Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The persistence of kippers – looking at where post-referendum

123457»

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    Alistair said:

    surbiton said:

    By Sam Coates of The Times

    1. So I'm a bit baffled by Nicola Sturgeon's referendum timing. Can someone explain what's happening because as far as I can see:

    2. Sturgeon wants #indyref2 next year - which is mid Brexit talks. She will promise something she can't deliver: continuity EU for Scotland.

    3. This means that EU membership uncertain. Currency uncertain. Relationship with rUK uncertain. Means huge risks on her side

    4. Scexit takes 2 years - meanining it takes place after Brexit. And during that intervening gap would Scotland be in or out of EU?

    5. Spain wd veto Scottish "continuity" membership in a heartbeat. So this doesn't look like it will fly without radically changed circs

    6. So these are hardly ideal conditions for a referendum - centrepiece is continuity which voters will know they can't offer. So why do it

    7. Is it - therefore - a ruse? And she knows No10 wont accept? And it suits No10 and FM to kick can down road while pretending otherwise?

    Regardless, of all these, Scotland will get EEA status pretty easily. I am not sure what Spain can do about that.
    Have people missed the Spanish MEP saying that Spain wouldn't veto Scottish EU membership?
    One whole MEP?

    Game changer......
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    HYUFD said:

    A majority of Scottish exports go to the UK unlike UK exports to the EU
    I find this Unionist argument difficult to understand.

    Scotland should not leave the UK because the majority of Scottish trade is with the UK

    UK should leave the EU because the majority of UK trade is with the EU

    Clear as most Leave arguments.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,147

    Quoting someone who can't spell Barroso is a good way to spread misinformation.
    The tweet is wrong? Here's another one from the press association:

    https://twitter.com/DavidHughesPA/status/841273627651764224
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,448

    Quoting someone who can't spell Barroso is a good way to spread misinformation.
    #FakeNews
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,886
    RobD said:

    Quoting someone who can't spell Barroso is a good way to spread misinformation.
    The tweet is wrong? Here's another one from the press association
    Yes I was too quick to condemn TSE. :) However this is just a statement from a spokesman playing a straight bat when asked a question. They could hardly make up policy on the hoof in the middle of a press conference.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,691

    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Complete and utter rubbish. You voted Leave fully endorsing the Leave campaign's exploitation of the immigration issue and you cannot wash your hands of it now or indeed the fact you may have pushed Scotland towards independence. I voted Remain but recognise the Leave vote has to be honoured

    I didn't endorse either the immigration argument or the NHS funding argument. And with stopping immigration pretty well accepted as functionally impossible even with hard brexit it was a ludicrous argument to begin with.

    People may have voted to leave thinking foreigners would go home. Or that it meant hard brexit. Or that we we "take back control". Thats up to them. Not why I voted to leave.

    Are you basically arguing that someone voting for Party A as the least worst option is endorsing them? Thats complete and utter rubbish, to coin a phrase

    You saw the posters against immigration the Leave campaign put up and you knew full well a Leave vote could break up the UK yet you went ahead and did it anyway. Therefore if Scotland does vote for independence you must share the blame, tough!
    ..
    Quite right. The dangers of a Brexit vote triggering the breakup of the UK were advanced in no uncertain terms during the EURef campaign. Ergo, those who voted Leave either a) were comfortable with Scotland leaving the union or b) were uncomfortable but such such a small degree it wasn't salient for them and it didn't change their vote.

    I think, as was said at the time, you break it, you own it. Pro-Union Leavers should repent in leisure.
    Exactly, all Leave voters knew a Leave vote risked Scottish independence, if they accepted that as a price worth paying to leave the EU then fine but they absolutely cannot deny their Leave vote boosted the SNP cause
    what guff

    the SNP would have called a seconf indyref no matter what, it's what they do
    It was the Leave vote which gave them the change in circumstances needed and the boost in the polls for Yes
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241

    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Complete and utter rubbish. You voted Leave fully endorsing the Leave campaign's exploitation of the immigration issue and you cannot wash your hands of it now or indeed the fact you may have pushed Scotland towards independence. I voted Remain but recognise the Leave vote has to be honoured

    I didn't endorse either the immigration argument or the NHS funding argument. And with stopping immigration pretty well accepted as functionally impossible even with hard brexit it was a ludicrous argument to begin with.

    People may have voted to leave thinking foreigners would go home. Or that it meant hard brexit. Or that we we "take back control". Thats up to them. Not why I voted to leave.

    Are you basically arguing that someone voting for Party A as the least worst option is endorsing them? Thats complete and utter rubbish, to coin a phrase

    You saw the posters against immigration the Leave campaign put up and you knew full well a Leave vote could break up the UK yet you went ahead and did it anyway. Therefore if Scotland does vote for independence you must share the blame, tough!
    ..
    Quite right. The dangers of a Brexit vote triggering the breakup of the UK were advanced in no uncertain terms during the EURef campaign. Ergo, those who voted Leave either a) were comfortable with Scotland leaving the union or b) were uncomfortable but such such a small degree it wasn't salient for them and it didn't change their vote.

    I think, as was said at the time, you break it, you own it. Pro-Union Leavers should repent in leisure.
    Exactly, all Leave voters knew a Leave vote risked Scottish independence, if they accepted that as a price worth paying to leave the EU then fine but they absolutely cannot deny their Leave vote boosted the SNP cause
    what guff

    the SNP would have called a second indyref no matter what, it's what they do
    It's all they do..... their Education Minister's has one of the schools in his constituency pleading for Maths teachers among the parents....
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    Alistair said:

    Can someone answer me if Scottish indyref polling has been "fixed"?

    Working from memory here, but I seem to remember polling being at 48:52 in the final week of the indyref, leading to the 45:55 result.

    If the polling is showing 48:52 now, does that imply it could be 45:55 again or has it been fixed and tweaked such that it really is 48:52 (or basically TCTC given MoE)

    The polling was accurate if the pollsters had known turnout was going to be 85%

    It was one of those few instances where self certifying turnout was accurate/had underestimated the turnout.

    The pollsters had no baseline to work from, a problem they won't face this time.
    I wonder if this might lead them to make the same mistake in reverse. Perhaps No voters simply won't turn out this time.
    No voters are quieter but there are 10 percentage points more of hardcore Unionists than there are of hardcore Indy supporters.
    Like this lovely chaps. Please don't send them down here, post-Indy...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,886

    Alistair said:

    surbiton said:

    By Sam Coates of The Times

    1. So I'm a bit baffled by Nicola Sturgeon's referendum timing. Can someone explain what's happening because as far as I can see:

    2. Sturgeon wants #indyref2 next year - which is mid Brexit talks. She will promise something she can't deliver: continuity EU for Scotland.

    3. This means that EU membership uncertain. Currency uncertain. Relationship with rUK uncertain. Means huge risks on her side

    4. Scexit takes 2 years - meanining it takes place after Brexit. And during that intervening gap would Scotland be in or out of EU?

    5. Spain wd veto Scottish "continuity" membership in a heartbeat. So this doesn't look like it will fly without radically changed circs

    6. So these are hardly ideal conditions for a referendum - centrepiece is continuity which voters will know they can't offer. So why do it

    7. Is it - therefore - a ruse? And she knows No10 wont accept? And it suits No10 and FM to kick can down road while pretending otherwise?

    Regardless, of all these, Scotland will get EEA status pretty easily. I am not sure what Spain can do about that.
    Have people missed the Spanish MEP saying that Spain wouldn't veto Scottish EU membership?
    One whole MEP?

    Game changer......
    Do you still think 'Mrs McTurnip' is bluffing?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,147
    edited March 2017
    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    MichaelPDeacon/status/841274378033733632

    A majority of Scottish exports go to the UK unlike UK exports to the EU
    I find this Unionist argument difficult to understand.

    Scotland should not leave the UK because the majority of Scottish trade is with the UK

    UK should leave the EU because the majority of UK trade is with the EU

    Clear as most Leave arguments.
    I don't think the EU constitutes the majority of the UK's export market.
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    SeanT said:

    If one is wanted, one will be found.

    I don't think so, because it would require unanimity. Alastair's metaphor of the barrel going over the falls is right, I think. For that matter, so it should be - we have had the referendum, it has been decided we're leaving.
    But the form of Leaving is yet to be decided. TMay can avoid this entire McClusterfuck by softening her stance on Brexit, fudging some kind of Single Market membership under a different name.

    No need for indyref2. The UK is saved.

    Indeed that is correct. May must now decide whether she wants to continue to kowtow to the loons of the Tory Right, or come to some sort of compromise.

    Over to her.
  • NEW THREAD

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241

    Alistair said:

    surbiton said:

    By Sam Coates of The Times

    1. So I'm a bit baffled by Nicola Sturgeon's referendum timing. Can someone explain what's happening because as far as I can see:

    2. Sturgeon wants #indyref2 next year - which is mid Brexit talks. She will promise something she can't deliver: continuity EU for Scotland.

    3. This means that EU membership uncertain. Currency uncertain. Relationship with rUK uncertain. Means huge risks on her side

    4. Scexit takes 2 years - meanining it takes place after Brexit. And during that intervening gap would Scotland be in or out of EU?

    5. Spain wd veto Scottish "continuity" membership in a heartbeat. So this doesn't look like it will fly without radically changed circs

    6. So these are hardly ideal conditions for a referendum - centrepiece is continuity which voters will know they can't offer. So why do it

    7. Is it - therefore - a ruse? And she knows No10 wont accept? And it suits No10 and FM to kick can down road while pretending otherwise?

    Regardless, of all these, Scotland will get EEA status pretty easily. I am not sure what Spain can do about that.
    Have people missed the Spanish MEP saying that Spain wouldn't veto Scottish EU membership?
    One whole MEP?

    Game changer......
    Do you still think 'Mrs McTurnip' is bluffing?
    Yep. If she's so sure of her case, why the delay? She's been boxed into a corner and is sacrificing investment in Scotland as her only way out....
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    surbiton said:

    Fine. Does that apply to the EEA as well ?

    I would extremely surprised if it doesn't. Joining the EEA and EFTA would require agreement from Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and from the EU27 (actually EU28 until the UK actually leaves!). There might be a mechanism whereby the EU could use QMV and force any dissenters amongst the EU27 to amend the EEA Treaty against their will, but that must surely be politically very unlikely even if were legally possible.

    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. It's tiny, it's remote and its public finances as an independent state would be dire. Why would our EU friends go out of their way to give it special treatment? They've got bigger fish to fry.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,691
    SeanT said:

    If one is wanted, one will be found.

    I don't think so, because it would require unanimity. Alastair's metaphor of the barrel going over the falls is right, I think. For that matter, so it should be - we have had the referendum, it has been decided we're leaving.
    But the form of Leaving is yet to be decided. TMay can avoid this entire McClusterfuck by softening her stance on Brexit, fudging some kind of Single Market membership under a different name.

    No need for indyref2. The UK is saved.
    She cannot leave free movement unchanged which single market membership requires, it would be political suicide and see UKIP make a quicker recovery than Lazarus. I still believe she will offer a job offer requirement to the EU for bilateral agreements which may be enough for the Scots but I would not bet on it
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Complete and utter rubbish. You voted Leave fully endorsing the Leave campaign's exploitation of the immigration issue and you cannot wash your hands of it now or indeed the fact you may have pushed Scotland towards independence. I voted Remain but recognise the Leave vote has to be honoured

    I didn't endorse either the immigration argument or the NHS funding argument. And with stopping immigration pretty well accepted as functionally impossible even with hard brexit it was a ludicrous argument to begin with.

    People may have voted to leave thinking foreigners would go home. Or that it meant hard brexit. Or that we we "take back control". Thats up to them. Not why I voted to leave.

    Are you basically arguing that someone voting for Party A as the least worst option is endorsing them? Thats complete and utter rubbish, to coin a phrase

    You saw the posters against immigration the Leave campaign put up and you knew full well a Leave vote could break up the UK yet you went ahead and did it anyway. Therefore if Scotland does vote for independence you must share the blame, tough!
    ..
    Quite right. The dangers of a Brexit vote triggering the breakup of the UK were advanced in no uncertain terms during the EURef campaign. Ergo, those who voted Leave either a) were comfortable with Scotland leaving the union or b) were uncomfortable but such such a small degree it wasn't salient for them and it didn't change their vote.

    I think, as was said at the time, you break it, you own it. Pro-Union Leavers should repent in leisure.
    Exactly, all Leave voters knew a Leave vote risked Scottish independence, if they accepted that as a price worth paying to leave the EU then fine but they absolutely cannot deny their Leave vote boosted the SNP cause
    Quite right. A period of silence on this issue from that particular group would probably serve them better than any other strategy.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,010
    HYUFD said:

    It was the Leave vote which gave them the change in circumstances needed and the boost in the polls for Yes

    Sure but do you think the SNP would have simply twiddled their thumbs if we had voted Remain? The SNP exists to bring about Scottish independence, any time that the SNP is in power they will be looking for a justification for a referendum and will seize on whatever happens to be the best at that point in time. If it hadn't been for the EU referendum result the SNP would have found some other grievance.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Complete and utter rubbish. You voted Leave fully endorsing the Leave campaign's exploitation of the immigration issue and you cannot wash your hands of it now or indeed the fact you may have pushed Scotland towards independence. I voted Remain but recognise the Leave vote has to be honoured

    I didn't endorse either the immigration argument or the NHS funding argument. And with stopping immigration pretty well accepted as functionally impossible even with hard brexit it was a ludicrous argument to begin with.

    People may have voted to leave thinking foreigners would go home. Or that it meant hard brexit. Or that we we "take back control". Thats up to them. Not why I voted to leave.

    Are you basically arguing that someone voting for Party A as the least worst option is endorsing them? Thats complete and utter rubbish, to coin a phrase

    You saw the posters against immigration the Leave campaign put up and you knew full well a Leave vote could break up the UK yet you went ahead and did it anyway. Therefore if Scotland does vote for independence you must share the blame, tough!
    ..
    Quite right. The dangers of a Brexit vote triggering the breakup of the UK were advanced in no uncertain terms during the EURef campaign. Ergo, those who voted Leave either a) were comfortable with Scotland leaving the union or b) were uncomfortable but such such a small degree it wasn't salient for them and it didn't change their vote.

    I think, as was said at the time, you break it, you own it. Pro-Union Leavers should repent in leisure.
    Exactly, all Leave voters knew a Leave vote risked Scottish independence, if they accepted that as a price worth paying to leave the EU then fine but they absolutely cannot deny their Leave vote boosted the SNP cause
    what guff

    the SNP would have called a seconf indyref no matter what, it's what they do
    It was the Leave vote which gave them the change in circumstances needed and the boost in the polls for Yes
    Oh grow up, Scots had the same votes as everyone else in a national referendum.

    If we had voted to stay in the EU the SNP would have simply invented something else as the reason for Indyref2.

    Hopefully Mrs May will simply tell Sturgeon to go boil her head for a turnip
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc

    Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!

    I do not for one moment believe Theresa May was a Remainer. All her instincts are to leave and through a hard leave.

    She said what she said is because she like most is not a principled politician, She believed Remain would win reasonably comfortably or at the very least, win.

    On the other hand, I am not sure what Boris' feelings were. My guess is that he wanted a narrow Remain win.
    David Cameron thought that she was more "Remain" than he was.
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    SeanT said:

    By Sam Coates of The Times

    1. So I'm a bit baffled by Nicola Sturgeon's referendum timing. Can someone explain what's happening because as far as I can see:

    2. Sturgeon wants #indyref2 next year - which is mid Brexit talks. She will promise something she can't deliver: continuity EU for Scotland.

    3. This means that EU membership uncertain. Currency uncertain. Relationship with rUK uncertain. Means huge risks on her side

    4. Scexit takes 2 years - meanining it takes place after Brexit. And during that intervening gap would Scotland be in or out of EU?

    5. Spain wd veto Scottish "continuity" membership in a heartbeat. So this doesn't look like it will fly without radically changed circs

    6. So these are hardly ideal conditions for a referendum - centrepiece is continuity which voters will know they can't offer. So why do it

    7. Is it - therefore - a ruse? And she knows No10 wont accept? And it suits No10 and FM to kick can down road while pretending otherwise?

    That's exactly my analysis. Sturgeon knows that TMay simply CAN'T cede a vote pre-Brexit, because it completely screws the UK's negotiation (and the EU's). e.g. Fisheries. How can the two sides negotiate that if half the UK fisheries may be gone in three months time.

    Contributions. How can the UK offer to pay a sum based on population and GDP and likely trade if a third of the UK is threatening to leave a week after we sign the Brexit deal?

    A Scottish secession pre-Brexit just makes Brexit impossible, and/or it ensures the complete collapse of all negotiations into total chaos, as working out the variables is beyond the wit of man.

    This was one of my hypotheticals which I posed the other day, by way of which Brexit may never happen.

    Genius from Sturgeon. Run the two campaigns concurrently = May is absolutely screwed.

    Perhaps one day, in the dim and distant future, we will come to a period whereby Scotland's leaders don't run rings around those of Westminster on a daily basis – but it is a long time off.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,990
    surbiton said:

    PeterC said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,719
    justin124 said:

    What else was anyone expecting? Brexit was inevitably going to lead to a second independence referendum. The UK has had its day. Just as England has drifted inexorably away from the EU, so Scotland is drifting inexorably away from England and Wales. Northern Ireland is too. It's all very sad, but there is no sustainable British demos anymore. Last June's vote was the final nail in its coffin.

    Good. Hanging on to relationships that have essentially expired is never a good idea for either party. If the people of Scotland or NI or Wales want to make their own way in the world good for them. I see no reason to grieve or to worry.
    On the same basis, there may be areas that wish to separate from Scotland - the Border areas as well as the Shetlands. Those living there should certainly have their view taken into account in the same way that the Ulster counties were permitted to remain within the UK in the early 1920s.
    LOL, another corker
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    glw said:

    Alistair said:

    surbiton said:

    malcolmg said:

    If there is another referendum in Scotland, who's going to lead the No campaign? The current crop of unionist politicians is not exactly stellar, is it?

    You've just broken the heart of every Scottish Tory surger there by not acknowledging Ruth Davidson's awesomeness.
    There's only so much kickboxing one girl can do.
    One major consequence of the commons wipe-out of SLAB (and indeed the other parties just hanging on in there) has been a culling of Scottish Big Beasts from political life.

    And the collapse of SLAB in the polls, means putting forward a SLAB figure as head unionist cheerleader now carries similar disadvantages (if not quite the same level of toxicity to the decisive floating voters) to putting forward a Tory figure.
    Yes a Tory leading will be a big help toYes for sure
    SLAB should and probably will come out in favour of independence. That is the only way SLAB could begin to claw back their lost voters. By siding with Tories is a death wish as Corbyn is doing now.
    SLab are a Unionist party. It is a principled stand that will kill them. You have to respect them for that.
    It is not unionism that has killed them, it is being crap that has done for them.
    Unionism was doing fine for them right up until SindyRef. Then they found that actually a lot of their supporters were pro independence and
    That's rather suspicious given that the EC specifically said they did not have an official position as they had not been asked.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,719
    HYUFD said:

    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:

    What else was anyone expecting? Brexit was inevitably going to lead to a second independence referendum. The UK has had its day. Just as England has drifted inexorably away from the EU, so Scotland is drifting inexorably away from England and Wales. Northern Ireland is too. It's all very sad, but there is no sustainable British demos anymore. Last June's vote was the final nail in its coffin.

    Good. Hanging on to relationships that have essentially expired is never a good idea for either party. If the people of Scotland or NI or Wales want to make their own way in the world good for them. I see no reason to grieve or to worry.
    On the same basis, there may be areas that wish to separate from Scotland - the Border areas as well as the Shetlands. Those living there should certainly have their view taken into account in the same way that the Ulster counties were permitted to remain within the UK in the early 1920s.
    I don't agree. Then London should be allowed to stay in the EU.

    Scotland is different to the Shetlands, for example, because it is a separate country, maybe not in UN terms. After all, it is the United Kingdom
    There is already a growing campaign in Shetland to rejoin the UK in the event of Scottish independence, as far as they are concerned the UK is their country
    You are not the full shilling
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    nunu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I don't know how aware people are of this, but the US has an extraordinary opiate addiction epidemic right now. In some US states, there are more opiate prescriptions than there are residents. In Tennessee, there is a law which states that if a doctor refuses to prescribe painkillers to a patient, he must refer them to someone who will.

    There are now more than 30,000 deaths per year from opiate overdoses.

    That law must be counterproductive? Shouldn't the law be for the Doctor to prescribe rehab?

    Anyways, what is striking is how this epidemic is effecting the white rural population.
    There is a US lobbying group Patients for Pain Relief, or somesuch, that is funded entirely by the drug industry and which employs 1,300 lobbyists that goes round pushing states to make it easier for people to get painkiller prescriptions.
    Not the mainstream pharma industry.

    But hey! Without US opioid addiction we wouldn't have the Sackler Library in Oxford or the Sackler Galleries at the Royal Academy
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,691

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Complete and utter rubbish. You voted Leave fully endorsing the Leave campaign's exploitation of the immigration issue and you cannot wash your hands of it now or indeed the fact you may have pushed Scotland towards independence. I voted Remain but recognise the Leave vote has to be honoured

    I didn't endorse either the immigration argument or the NHS funding argument. And with stopping immigration pretty well accepted as functionally impossible even with hard brexit it was a ludicrous argument to begin with.

    People may have voted to leave thinking foreigners would go home. Or that it meant hard brexit. Or that we we "take back control". Thats up to them. Not why I voted to leave.

    Are you basically arguing that someone voting for Party A as the least worst option is endorsing them? Thats complete and utter rubbish, to coin a phrase

    You saw the posters against immigration the Leave campaign put up and you knew full well a Leave vote could break up the UK yet you went ahead and did it anyway. Therefore if Scotland does vote for independence you must share the blame, tough!
    ..
    Quite right. The dangers of a Brexit vote triggering the breakup of the UK were advanced in no uncertain terms during the EURef campaign. Ergo, those who voted Leave either a) were comfortable with Scotland leaving the union or b) were uncomfortable but such such a small degree it wasn't salient for them and it didn't change their vote.

    I think, as was said at the time, you break it, you own it. Pro-Union Leavers should repent in leisure.
    Exactly, all Leave voters knew a Leave vote risked Scottish independence, if they accepted that as a price worth paying to leave the EU then fine but they absolutely cannot deny their Leave vote boosted the SNP cause
    what guff

    the SNP would have called a seconf indyref no matter what, it's what they do
    It was the Leave vote which gave them the change in circumstances needed and the boost in the polls for Yes
    Oh grow up, Scots had the same votes as everyone else in a national referendum.

    If we had voted to stay in the EU the SNP would have simply invented something else as the reason for Indyref2.

    Hopefully Mrs May will simply tell Sturgeon to go boil her head for a turnip
    Yes and Scots voted Remain having been told in 2014 they would stay in the EU and single market. The Leave vote changed that and it was English and Welsh voters who did so, without the Leave vote there would have been no material change in circumstances May could use for a vote
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,691
    SeanT said:

    By Sam Coates of The Times

    1. So I'm a bit baffled by Nicola Sturgeon's referendum timing. Can someone explain what's happening because as far as I can see:

    2. Sturgeon wants #indyref2 next year - which is mid Brexit talks. She will promise something she can't deliver: continuity EU for Scotland.

    3. This means that EU membership uncertain. Currency uncertain. Relationship with rUK uncertain. Means huge risks on her side

    4. Scexit takes 2 years - meanining it takes place after Brexit. And during that intervening gap would Scotland be in or out of EU?

    5. Spain wd veto Scottish "continuity" membership in a heartbeat. So this doesn't look like it will fly without radically changed circs

    6. So these are hardly ideal conditions for a referendum - centrepiece is continuity which voters will know they can't offer. So why do it

    7. Is it - therefore - a ruse? And she knows No10 wont accept? And it suits No10 and FM to kick can down road while pretending otherwise?

    That's exactly my analysis. Sturgeon knows that TMay simply CAN'T cede a vote pre-Brexit, because it completely screws the UK's negotiation (and the EU's). e.g. Fisheries. How can the two sides negotiate that if half the UK fisheries may be gone in three months time.

    Contributions. How can the UK offer to pay a sum based on population and GDP and likely trade if a third of the UK is threatening to leave a week after we sign the Brexit deal?

    A Scottish secession pre-Brexit just makes Brexit impossible, and/or it ensures the complete collapse of all negotiations into total chaos, as working out the variables is beyond the wit of man.

    This was one of my hypotheticals which I posed the other day, by way of which Brexit may never happen.

    In which case UKIP will shoot up the polls like a rocket
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,691
    glw said:

    HYUFD said:

    It was the Leave vote which gave them the change in circumstances needed and the boost in the polls for Yes

    Sure but do you think the SNP would have simply twiddled their thumbs if we had voted Remain? The SNP exists to bring about Scottish independence, any time that the SNP is in power they will be looking for a justification for a referendum and will seize on whatever happens to be the best at that point in time. If it hadn't been for the EU referendum result the SNP would have found some other grievance.
    They may well have done but this was the only material change in circumstances since 2014 Sturgeon could possibly use for another vote
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    edited March 2017
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc

    Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!

    I do not for one moment believe Theresa May was a Remainer. All her instincts are to leave and through a hard leave.

    She said what she said is because she like most is not a principled politician, She believed Remain would win reasonably comfortably or at the very least, win.

    On the other hand, I am not sure what Boris' feelings were. My guess is that he wanted a narrow Remain win.
    David Cameron thought that she was more "Remain" than he was.
    Her speech I thought was the picture of reasoned Remain.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,719
    HYUFD said:

    A majority of Scottish exports go to the UK unlike UK exports to the EU
    Nearly all Scottish imports come from England.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,719

    The Scottish investment office will have nothing to do now for the next 3 years
    Alan, It does nothing at present so no change will be seen
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,719

    Alistair said:

    surbiton said:

    By Sam Coates of The Times

    1. So I'm a bit baffled by Nicola Sturgeon's referendum timing. Can someone explain what's happening because as far as I can see:

    2. Sturgeon wants #indyref2 next year - which is mid Brexit talks. She will promise something she can't deliver: continuity EU for Scotland.

    3. This means that EU membership uncertain. Currency uncertain. Relationship with rUK uncertain. Means huge risks on her side

    4. Scexit takes 2 years - meanining it takes place after Brexit. And during that intervening gap would Scotland be in or out of EU?

    5. Spain wd veto Scottish "continuity" membership in a heartbeat. So this doesn't look like it will fly without radically changed circs

    6. So these are hardly ideal conditions for a referendum - centrepiece is continuity which voters will know they can't offer. So why do it

    7. Is it - therefore - a ruse? And she knows No10 wont accept? And it suits No10 and FM to kick can down road while pretending otherwise?

    Regardless, of all these, Scotland will get EEA status pretty easily. I am not sure what Spain can do about that.
    Have people missed the Spanish MEP saying that Spain wouldn't veto Scottish EU membership?
    One whole MEP?

    Game changer......
    Flapping a bit are we , or are you nailed on.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,726
    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Complete and utter rubbish. You voted Leave fully endorsing the Leave campaign's exploitation of the immigration issue and you cannot wash your hands of it now or indeed the fact you may have pushed Scotland towards independence. I voted Remain but recognise the Leave vote has to be honoured

    I didn't endorse either the immigration argument or the NHS funding argument. And with stopping immigration pretty well accepted as functionally impossible even with hard brexit it was a ludicrous argument to begin with.

    People may have voted to leave thinking foreigners would go home. Or that it meant hard brexit. Or that we we "take back control". Thats up to them. Not why I voted to leave.

    Are you basically arguing that someone voting for Party A as the least worst option is endorsing them? Thats complete and utter rubbish, to coin a phrase

    You saw the posters against immigration the Leave campaign put up and you knew full well a Leave vote could break up the UK yet you went ahead and did it anyway. Therefore if Scotland does vote for independence you must share the blame, tough!
    ..
    Quite right. The dangers of a Brexit vote triggering the breakup of the UK were advanced in no uncertain terms during the EURef campaign. Ergo, those who voted Leave either a) were comfortable with Scotland leaving the union or b) were uncomfortable but such such a small degree it wasn't salient for them and it didn't change their vote.

    I think, as was said at the time, you break it, you own it. Pro-Union Leavers should repent in leisure.
    Exactly, all Leave voters knew a Leave vote risked Scottish independence, if they accepted that as a price worth paying to leave the EU then fine but they absolutely cannot deny their Leave vote boosted the SNP cause
    Quite right. A period of silence on this issue from that particular group would probably serve them better than any other strategy.
    Why should we be silent if we welcome it or are not concerned by it?
This discussion has been closed.