want to argue against Scottish independence, there are far more plausible avenues to pursue than this one.
I’m not arguing for or against Sindy. I am just marvelling at the levels of delusional thinking on PB, when 100% of the evidence points entirely the opposite way
Again, it is weirdly and strikingly reminiscent of the bilge pumped out by the maddest Brexiteers. “Never mind it will be fine. German car makers. The EU will act entirely rationally. No one is threatening our place in the single market. Ulster is not a problem. Have a sandwich”
I sort of get it.
Fundamentally, many Scots are deeply proud of being Scottish and deeply frustrated they can't have the same level of freedom of action and independence in what they do that England does, or the French do. They are no "lesser" than them as a people, and yet they are not properly independent and not treated as such internationally. They feel marginalised by London and maybe disrespected at times, perhaps most of the time.
The problem is that Scotland has only 5 million people and has very limited economic geography that greatly constrains its options. There is a choice that works within the bounds of reality that gives them full independence but it comes at a hell of a coat because they simply don't have the tax base or numbers.
They'd want to be wealthier than England, and right up there with international influence on top, but that's cakeism and not the reality.
I think the best solution is to give Scotland more of a voice in a reformed UK but it's a hard one to make work.
I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.
The irony of course, as Mr Dancer noted, is that the SNP did want to leave the EU - just not in the way they ended up doing so.
The SNP wanted to leave the UK permanently, entailing a (hopefully) temporary exit from the EU by necessity not by design. To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off. I say this as someone who doesn't particularly like the SNP and has come to support Scottish independence lukewarmly and reluctantly.
That's still leaving the EU.
Also, I would point out they claimed that leaving the UK wouldn't mean leaving the EU, although Barroso noted this wasn't correct.
I've always found the SNP a bit dishonest, which I think is true of a lot of idealogues, eg Brexiteers, which is why I don't like them. But I think recently unionists have become just as dishonest, maybe more so. This claim that the SNP "wanted" to leave the EU is one example of that.
One implies the other.
If you say you want to drink 15 glasses of wine, that also involves 'wanting' to get drunk. Even if you'd rather not.
Like I said, if this is the standard of argument on the unionist side then it's fucked.
You put forward this argument:
To say that that equates to wanting to leave the EU is like saying that the guy who went rock climbing and ended up having to saw his own arm off in order to get out alive wanted to saw his arm off.
Which was a nonsensical argument. Because that wasn't inevitable. Most rock climbers do not have to saw their arms off. Only when things go disastrously wrong.
But it *was* inevitable that leaving the UK would mean Scotland leaving the EU. As in, drinking too much leads to getting drunk.
Your argument - forgive me - and your response is very typical unfortunately of the Nationalist agenda in Scotland (and Wales, which is why I've drifted away from it). You put forward a ludicrous argument, are shown why it's wrong, and then refuse to engage saying your right and reality is wrong because you don't want reality to be right.
Which, ironically, does show why Unionism in Scotland may be 'fucked' because their strongest argument is that becoming independent would be disastrous for Scotland. If independence supporters either don't care or are wilfully blind to that it's difficult to see how they won't keep hammering away until finally they're sent off to get out of everyone's hair.
At that point, as with Brexit, it will be realised they were lying and all the more sensible predictions of Remainers come true...
I'm not a nationalist, I'm a floating voter on this issue, someone who used to be a moderate unionist who has come to see the case for independence after Brexit but remains in two minds about it because of the obvious economic costs involved, in the short term at least. I'm giving you some honest advice - saying that the SNP wanted to leave the EU just isn't a convincing or meaningful argument that will sway anyone in the middle. It's just the kind of smug sophistry that will make unionists feel they are being terribly clever but to anyone who is in the centre on this issue it just sounds like bollocks. Feel free to disregard this advice of course if sounding clever is more important to you than convincing people.
You accuse someone else of smug sophistry?
Good grief.
Edit - the SNP put forward a prospectus that would have involved leaving the EU. That is a fact. They lied and said it wouldn't. That is also a fact. They may have been able to return to the EU later - in fact I think they probably would have done - but it would have had to be a medium term aspiration, as in probably 7-10 years. That is not a fact, but it's a reasonable interpretation of the situation and rules of the time.
It was this kind of nonsense that put me off them having as a (now former) Plaid supporter always rather admired them up to then.
The EU let East Germany join seconds after being a communist state. You really think they'd have put up significant barriers to an independent Scotland joining?
?
East Germany never joined the EU
Pedantic, they let the new Germany join immediately when the two countries merged.
Didn’t East Germany join West Germany?
potato patato , they merged in some fashion but it certainly was seen as two countries beforehand and became one different named single country.
A quite distinct process. East Germany joined West Germany, then the name was changed. No successor state or anything.
Actually, it even has the same name, FRG/BRD.
If Ukraine joined the EU, and at some future date was intimidated into merging with Russia, would the new Greater Russia automatically become a member of the EU?
How is that even comprable? In your scenario Ukraine would cease to exist.
Do you mean that if East and West Germany had merged to form a legally different entity, it would automatically have been outside the EU?
I don’t think that has ever been tested, has it? My argument is that didn’t happen, and that East Germany simply joined West Germany.
A major part of why it was done that way, was that the United Germany was automatically the successor state - part of all the organisations that West Germany had been a part of and signatory to the various treaties it had signed.
Actually I believe Germany was an enlarged state, not a successor state. The East German Parliament simply voted to abolish itself and transfer its functions to the Federal Government in Bonn, which had always claimed jurisdiction over East Germany anyway and had automatically given East German citizens West German citizenship on that basis.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
Again, delusional
I’ve no doubt there would be some delight in discomforting England in Paris and Brussels. But the EU is 27 capitals, most of them don’t give a fuck about England - or Scotland. And they ALL have a veto and will exact a price for not using it. A hard and difficult bargain would result, taking many years
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
And England would build the border posts from Northumberland to Cumbria the next day.
Scotland exports even more percentage wise to England than the UK did to the EU
True. And I apologise to @Heathener if she is giving us the facts. But I find the claim she is “saving boiled water for later” quite hard to accept
Because it doesn’t make sense. ChatGPT tells me it costs between 1 and 3 pence to boil a kettle. No one in the UK is so poor they have to do strange things to save two pence. Unless they are mad
...or misinformed. I suspect many people don't have a very clear idea of the costs of the various things they use electricity for. (Not helped by the media, who sometimes focus on small things like appliances on 'standby' and ignore more significant power drains.) So I can easily imagine people taking actions which seem like they're saving money without realizing that the amounts involved turn out to be very small.
There is quite a bit of fear and misunderstanding. Someone I know was saying she is 'too scared' to turn the heating on for more than one hour a day. But they are going to freeze and probably the pipes etc are going to freeze as well. It's better to just turn the theromostat down.
Misunderstanding is on your part. Internal pipes are at utterly minimal risk of freezing in an inhabited UK house. My interior temp hasn't dropped below 10C this last week, and that's with a couple of nights I have been out and not had a fire or other heating for 36 hours. It's vacant houses you have to worry about, or turn off the stopcock.
If you have a vaguely modern heating system, don’t “turn off” the heating system. Simply set it for a lower temperature. If you want 10c and you thermostat doesn’t go that low, change the thermostat. They aren’t terribly expensive.
On power drains - indeed. One that gets me is the way that many wireless router modems seem to be space heaters. Some you can’t put in a cupboard because they give off so much heat. Anything that is getting that toasty, 24/7…
Ovens don’t actually use vast amounts of electricity - they are actually heavily insulated boxes, designed to keep the heat in. Once up to temperature, the top up power required to keep them there is generally quite low.
I live in an old flat with a modern boiler and installed a Google Nest thermostat. Set to 20C during the day and 18C overnight. If I go out and there's no one at home it turns the heating off. I can check remotely whether I want it to come back on again before I get home. Even if I go away and turn the heating off it will turn on again to keep the temperature above 10C.
It also records how much the heating is on during the day, and as my Smart Meter gives me daily gas consumption I know how much my central heating is costing to run (about £1.25/hour). Typically its been on 4-6h per day in this cold snap.
On energy guzzlers Martin Lewis remarked that tumble dryers are real hogs, so I've started using a dehumidifier to get things pretty dry, then pop them in the dryer for 15 minutes so towels are fluffy etc.
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
Ireland shares no land border with England unlike Scotland
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
At the moment rUK accounts for 61% of Scottish exports and 67% of Scottish imports:
Ireland also still does a huge amount of trade with the UK, and has been affected too by Brexit barriers, but don't forget Ireland had a very difficult first 50 years of its existence before it started to do well. And it suffered far more than the UK in the GFC.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
And England would build the border posts from Northumberland to Cumbria the next day.
Scotland exports even more percentage wise to England than the UK did to the EU
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
I don't think Spain have ever actually said they would veto Scottish entry to the EU, even in 2014. What they have consistently said however is that they would not permit any move to expedite it, although given the EU itself made the same point that's not relevant either.
Croatia took 8 years to join the EU, from a position of being far further from EU laws and institutional standards than Scotland is. When Sweden, Austria and Finland joined the process was much quicker, I would expect it to be more like that. A one or two year transition period followed by Efta membership would have been the more likely path pre 2016. Now I would expect that Scotland would join Efta soon after leaving the UK and get into the EU about 5 years after that. No expedited process is necessary, because the process will be relatively short by the nature of Scotland's clear readiness to join.
I have been in London for the last few weeks and as my son is now responsible for the bills he is taking the "save energy / save money" dictum very seriously indeed.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
You would have thought after the death of that poor little lad in Rochdale due to the consequences of excessive moisture in their home this would have brought about some desire for change.
All that has happened so far is the Head of the housing association has been removed from his job.
There is an activist who is regularly on TV talking about the dire condition of social housing, but it seems little is happening to remedy it.
As for building new homes, which are desperately needed, we are in full on Nimby mode as a nation.
People blocking all vents in certain types of properties is the next, on going disaster. Happening right now
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
Ireland shares no land border with England unlike Scotland
True almost 20 miles away so they are really stupid doing all that trade with the EU instead of UK
I have been in London for the last few weeks and as my son is now responsible for the bills he is taking the "save energy / save money" dictum very seriously indeed.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
You would have thought after the death of that poor little lad in Rochdale due to the consequences of excessive moisture in their home this would have brought about some desire for change.
All that has happened so far is the Head of the housing association has been removed from his job.
There is an activist who is regularly on TV talking about the dire condition of social housing, but it seems little is happening to remedy it.
As for building new homes, which are desperately needed, we are in full on Nimby mode as a nation.
I find it genuinely shocking that this story has not led to more push for action. I have suffered from respiratory problems my entire life, in part because of such conditions. But we should not tolerate in the 2020's the poor housing conditions of the 1960's. We really should not.
I presume if an EU member Ukraine was absorbed into Greater Russia it would cease to be an EU member? If the states were merged I'm assuming they would have to leave the EU? The only way Russia would be joining the EU is if it was subsumed into Ukraine which currently seems unlikely.
The interesting one is Moldova. They are looking at independent EU accession and Nato membership though if it was subsumed into Romania I assume they would automatically be part of both.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
The Spanish care far more about Catalonia than about spiting the English.
True. And I apologise to @Heathener if she is giving us the facts. But I find the claim she is “saving boiled water for later” quite hard to accept
Because it doesn’t make sense. ChatGPT tells me it costs between 1 and 3 pence to boil a kettle. No one in the UK is so poor they have to do strange things to save two pence. Unless they are mad
...or misinformed. I suspect many people don't have a very clear idea of the costs of the various things they use electricity for. (Not helped by the media, who sometimes focus on small things like appliances on 'standby' and ignore more significant power drains.) So I can easily imagine people taking actions which seem like they're saving money without realizing that the amounts involved turn out to be very small.
There is quite a bit of fear and misunderstanding. Someone I know was saying she is 'too scared' to turn the heating on for more than one hour a day. But they are going to freeze and probably the pipes etc are going to freeze as well. It's better to just turn the theromostat down.
Misunderstanding is on your part. Internal pipes are at utterly minimal risk of freezing in an inhabited UK house. My interior temp hasn't dropped below 10C this last week, and that's with a couple of nights I have been out and not had a fire or other heating for 36 hours. It's vacant houses you have to worry about, or turn off the stopcock.
If you have a vaguely modern heating system, don’t “turn off” the heating system. Simply set it for a lower temperature. If you want 10c and you thermostat doesn’t go that low, change the thermostat. They aren’t terribly expensive.
On power drains - indeed. One that gets me is the way that many wireless router modems seem to be space heaters. Some you can’t put in a cupboard because they give off so much heat. Anything that is getting that toasty, 24/7…
Ovens don’t actually use vast amounts of electricity - they are actually heavily insulated boxes, designed to keep the heat in. Once up to temperature, the top up power required to keep them there is generally quite low.
I live in an old flat with a modern boiler and installed a Google Nest thermostat. Set to 20C during the day and 18C overnight. If I go out and there's no one at home it turns the heating off. I can check remotely whether I want it to come back on again before I get home. Even if I go away and turn the heating off it will turn on again to keep the temperature above 10C.
It also records how much the heating is on during the day, and as my Smart Meter gives me daily gas consumption I know how much my central heating is costing to run (about £1.25/hour). Typically its been on 4-6h per day in this cold snap.
On energy guzzlers Martin Lewis remarked that tumble dryers are real hogs, so I've started using a dehumidifier to get things pretty dry, then pop them in the dryer for 15 minutes so towels are fluffy etc.
Tumble dryers - the old ones, yes. The air source ones that recycle the heat are much more efficient. Though still expensive m, the prices are coming down.
De humidifiers are a very good idea. Particularly the ones with a trigger sensor - they only run when there is actually enough damp in the air to be needed.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
I don't think Spain have ever actually said they would veto Scottish entry to the EU, even in 2014. What they have consistently said however is that they would not permit any move to expedite it, although given the EU itself made the same point that's not relevant either.
Croatia took 8 years to join the EU, from a position of being far further from EU laws and institutional standards than Scotland is. When Sweden, Austria and Finland joined the process was much quicker, I would expect it to be more like that. A one or two year transition period followed by Efta membership would have been the more likely path pre 2016. Now I would expect that Scotland would join Efta soon after leaving the UK and get into the EU about 5 years after that. No expedited process is necessary, because the process will be relatively short by the nature of Scotland's clear readiness to join.
So it would leave the EU and take about 7 years.
Which is what I was actually saying to start with...
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
I don't think Spain have ever actually said they would veto Scottish entry to the EU, even in 2014. What they have consistently said however is that they would not permit any move to expedite it, although given the EU itself made the same point that's not relevant either.
Croatia took 8 years to join the EU, from a position of being far further from EU laws and institutional standards than Scotland is. When Sweden, Austria and Finland joined the process was much quicker, I would expect it to be more like that. A one or two year transition period followed by Efta membership would have been the more likely path pre 2016. Now I would expect that Scotland would join Efta soon after leaving the UK and get into the EU about 5 years after that. No expedited process is necessary, because the process will be relatively short by the nature of Scotland's clear readiness to join.
There ya go again
“I expect everything will be fine”
Breaking up the UK alone would probably take 10 years. Brexit itself took 5
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
The Spanish care far more about Catalonia than about spiting the English.
Do the member states have that much sovereignty in the face of The Project's glacial will.
Remember the Lisbon Treaty! Was the leavers' cry as the tattered UJ y-fronts were run up the flagpole.
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
Ireland shares no land border with England unlike Scotland
But England is not what counts here. It is the rump UK that counts. Unless Wales and NI have left the rUK?
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
The Spanish care far more about Catalonia than about spiting the English.
Do the member states have that much sovereignty in the face of The Project's glacial will.
Remember the Lisbon Treaty! Was the leavers' cry as the tattered UJ y-fronts were run up the flagpole.
Well, Turkey is still buggering about with Finland and Sweden over NATO (or at least, it was last time I checked).
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
The Spanish care far more about Catalonia than about spiting the English.
Do the member states have that much sovereignty in the face of The Project's glacial will.
Remember the Lisbon Treaty! Was the leavers' cry as the tattered UJ y-fronts were run up the flagpole.
You are consumed with a deep self-hatred for your own country, what happened in your past I do not know, and it colours your judgement IMHO.
You are otherwise perfectly intelligent and capable of rational analysis.
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Look at Ireland. Roughly the same size. Broadly the same dependence on an economic relationship with the rest of the UK due to proximity and history.
They had many rough decades, have several weaknesses in the way the country is run, but generally I'd have to say they've made a success of independence.
The transition for Scotland would undoubtedly be hard, but they would have an opportunity to make a success of things.
My opposition to Independence for Scotland is in two parts.
Firstly it is instinctive. I simply prefer for countries to work closely together, dislike borders and generally like Britain as an entity.
Secondly, I think it would create a lot of work and distraction and leave more important problems unaddressed. There's simply so much else that is more important that needs to be done. Scotland doesn't need to be distracted with all the work of creating new state institutions when it has huge drug problems, faltering efforts to reduce carbon emissions, challenges in maintaining communications with the islands and a variety of other issues to address.
And if it does address those problems then it is well-placed to benefit from influencing the rest of Britain to move in the same direction.
The 2014 referendum envisioned a gap of, iirc, around 18 months between the referendum and independence, which was explicitly for Scotland to negotiate it's day 1 position.
There is no reason to think the UK and the EU would not authorise negotiations to proceed in that interrim and, although there were some moving parts and difficulties between different negotiations (currency in particular), there was no reason to think those negotiations would not have been progressed constructively and positively, so that there could not be an agreed day 1 membership deal
Arrant nonsense. The rUK and Scotland would have had to settle their divorce, entirely - from currency to nukes to pensions to fishing - before the EU could even begin negotiations on “re-admission”. Coz the EU would need to know IScotland’s final status, and thus what kind of country it would be allowing in
Would likely have taken a decade to sort it out
I think it's highly unlikely Scotland could have joined the EU on day one. I think it's also highly unlikely that it would have been ejected from the single market on day one. The most likely course would have been a one or two year transition period followed by Efta followed by EU membership 5-10 years down the line, with minimal disruption to trade. The powerful arguments against independence are the currency and the fiscal deficit. And now Brexit complicates things on the border. But whether or not Scotland would have been allowed to join the EU and how quickly is a red herring IMHO.
But again this is just weak-minded hopecasting. “Oh it’ll probably be fine”. “Oh they’ll let us stay in that bit”. “Let’s not worry about it”
What is it about the EU that makes you think they would have or will be totally chilled about a new country in the Single Market and won’t cause any fuss about a breakaway nation?
There is zero evidence of the EU ever behaving like this. It is a huge lumbering legalistic beast (deliberately so) which proceeds at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy of 27
Everything about dealing with it is painful and prolonged. It doesn’t do brisk and casual. It can’t
If Scotland ever goes indy and decides to join the process will be difficult and slow, as it always is
It's not wish casting, it's simply a rational analysis of the most likely outcome. Of course nothing is certain in life except death and taxes. But if the EU rolled out a bespoke transition arrangement (and would have extended it longer if needed) for a country leaving the EU it almost certainly would have done so for a country that was desperate to rejoin and had no desire to ever diverge from EU laws and standards. Similarly, it's hard to imagine why the Efta countries would have blocked Scotland joining. Then EU membership can take as long as it needs to. Like Isay, if you want to argue against Scottish independence, there are far more plausible avenues to pursue than this one.
I’m not arguing for or against Sindy. I am just marvelling at the levels of delusional thinking on PB, when 100% of the evidence points entirely the opposite way
Again, it is weirdly and strikingly reminiscent of the bilge pumped out by the maddest Brexiteers. “Never mind it will be fine. German car makers. The EU will act entirely rationally. No one is threatening our place in the single market. Ulster is not a problem. Have a sandwich”
I sort of get it.
Fundamentally, many Scots are deeply proud of being Scottish and deeply frustrated they can't have the same level of freedom of action and independence in what they do that England does, or the French do. They are no "lesser" than them as a people, and yet they are not properly independent and not treated as such internationally. They feel marginalised by London and maybe disrespected at times, perhaps most of the time.
The problem is that Scotland has only 5 million people and has very limited economic geography that greatly constrains its options. There is a choice that works within the bounds of reality that gives them full independence but it comes at a hell of a coat because they simply don't have the tax base or numbers.
They'd want to be wealthier than England, and right up there with international influence on top, but that's cakeism and not the reality.
I think the best solution is to give Scotland more of a voice in a reformed UK but it's a hard one to make work.
You probably need to go a bit further than this; I think you need a Home Rule scenario where it is only defence that is shared, to have something genuinely workable. But it would be painful to get there.
But otherwise the union could well just limp on. Breaking it up is too disruptive and there are many other more pressing problems to fix.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
I don't think Spain have ever actually said they would veto Scottish entry to the EU, even in 2014. What they have consistently said however is that they would not permit any move to expedite it, although given the EU itself made the same point that's not relevant either.
Croatia took 8 years to join the EU, from a position of being far further from EU laws and institutional standards than Scotland is. When Sweden, Austria and Finland joined the process was much quicker, I would expect it to be more like that. A one or two year transition period followed by Efta membership would have been the more likely path pre 2016. Now I would expect that Scotland would join Efta soon after leaving the UK and get into the EU about 5 years after that. No expedited process is necessary, because the process will be relatively short by the nature of Scotland's clear readiness to join.
This is true but Scotland has a few issues that Croatia does not.
One would be Schengen. Secondly, is there a hard border?. Thirdly, the Euro.
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
Ireland shares no land border with England unlike Scotland
But England is not what counts here. It is the rump UK that counts. Unless Wales and NI have left the rUK?
If Scotland left the UK and rejoined the EU, then there would like a United Ireland within a few years (with maybe Antrim declaring UDI).
England and Wales would therefore be the rump state, both having voted for Brexit unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland (Wales unlikely to survive outside the UK and outside the EU).
Wales also technically part of the Kingdom of England originally, there was never an Act of Union between England and Wales as there was between England and Scotland and England and Ireland
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
I don't think Spain have ever actually said they would veto Scottish entry to the EU, even in 2014. What they have consistently said however is that they would not permit any move to expedite it, although given the EU itself made the same point that's not relevant either.
Croatia took 8 years to join the EU, from a position of being far further from EU laws and institutional standards than Scotland is. When Sweden, Austria and Finland joined the process was much quicker, I would expect it to be more like that. A one or two year transition period followed by Efta membership would have been the more likely path pre 2016. Now I would expect that Scotland would join Efta soon after leaving the UK and get into the EU about 5 years after that. No expedited process is necessary, because the process will be relatively short by the nature of Scotland's clear readiness to join.
There ya go again
“I expect everything will be fine”
Breaking up the UK alone would probably take 10 years. Brexit itself took 5
As any sensible intelligent person would know , it would take as long to unravel the UK as it would to rejoin the EU so , meanwhile Scotland could do interim deals rather than take the brexit view and damage itself in isolation.
Calm yourselves. If we get a prolonged cold period over the Christmas holidays, then there will be a spate of burst pipes and flooded houses...but really only in the properties that were left empty for the Christmas break. Places like student houses and where people have gone away for a while. The pipes freeze, pop a dodgy joint, and once thawed, flood the gaff, or the next door neighbour or the flat downstairs. The Fire Service will spend the next few days after the thaw breaking into properties and turning stopcocks off. I've never been to a house with a burst pipe caused by freezing that was occupied.
The consequences will be different in every case but it certainly does happen. It is an area however where it is probably better to defer to professional advice from a surveyor, rather than using PB.
I'm not saying it can't happen, but I think it takes a few things to align to go bang. We inherited a small wooden property by the river, the walls are basically 50mm of insulation sandwiched between ply with some wooden cladding on the exterior. The plan is to sell our place and move into the riverside place and to do a Grand Design job on it. I use Alexa to monitor temperature and humidity in the cabin and have rigged up a couple of electric heaters on a smart WiFi plug so that I can turn the heating on from home if needed. I'm currently running an experiment to see how cold it gets during this cold snap. It got down to 2.4°c last night in the coldest part of the cabin. If anyone has any ideas or experience on heating a wooden property via electricity longterm that doesn't include a heat pump, I'd like to hear from you!
I would have thought that a heat pump, with river water as a source of heat, would be relatively inexpensive in the long term.
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
Ireland shares no land border with England unlike Scotland
True almost 20 miles away so they are really stupid doing all that trade with the EU instead of UK
There is a sea border between Ireland and GB as there is a sea border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.
There is a sea border between Scotland and the EU but no sea border between Scotland and England
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
I don't think Spain have ever actually said they would veto Scottish entry to the EU, even in 2014. What they have consistently said however is that they would not permit any move to expedite it, although given the EU itself made the same point that's not relevant either.
Croatia took 8 years to join the EU, from a position of being far further from EU laws and institutional standards than Scotland is. When Sweden, Austria and Finland joined the process was much quicker, I would expect it to be more like that. A one or two year transition period followed by Efta membership would have been the more likely path pre 2016. Now I would expect that Scotland would join Efta soon after leaving the UK and get into the EU about 5 years after that. No expedited process is necessary, because the process will be relatively short by the nature of Scotland's clear readiness to join.
This is true but Scotland has a few issues that Croatia does not.
One would be Schengen. Secondly, is there a hard border?. Thirdly, the Euro.
Also fishing. The EU would drive a hard bargain
Realistically, to go from a vote for YES through breaking up the UK to actual Scottish accession would take 10-15 years
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
Ireland shares no land border with England unlike Scotland
True almost 20 miles away so they are really stupid doing all that trade with the EU instead of UK
There is a sea border between Ireland and GB as there is a sea border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.
There is a sea border between Scotland and the EU but no sea border between Scotland and England
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
Ireland shares no land border with England unlike Scotland
But England is not what counts here. It is the rump UK that counts. Unless Wales and NI have left the rUK?
Carnyx , you should well know they matter not a jot , expected to just do as ordered.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
The Spanish care far more about Catalonia than about spiting the English.
Do the member states have that much sovereignty in the face of The Project's glacial will.
Remember the Lisbon Treaty! Was the leavers' cry as the tattered UJ y-fronts were run up the flagpole.
Exactly the nutters on here go on about how England had to leave EU to get back it's sovereignty yet when applied to Scotland suddenly every country in EU has total sovereignty and can veto anything at will.
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Look at Ireland. Roughly the same size. Broadly the same dependence on an economic relationship with the rest of the UK due to proximity and history.
They had many rough decades, have several weaknesses in the way the country is run, but generally I'd have to say they've made a success of independence.
The transition for Scotland would undoubtedly be hard, but they would have an opportunity to make a success of things.
My opposition to Independence for Scotland is in two parts.
Firstly it is instinctive. I simply prefer for countries to work closely together, dislike borders and generally like Britain as an entity.
Secondly, I think it would create a lot of work and distraction and leave more important problems unaddressed. There's simply so much else that is more important that needs to be done. Scotland doesn't need to be distracted with all the work of creating new state institutions when it has huge drug problems, faltering efforts to reduce carbon emissions, challenges in maintaining communications with the islands and a variety of other issues to address.
And if it does address those problems then it is well-placed to benefit from influencing the rest of Britain to move in the same direction.
Impossible to fix those problems without independence when all the levers of power are in the hands of Westminster , aka English government.
I really can't be arsed with the next two weeks, shovelling shit for ungrateful clients.
Can't it be Christmas now please?
I want to watch classic 80s action flicks, play boardgames with my kids, feast and drink like a trooper.
My client is shutting down development work for Christmas at the end of next week, for which I'm very grateful. You have my sympathies.
Tutoring meanwhile gets much busier over the festive period. However, that tends to be the best and most motivated students looking for extra work who are a pleasure to teach.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
The Spanish care far more about Catalonia than about spiting the English.
Do the member states have that much sovereignty in the face of The Project's glacial will.
Remember the Lisbon Treaty! Was the leavers' cry as the tattered UJ y-fronts were run up the flagpole.
You are consumed with a deep self-hatred for your own country, what happened in your past I do not know, and it colours your judgement IMHO.
You are otherwise perfectly intelligent and capable of rational analysis.
Your attempts at amateur Internet psychiatry are degrading and demeaning.
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Look at Ireland. Roughly the same size. Broadly the same dependence on an economic relationship with the rest of the UK due to proximity and history.
They had many rough decades, have several weaknesses in the way the country is run, but generally I'd have to say they've made a success of independence.
The transition for Scotland would undoubtedly be hard, but they would have an opportunity to make a success of things.
My opposition to Independence for Scotland is in two parts.
Firstly it is instinctive. I simply prefer for countries to work closely together, dislike borders and generally like Britain as an entity.
Secondly, I think it would create a lot of work and distraction and leave more important problems unaddressed. There's simply so much else that is more important that needs to be done. Scotland doesn't need to be distracted with all the work of creating new state institutions when it has huge drug problems, faltering efforts to reduce carbon emissions, challenges in maintaining communications with the islands and a variety of other issues to address.
And if it does address those problems then it is well-placed to benefit from influencing the rest of Britain to move in the same direction.
Impossible to fix those problems without independence when all the levers of power are in the hands of Westminster , aka English government.
Most Scottish domestic policy already decided at Holyrood and Starmer and Brown would give it control over more tax policy and attendance at foreign summits too
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
Nice to see all the lovely people on here wishing and praying that Scotland do badly and that the EU will gouge them like England does at present.
The pseudo Unionists on here whose first port of call is Scotland is shite and second is if they go Indy we’ll stomp all over them out of impotent pique are some of my favourite things about PB. Not that PB has any influence in the matter but these lads are only capable of turning views of the Union one way.
Primary issue with Scottish independence at the moment seems more to be with the SNP, who want to talk about independence in order to win elections within the current constitutional setup more than they actually want to do anything to actually achieve independence and thereby essentially end the reason for existence of the party.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Good point, but in the event that Scotland had already gone Indy (so no deterrent value) and given the benefits to Spain in terms of fishing and potentially oil, I think they would be persuaded. Either that or the accession rules fudged or changed. I really think a way would be found for it to happen, as with so many things, like the European constitution being changed to a treaty to avoid the hurdle of referenda.
I have been in London for the last few weeks and as my son is now responsible for the bills he is taking the "save energy / save money" dictum very seriously indeed.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
Swapping old fashioned fire for old fashioned wood burner has been life changing for me. The fire just sucks cold air in from the rest of the house, the woodburner does not. I don't really understand this, because where is the woodburner getting its air from, but it works.
It also partly about the black body effect. The stove is not set into the wall, but is proud of it. It gets hot, radiates heat. Fireplaces didn’t do that - most heat was lost directly upwards. Stoves also have restricted air flow so burn steadier and slower, and thus draw in less air.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
Nice to see all the lovely people on here wishing and praying that Scotland do badly and that the EU will gouge them like England does at present.
The pseudo Unionists on here whose first port of call is Scotland is shite and second is if they go Indy we’ll stomp all over them out of impotent pique are some of my favourite things about PB. Not that PB has any influence in the matter but these lads are only capable of turning views of the Union one way.
Nationalists hate England and already made up 45% of Scots even before Brexit.
I hope the remaining 55% still support the Union, maybe with devomax.
If not then I am afraid Westminster would take as hard a line with the Scottish government post Scexit as Brussels took with the UK government in Brexit talks
Primary issue with Scottish independence at the moment seems more to be with the SNP, who want to talk about independence in order to win elections within the current constitutional setup more than they actually want to do anything to actually achieve independence and thereby essentially end the reason for existence of the party.
Far too many fat and happy troughers got their feet under the table and just want to retain what they have and keep milking it.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Of course. And there are plenty more EU members that would use an iScottish accession to cause mischief and get rewarded. It’s how the EU works
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
I think you have been hanging out with AIs too much trying to get them to produce the much yearned for Kari Lake - Ron De Santis slashfic. A purely logic driven model of Scotland's accession is incomplete. In a post-Brexit environment you have to add some emotional considerations. Scotland would get the VIP lane to spite England. It's that simple.
The Spanish care far more about Catalonia than about spiting the English.
Do the member states have that much sovereignty in the face of The Project's glacial will.
Remember the Lisbon Treaty! Was the leavers' cry as the tattered UJ y-fronts were run up the flagpole.
Scottish membership is not critical to the foundations of the EU. I hope we can all agree on that.
Calm yourselves. If we get a prolonged cold period over the Christmas holidays, then there will be a spate of burst pipes and flooded houses...but really only in the properties that were left empty for the Christmas break. Places like student houses and where people have gone away for a while. The pipes freeze, pop a dodgy joint, and once thawed, flood the gaff, or the next door neighbour or the flat downstairs. The Fire Service will spend the next few days after the thaw breaking into properties and turning stopcocks off. I've never been to a house with a burst pipe caused by freezing that was occupied.
The consequences will be different in every case but it certainly does happen. It is an area however where it is probably better to defer to professional advice from a surveyor, rather than using PB.
I'm not saying it can't happen, but I think it takes a few things to align to go bang. We inherited a small wooden property by the river, the walls are basically 50mm of insulation sandwiched between ply with some wooden cladding on the exterior. The plan is to sell our place and move into the riverside place and to do a Grand Design job on it. I use Alexa to monitor temperature and humidity in the cabin and have rigged up a couple of electric heaters on a smart WiFi plug so that I can turn the heating on from home if needed. I'm currently running an experiment to see how cold it gets during this cold snap. It got down to 2.4°c last night in the coldest part of the cabin. If anyone has any ideas or experience on heating a wooden property via electricity longterm that doesn't include a heat pump, I'd like to hear from you!
I would have thought that a heat pump, with river water as a source of heat, would be relatively inexpensive in the long term.
My brother caused a moment - we were staying, for an event at a chateaux in Normandy. The owner was saying that heating it was somewhere between ruinous and impossible.
My brother sketched out how he’d lay the ground side of a heat pump in the ornamental lake, and power the pump etc from a Pelton wheel on the stream that feed it.
There was a rusty old Pelton wheel as an ornament in the garden. The owner hadn’t realised what it was. If you looked, the foundation setup in the stream was still visible.
We haven't had a really good stairheed rammy over Scottish independence for a while. This one is simmering nicely but I don't know if it's going to go nuclear.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
I don't think Spain have ever actually said they would veto Scottish entry to the EU, even in 2014. What they have consistently said however is that they would not permit any move to expedite it, although given the EU itself made the same point that's not relevant either.
Croatia took 8 years to join the EU, from a position of being far further from EU laws and institutional standards than Scotland is. When Sweden, Austria and Finland joined the process was much quicker, I would expect it to be more like that. A one or two year transition period followed by Efta membership would have been the more likely path pre 2016. Now I would expect that Scotland would join Efta soon after leaving the UK and get into the EU about 5 years after that. No expedited process is necessary, because the process will be relatively short by the nature of Scotland's clear readiness to join.
This is true but Scotland has a few issues that Croatia does not.
One would be Schengen. Secondly, is there a hard border?. Thirdly, the Euro.
Also fishing. The EU would drive a hard bargain
Realistically, to go from a vote for YES through breaking up the UK to actual Scottish accession would take 10-15 years
Maybe. Brexit seems to be resolved (albeit in an unsatisfactory way) and we are only 6 years on.
I don't like it but I think that the Scots have a right to do it. Much as I accept Brexit, it was an English initiative imposed on Scotland. The English have to live with this as a consequence of the decisions we took between 2015 and 2020. Democracy has to work.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
The accession of a new country into the EU requires a new treaty signed by every member. If there was any member with a troublesome independence desiring province (say Spain) they would veto.
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
Not true. It's the legality issue the Spanish Gmt focus on. They have said this.
I don't think Spain have ever actually said they would veto Scottish entry to the EU, even in 2014. What they have consistently said however is that they would not permit any move to expedite it, although given the EU itself made the same point that's not relevant either.
Croatia took 8 years to join the EU, from a position of being far further from EU laws and institutional standards than Scotland is. When Sweden, Austria and Finland joined the process was much quicker, I would expect it to be more like that. A one or two year transition period followed by Efta membership would have been the more likely path pre 2016. Now I would expect that Scotland would join Efta soon after leaving the UK and get into the EU about 5 years after that. No expedited process is necessary, because the process will be relatively short by the nature of Scotland's clear readiness to join.
This is true but Scotland has a few issues that Croatia does not.
One would be Schengen. Secondly, is there a hard border?. Thirdly, the Euro.
Also fishing. The EU would drive a hard bargain
Realistically, to go from a vote for YES through breaking up the UK to actual Scottish accession would take 10-15 years
But it would happen. The only problem would be that Scotland would in my opinion be less wealthy and less free than at present. However, for many in Scotland a punch in the face from the French is more desirable than a handshake from the English.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
Nice to see all the lovely people on here wishing and praying that Scotland do badly and that the EU will gouge them like England does at present.
The pseudo Unionists on here whose first port of call is Scotland is shite and second is if they go Indy we’ll stomp all over them out of impotent pique are some of my favourite things about PB. Not that PB has any influence in the matter but these lads are only capable of turning views of the Union one way.
Nationalists hate England and already made up 45% of Scots even before Brexit.
I hope the remaining 55% still support the Union, maybe with devomax.
If not then I am afraid Westminster would take as hard a line with the Scottish government post Scexit as Brussels took with the UK government in Brexit talks
I disagree that they all hate England. I actually spend a bit of time up there and it isn't the impression I get. Firstly many have a clear belief in Scottish self-determination and secondly people just don't like the status quo.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
Nice to see all the lovely people on here wishing and praying that Scotland do badly and that the EU will gouge them like England does at present.
The pseudo Unionists on here whose first port of call is Scotland is shite and second is if they go Indy we’ll stomp all over them out of impotent pique are some of my favourite things about PB. Not that PB has any influence in the matter but these lads are only capable of turning views of the Union one way.
Nationalists hate England and already made up 45% of Scots even before Brexit.
I hope the remaining 55% still support the Union, maybe with devomax.
If not then I am afraid Westminster would take as hard a line with the Scottish government post Scexit as Brussels took with the UK government in Brexit talks
I disagree that they all hate England. I actually spend a bit of time up there and it isn't the impression I get. Firstly many have a clear belief in Scottish self-determination and secondly people just don't like the status quo.
You obviously did not see the SNP Jock French supporters last night cheering at England's exit
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
Ireland shares no land border with England unlike Scotland
True almost 20 miles away so they are really stupid doing all that trade with the EU instead of UK
There is a sea border between Ireland and GB as there is a sea border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.
There is a sea border between Scotland and the EU but no sea border between Scotland and England
I have been in London for the last few weeks and as my son is now responsible for the bills he is taking the "save energy / save money" dictum very seriously indeed.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
You would have thought after the death of that poor little lad in Rochdale due to the consequences of excessive moisture in their home this would have brought about some desire for change.
All that has happened so far is the Head of the housing association has been removed from his job.
There is an activist who is regularly on TV talking about the dire condition of social housing, but it seems little is happening to remedy it.
As for building new homes, which are desperately needed, we are in full on Nimby mode as a nation.
Re houses - not in Scotland. A modest (if still arguably insufficient, but useful) programme of council house building. So it is possible. But where the difference lies I'm not at all sure.
The difference lies in political outlook. Scotland - left of centre, council houses good, equality good, decent standards of living good. England - right of centre, council houses seen as a sign of failure of ambition, equality - no, I want to be unequal, and richer than others, decent standards of living - as long as I’m all right, I not bothered about others. The differences in outlook are one reason for many Scots wanting independence.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
Nice to see all the lovely people on here wishing and praying that Scotland do badly and that the EU will gouge them like England does at present.
The pseudo Unionists on here whose first port of call is Scotland is shite and second is if they go Indy we’ll stomp all over them out of impotent pique are some of my favourite things about PB. Not that PB has any influence in the matter but these lads are only capable of turning views of the Union one way.
Nationalists hate England and already made up 45% of Scots even before Brexit.
I hope the remaining 55% still support the Union, maybe with devomax.
If not then I am afraid Westminster would take as hard a line with the Scottish government post Scexit as Brussels took with the UK government in Brexit talks
I disagree that they all hate England. I actually spend a bit of time up there and it isn't the impression I get. Firstly many have a clear belief in Scottish self-determination and secondly people just don't like the status quo.
Hating England is overstating the case (though some do), but as an English person who lives here, there is a resentment of the English and a strong belief in Scotland's victimhood at the hands of the English which is a powerful lense through which most indy supporters view politics. This includes people I am happy to call good friends. In terms of our own indy supporters, you have out and proud England-hating nutter(s), but even the far more level headed posters will catch you off-guard with the odd peculiar misconception about what motivates English people and policy (and of course, they in turn can correct English posters about what makes Scottish people tick). I was told for example that English people hate displays of the Saltire. Nothing could be further from the truth - I have never met a single English person with any negative feelings toward the Saltire.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
Nice to see all the lovely people on here wishing and praying that Scotland do badly and that the EU will gouge them like England does at present.
The pseudo Unionists on here whose first port of call is Scotland is shite and second is if they go Indy we’ll stomp all over them out of impotent pique are some of my favourite things about PB. Not that PB has any influence in the matter but these lads are only capable of turning views of the Union one way.
Nationalists hate England and already made up 45% of Scots even before Brexit.
I hope the remaining 55% still support the Union, maybe with devomax.
If not then I am afraid Westminster would take as hard a line with the Scottish government post Scexit as Brussels took with the UK government in Brexit talks
I am a nationalist. I do not hate England, or the English. I strongly object to your unfounded accusation, and would appreciate an apology.
I have been in London for the last few weeks and as my son is now responsible for the bills he is taking the "save energy / save money" dictum very seriously indeed.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
You would have thought after the death of that poor little lad in Rochdale due to the consequences of excessive moisture in their home this would have brought about some desire for change.
All that has happened so far is the Head of the housing association has been removed from his job.
There is an activist who is regularly on TV talking about the dire condition of social housing, but it seems little is happening to remedy it.
As for building new homes, which are desperately needed, we are in full on Nimby mode as a nation.
Re houses - not in Scotland. A modest (if still arguably insufficient, but useful) programme of council house building. So it is possible. But where the difference lies I'm not at all sure.
The difference lies in political outlook. Scotland - left of centre, council houses good, equality good, decent standards of living good. England - right of centre, council houses seen as a sign of failure of ambition, equality - no, I want to be unequal, and richer than others, decent standards of living - as long as I’m all right, I not bothered about others. The differences in outlook are one reason for many Scots wanting independence.
What you say may be true, but the housing shortage in England is due to immigration. Scotland has very little by comparison, so houses are less scarce.
Without a shadow of a doubt the EU would let indy Scotland back in. They'd want to cause as much trouble as possible for ROUK, exceptions would be made. I would also be certain that adopting the euro would be a condition. Depending on how strong the EU felt their hand was (pretty strong I'd say) they might also demand that the proceeds of North Sea Oil be divided between member states. This has long been a wish of France. Overall, I suspect very little net extra in the way of Scottish sovereignty would result, with Scotland exchanging a fairly large representation within the UK, for a tiny one within the EU. For many, if this meant being with the nice Europeans and not the hated English, these prices would be worth paying.
Nice to see all the lovely people on here wishing and praying that Scotland do badly and that the EU will gouge them like England does at present.
The pseudo Unionists on here whose first port of call is Scotland is shite and second is if they go Indy we’ll stomp all over them out of impotent pique are some of my favourite things about PB. Not that PB has any influence in the matter but these lads are only capable of turning views of the Union one way.
Nationalists hate England and already made up 45% of Scots even before Brexit.
I hope the remaining 55% still support the Union, maybe with devomax.
If not then I am afraid Westminster would take as hard a line with the Scottish government post Scexit as Brussels took with the UK government in Brexit talks
I am a nationalist. I do not hate England, or the English. I strongly object to your unfounded accusation, and would appreciate an apology.
Most of your posts suggest otherwise.
And even if they didn't the majority of Nationalists still do hate England as their reaction to last night's England exit affirmed and their constant anti English rhetoric confirms.
I think the trouble with Scottish independence (and I freely admit they are a country/people with a distinct identity) is that any under guise Scotland is going to need, due to geography and its economic structure, a very close relationship with rUK, with which it will always do the vast majority of its trade.
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
Is that like how Ireland still have to do all their trade with England.
Ireland shares no land border with England unlike Scotland
True almost 20 miles away so they are really stupid doing all that trade with the EU instead of UK
There is a sea border between Ireland and GB as there is a sea border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.
There is a sea border between Scotland and the EU but no sea border between Scotland and England
Comments
The logical solution would either be what it has now - strong devolution of tax, law, education, health and social policy, with a distinct identity within the UK - or to confederate Scotland with more of a distinct voice within a reformed UK, with more say over currency, social security, macro-taxation, security and foreign policy. Perhaps constitutional and HoL reform could help here.
Full independence? Sure, Scotland could be totally independent, with full freedom over foreign, defence, security, currency, social security and tax, but it would have to pay for absolutely everything itself - out of its own far more limited resources - and at a massive economic cost if they wanted to go a very different way to the rest of the UK; that probably wouldn't be accepted by most Scots, once it became clear, as it would hit the employment market, and impact heavily in their pay packets and standard of living.
(Also, I can't turn the stopcock off until Severn Trent have put one in. Yes, I'm serious.)
Again, it is weirdly and strikingly reminiscent of the bilge pumped out by the maddest Brexiteers. “Never mind it will be fine. German car makers. The EU will act entirely rationally. No one is threatening our place in the single market. Ulster is not a problem. Have a sandwich”
I don’t know anyone who keeps it that low - I was badged by my wife and daughters, later, to set it to 21c.
Part of it is expectation - people, these days want to wander round their house dressed for the beach in a hot country. Wearing a layer over your T-shirt is seen as a bit weird.
He is out at work all day, wears thermals and goes swimming and cycling in his free time. So he does not really feel the cold. An electric blanket and extra blankets does for him.
I on the other hand have been working from home so a temperature of 10 degrees is a bit challenging. Fortunately, an old-fashioned fire and dressing like an extra in Dr Zhivago (snoods, wrist warmers & lots of layers plus hot water bottles) is seeing me through. Also keeping curtains closed and closing doors helps.
We updated the boiler this year so it all works more efficiently and has been properly serviced etc.
But all of this is fine in a generally well maintained house.
For people who are living in a draughty damp or poorly maintained property these sorts of steps don't really help that much, especially if you are old or have small children.
I grew up in such a flat when a child - my parents rented - and it had no central heating and could be perishingly cold and damp in winter. The landlord was utterly neglectful and the conditions got so bad that after my father died, the council served a Notice on the landlord under the 1952 Housing Act declaring the house to be unfit for human habitation and requiring a long schedule of works to be done. It is no fun at all living in such conditions - it is certainly no good for one's health as I can personally testify - and it is a disgrace that there are people still living in such conditions now.
Housing is - or should be - a big political issue: not just the construction of houses for purchase but its proper maintenance, having rented accommodation of a high standard and bringing poorly constructed and mantained property - whether owned or rented - up to high energy efficient standards.
I’m fitting aircon/air source heat for our loft conversion. Some scribbling suggests that the solar panels will run it for aircon.
How are you getting on with the gee-gees these days ? Plenty of winners ?
The Spanish government cares far more about discouraging Catalan independence than about causing the UK problems.
I don't really see the evidence pointing away from my argument. If the EU acted entirely reasonably with the UK, which was basically telling the EU to fuck off, it's hard to imagine them acting unreasonably towards Scotland, which was trying to rush into its embrace. I agree that joining would take time, but I disagree with your assertion that the EU would have made life difficult for Scotland in the meantime. A transition period and Efta membership seems a clear and plausible path, much more so than the EU casting Scotland into the wilderness and risking Scotland deciding not to join.
On power drains - indeed. One that gets me is the way that many wireless router modems seem to be space heaters. Some you can’t put in a cupboard because they give off so much heat. Anything that is getting that toasty, 24/7…
Ovens don’t actually use vast amounts of electricity - they are actually heavily insulated boxes, designed to keep the heat in. Once up to temperature, the top up power required to keep them there is generally quite low.
Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria might all cause problems. Newer EU countries that waited many years to join - Croatia - would think Fuck this, why does Scotland get a free pass. Etc
All that has happened so far is the Head of the housing association has been removed from his job.
There is an activist who is regularly on TV talking about the dire condition of social housing, but it seems little is happening to remedy it.
As for building new homes, which are desperately needed, we are in full on Nimby mode as a nation.
Bye.
I have been doing not too bad on the horses recently , only betting small amounts but certainly adding to my pot. Next few months will se meetings cancelled but I do like the jumping. Don't have enough time nowadays to do the necessary research but is only for fun in any case.
Fundamentally, many Scots are deeply proud of being Scottish and deeply frustrated they can't have the same level of freedom of action and independence in what they do that England does, or the French do. They are no "lesser" than them as a people, and yet they are not properly independent and not treated as such internationally. They feel marginalised by London and maybe disrespected at times, perhaps most of the time.
The problem is that Scotland has only 5 million people and has very limited economic geography that greatly constrains its options. There is a choice that works within the bounds of reality that gives them full independence but it comes at a hell of a coat because they simply don't have the tax base or numbers.
They'd want to be wealthier than England, and right up there with international influence on top, but that's cakeism and not the reality.
I think the best solution is to give Scotland more of a voice in a reformed UK but it's a hard one to make work.
I’ve no doubt there would be some delight in discomforting England in Paris and Brussels. But the EU is 27 capitals, most of them don’t give a fuck about England - or Scotland. And they ALL have a veto and will exact a price for not using it. A hard and difficult bargain would result, taking many years
Scotland exports even more percentage wise to England than the UK did to the EU
It also records how much the heating is on during the day, and as my Smart Meter gives me daily gas consumption I know how much my central heating is costing to run (about £1.25/hour). Typically its been on 4-6h per day in this cold snap.
On energy guzzlers Martin Lewis remarked that tumble dryers are real hogs, so I've started using a dehumidifier to get things pretty dry, then pop them in the dryer for 15 minutes so towels are fluffy etc.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/cost-of-living/martin-lewis-dehumidifier-drying-clothes-25720838
https://www.economicsobservatory.com/how-might-scottish-independence-affect-the-costs-of-international-trade#:~:text=Since Scotland makes up less,Huang et al, 2021
And some analys has it even higher.
Ireland also still does a huge amount of trade with the UK, and has been affected too by Brexit barriers, but don't forget Ireland had a very difficult first 50 years of its existence before it started to do well. And it suffered far more than the UK in the GFC.
A one or two year transition period followed by Efta membership would have been the more likely path pre 2016. Now I would expect that Scotland would join Efta soon after leaving the UK and get into the EU about 5 years after that. No expedited process is necessary, because the process will be relatively short by the nature of Scotland's clear readiness to join.
The interesting one is Moldova. They are looking at independent EU accession and Nato membership though if it was subsumed into Romania I assume they would automatically be part of both.
De humidifiers are a very good idea. Particularly the ones with a trigger sensor - they only run when there is actually enough damp in the air to be needed.
Can't it be Christmas now please?
I want to watch classic 80s action flicks, play boardgames with my kids, feast and drink like a trooper.
Which is what I was actually saying to start with...
“I expect everything will be fine”
Breaking up the UK alone would probably take 10 years. Brexit itself took 5
Remember the Lisbon Treaty! Was the leavers' cry as the tattered UJ y-fronts were run up the flagpole.
Although NATO isn't the EU.
You are otherwise perfectly intelligent and capable of rational analysis.
They had many rough decades, have several weaknesses in the way the country is run, but generally I'd have to say they've made a success of independence.
The transition for Scotland would undoubtedly be hard, but they would have an opportunity to make a success of things.
My opposition to Independence for Scotland is in two parts.
Firstly it is instinctive. I simply prefer for countries to work closely together, dislike borders and generally like Britain as an entity.
Secondly, I think it would create a lot of work and distraction and leave more important problems unaddressed. There's simply so much else that is more important that needs to be done. Scotland doesn't need to be distracted with all the work of creating new state institutions when it has huge drug problems, faltering efforts to reduce carbon emissions, challenges in maintaining communications with the islands and a variety of other issues to address.
And if it does address those problems then it is well-placed to benefit from influencing the rest of Britain to move in the same direction.
But otherwise the union could well just limp on. Breaking it up is too disruptive and there are many other more pressing problems to fix.
One would be Schengen. Secondly, is there a hard border?. Thirdly, the Euro.
England and Wales would therefore be the rump state, both having voted for Brexit unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland (Wales unlikely to survive outside the UK and outside the EU).
Wales also technically part of the Kingdom of England originally, there was never an Act of Union between England and Wales as there was between England and Scotland and England and Ireland
There is a sea border between Scotland and the EU but no sea border between Scotland and England
Realistically, to go from a vote for YES through breaking up the UK to actual Scottish accession would take 10-15 years
There is a sea border between Scotland and the EU but no sea border between Scotland and England
I hope the remaining 55% still support the Union, maybe with devomax.
If not then I am afraid Westminster would take as hard a line with the Scottish government post Scexit as Brussels took with the UK government in Brexit talks
My brother sketched out how he’d lay the ground side of a heat pump in the ornamental lake, and power the pump etc from a Pelton wheel on the stream that feed it.
There was a rusty old Pelton wheel as an ornament in the garden. The owner hadn’t realised what it was. If you looked, the foundation setup in the stream was still visible.
Virtually free heating, we reckoned.
I don't like it but I think that the Scots have a right to do it. Much as I accept Brexit, it was an English initiative imposed on Scotland. The English have to live with this as a consequence of the decisions we took between 2015 and 2020. Democracy has to work.
Makes you proud to be British, dun’it?
The differences in outlook are one reason for many Scots wanting independence.
And even if they didn't the majority of Nationalists still do hate England as their reaction to last night's England exit affirmed and their constant anti English rhetoric confirms.
So no, zero apology from me