It really is astounding how unionists feel making crass threats and becoming the worst of all possible neighbours is a clever strategy vis a vis an independent Scotland. This thread is one step away from gunboats on the Tweed. Next up – orders of shoot to kill for with extreme prejudice for roaming border guards in Kielder Forest, picking off cheeky jocks who try to tunnel under a 20ft dark future version of Hadrian's Wall, carrying a backpack full of Laphroaig.
You are an utter wimp. It's the Scots who insist on electing the loathsome Nats, they deserve everything that they've got coming.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Which Prime Ministers are 'elected with a personal mandate'?
May commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
My instinct is that the Scots will be sticking with the pound up until the time they join the Euro formally. All the tills, people's bank accounts (@DavidL for instance), business bank accounts are in sterling at the moment. That can't be shifted overnight.
They can say the Scottish pound is an indy currency, and peg it to Sterling. As they already have the banknotes, little would change on the ground. The only difference is Scots pounds would not be admissible in England – although few places accept them down here anyway.
You can only have a functional peg if you have FX reserves. Where would Scotland's come from?
My instinct is that the Scots will be sticking with the pound up until the time they join the Euro formally. All the tills, people's bank accounts (@DavidL for instance), business bank accounts are in sterling at the moment. That can't be shifted overnight.
Perhaps that would be the wisest move they could make, but this time the FM must be more honest, no more Scotland will be sat at the BoE top table directing interest rates etc, etc.
Matter of opinion. Scotland will argue £150bn is ludicrous.....
The SNP can say what it likes, but it will certainly be in that ballpark.
Decrees Glw. No doubt the Scots will beg to differ.
The Scots may beg to differ but the financial power is on the side of the English.
Scots will be out of the EU Single Market, and out of the UK Single Market. A very very weak position.
So being out of the EU Single Market is a weak position? This is what we have been trying to tell the eurosceptics since before they decided to wreck the bloody country.
Being outside of the EU and out of the UK is what he said.
My instinct is that the Scots will be sticking with the pound up until the time they join the Euro formally. All the tills, people's bank accounts (@DavidL for instance), business bank accounts are in sterling at the moment. That can't be shifted overnight.
They can say the Scottish pound is an indy currency, and peg it to Sterling. As they already have the banknotes, little would change on the ground. The only difference is Scots pounds would not be admissible in England – although few places accept them down here anyway.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
My instinct is that the Scots will be sticking with the pound up until the time they join the Euro formally. All the tills, people's bank accounts (@DavidL for instance), business bank accounts are in sterling at the moment. That can't be shifted overnight.
They can say the Scottish pound is an indy currency, and peg it to Sterling. As they already have the banknotes, little would change on the ground. The only difference is Scots pounds would not be admissible in England – although few places accept them down here anyway.
They'll be better off in the Euro anyway, sterling is at 1.14 today I note... whilst it is better for exporters than the currency being too strong what is really good is rock solid stability. And Scotland can get that forevermore with the ECB. In addition I expect they will head in with the pound relatively weak thus locking in stability and competitiveness for their exporters.
If the SNP's answer to the currency question is to give up GBP, would they not also be able to walk away from the national debt in the same way that Russia took on the debts of the Soviet Union?
And ultimately, could Brexit bankrupt the British state?
Never mind the debt, look at the deficit.
I don't think respectable nation states go bankrupt but the currency of the underperformers falls steadily, sometimes by a lot versus 'strong' currencies:
1960 - £1 buys about Swiss Fr 13.00. 2017 - £1 buys about S.Fr 1.30.
When we had exchange controls, there were formal devaluations, complete with political embarrassment for the govt. in charge at the time.
I imagine this will be another devaluation but much of it has already occurred since June 2016.
I imagine an independent Scotland would want a Scottish £ and would prefer to be in the situation of Sweden or Denmark which have their own Krone and aren't really ty tied to the Euro ... although Denmark, being a well-run economy is pegged to the Euro and is probably comfortable with it.
Another slightly misleading statement - the two year period includes discussion and ratification by a qualified majority of the EU Council members and the EU Parliament
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
Nice bout of English nationalism there. The SNP have their own, Scottish, mandate. What gives Theresa May the right to ignore the wishes of the Scottish public?
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Hard Brexit does not exist. It is a fantasy construct.
There is no evidence that the Scots have changed their minds or seek an urgent refernedum. Tell Sturgeon where to go. Stop appeasing her. Stop feeding the troll.
Except that Britain has consistently paid more into the EU than it has received, while Scotland has consistently received more than it has paid out.
There will still be ongoing liabilities after we leave, and presumably future costs for where we chose to continue to cooperate. If we said "we owe you nothing" I wouldn't expect any deal to be done.
My instinct is that the Scots will be sticking with the pound up until the time they join the Euro formally. All the tills, people's bank accounts (@DavidL for instance), business bank accounts are in sterling at the moment. That can't be shifted overnight.
They can say the Scottish pound is an indy currency, and peg it to Sterling. As they already have the banknotes, little would change on the ground. The only difference is Scots pounds would not be admissible in England – although few places accept them down here anyway.
They'll be better off in the Euro anyway, sterling is at 1.14 today I note... whilst it is better for exporters than the currency being too strong what is really good is rock solid stability. And Scotland can get that forevermore with the ECB. In addition I expect they will head in with the pound relatively weak thus locking in stability and competitiveness for their exporters.
Scotland could only join ERM if the UK agreed to support a fixed exchange rate for at least 2 years. Why should they?
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
The Scottish elections in May will give us a steer what the mood of the people is.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Hard Brexit does not exist. It is a fantasy construct. .
You can find plenty of Leavers who disagree with you. Many of them post on this site.
Though personally I agree with you. There is no such thing as hard Brexit, just car crash Brexit.
There is no evidence that the Scots have changed their minds or seek an urgent refernedum. Tell Sturgeon where to go. Stop appeasing her. Stop feeding the troll.
Tell that to Sweden. Scotland would be in the same legal position as them.
Not really, Sweden has its OWN currency. Scotland would be using England's (For a bit), and Sweden joined in 1995. It is now 2017. I think if Scotland votes for independence, it will join the Euro before Sweden.
My instinct is that the Scots will be sticking with the pound up until the time they join the Euro formally. All the tills, people's bank accounts (@DavidL for instance), business bank accounts are in sterling at the moment. That can't be shifted overnight.
They can say the Scottish pound is an indy currency, and peg it to Sterling. As they already have the banknotes, little would change on the ground. The only difference is Scots pounds would not be admissible in England – although few places accept them down here anyway.
They'll be better off in the Euro anyway, sterling is at 1.14 today I note... whilst it is better for exporters than the currency being too strong what is really good is rock solid stability. And Scotland can get that forevermore with the ECB. In addition I expect they will head in with the pound relatively weak thus locking in stability and competitiveness for their exporters.
Scotland could only join ERM if the UK agreed to support a fixed exchange rate for at least 2 years. Why should they?
Do you not think that the European Union might JUST lend a touch of goodwill with regards to actual physically impossible rules for Scotland to attain ??
Again, I think they will insist on a 3% deficit and look to Scotland to get its financial house in order. But they will not insist on rules that are not actually possible for Scotland to meet.
Matter of opinion. Scotland will argue £150bn is ludicrous.....
The SNP can say what it likes, but it will certainly be in that ballpark.
Decrees Glw. No doubt the Scots will beg to differ.
Of course, but that argument is no more sensible than the idiots saying we don't owe the EU anything.
Except that Britain has consistently paid more into the EU than it has received, while Scotland has consistently received more than it has paid out.
No - throughout the oil boom Scotland contributed more than it received - that has tailed off and been reversed with the decline of North Sea oil - but its all part of the 'swings and roundabouts' of being in a single market currency union with fiscal transfers. Why some would want to leave that to join a partial single market currency union with NO fiscal transfers is one of life's mysteries - especially as they are facing North Sea decommissioning costs....
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
Nice bout of English nationalism there. The SNP have their own, Scottish, mandate. What gives Theresa May the right to ignore the wishes of the Scottish public?
Because the Scots voted in 2014 for Westminster to continue to be supreme over the Scottish Parliament in certain policy areas.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Hard Brexit does not exist. It is a fantasy construct. .
You can find plenty of Leavers who disagree with you. Many of them post on this site.
Though personally I agree with you. There is no such thing as hard Brexit, just car crash Brexit.
I recommend that you apply for Hungarian citizenship and retire to your isolated Transylvanian dungeon.
Mr. Pulpstar, I am not sure your assertion that stability forevermore occurs through being associated with the single currency is an incontestable statement.
Tell that to Sweden. Scotland would be in the same legal position as them.
Not really, Sweden has its OWN currency. Scotland would be using England's (For a bit), and Sweden joined in 1995. It is now 2017. I think if Scotland votes for independence, it will join the Euro before Sweden.
Only if Scotland wants to.
One of the requirements to join the Euro is to be a member of ERM II for two years prior. Do you know how many of the seven nations theoretically obliged to join the Euro are even members of ERM II? None of them.
Poland joined in 2004. It is now 2017. They could not join the Euro until 2019 even if they joined ERM II today.
The idea EU = Euro is completely fallacious in reality.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
Nice bout of English nationalism there. The SNP have their own, Scottish, mandate. What gives Theresa May the right to ignore the wishes of the Scottish public?
Because the Scots voted in 2014 for Westminster to continue to be supreme over the Scottish Parliament in certain policy areas.
Do you not believe in the rule of law?
We all know what Meeks thinks of the rule of law...
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
Nice bout of English nationalism there. The SNP have their own, Scottish, mandate. What gives Theresa May the right to ignore the wishes of the Scottish public?
Because the Scots voted in 2014 for Westminster to continue to be supreme over the Scottish Parliament in certain policy areas.
Do you not believe in the rule of law?
Reread that quote from the SNP manifesto. Through what mechanism other than a Scottish Parliament election do you think the Scottish people can express their wishes in a manner that can be heard?
The Prime Minister clearly has the formal legal right to withhold a referendum. In present circumstances she has absolutely no moral authority to do so. The only argument given is her own convenience.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
Nice bout of English nationalism there. The SNP have their own, Scottish, mandate. What gives Theresa May the right to ignore the wishes of the Scottish public?
1) The SNP had a manifesto commitment to something that wasn't within their power to deliver. They can ask the UK PM for one, but that's all.
2) A majority of Scots don't want a second referendum right now.
Scotland has consistently received more than it has paid out.
Not strictly true
Is twelve years out of the past seventeen no longer considered 'consistent'? Given that record, how often might Scotland have sneaked into net fiscal contributor territory in the 273 years before the oil turned up? Between 1890 and 1914 they ran an £11m deficit, compared to a £116m surplus in England and Wales.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
Nice bout of English nationalism there. The SNP have their own, Scottish, mandate. What gives Theresa May the right to ignore the wishes of the Scottish public?
Because the Scots voted in 2014 for Westminster to continue to be supreme over the Scottish Parliament in certain policy areas.
Do you not believe in the rule of law?
Reread that quote from the SNP manifesto. Through what mechanism other than a Scottish Parliament election do you think the Scottish people can express their wishes in a manner that can be heard?
The Prime Minister clearly has the formal legal right to withhold a referendum. In present circumstances she has absolutely no moral authority to do so. The only argument given is her own convenience.
What nonsense. Turnout in the independence referendum was 85% vs 56% for Holyrood.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
Nice bout of English nationalism there. The SNP have their own, Scottish, mandate. What gives Theresa May the right to ignore the wishes of the Scottish public?
1) The SNP had a manifesto commitment to something that wasn't within their power to deliver. They can ask the UK PM for one, but that's all.
2) A majority of Scots don't want a second referendum right now.
If the SNP manifesto promised free unicorns Westminster would have to concede...
Her problem was not one of sexism: it was that she failed to disclose something she should have done for some years. A decade or more back it may not have mattered; now it (rightly) does.
I skimmed the document someone linked on the previous thread, and she's been really silly; it's not as if her brother was a junior teller in a Barclays branch in Llandovery. She had plenty of chances to put the record straight, but it seems she never considered that the rules also applied to her.
To give her some credit, she seemed to realise she had told the committee some incorrect information, and corrected it. She could have tried to bluff it out and hope no-one would notice.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
It's up to Scotland's unionists to sort this out.
They need to co-operate, collaborate and put the SNP back in it's box.
May should effectively give them the 2020 and 2021 elections to achieve this. If they cannot then how long must the rest of the UK put up with them?
The SNP stood on a manifesto in 2016 with the following passage:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
In the event, Nicola Sturgeon has only called for it after it became apparent that there would be hard Brexit. Why, when the SNP has a majority for its position in the Scottish Parliament, should it be required to prove itself again at the ballot box just because it is inconvenient for an unelected Prime Minister in Westminster with no personal mandate?
I was as much of a committed EU remainer as you were - indeed I have been supporting Liberals at the euro election ballot box since 1979 but my continued disappointment at losing the EU ref doesn't extend to supporting the SNP position now. A referendum should be held - I have already set out why 2024 is a good option - but account does also have to be taken of the wishes of the 60% in Scotland that didn't vote for the SNP at Holyrood 2016. They may not want the dislocation that another referendum in Scotland would bring during this transitional period.
Matter of opinion. Scotland will argue £150bn is ludicrous.....
The SNP can say what it likes, but it will certainly be in that ballpark.
Decrees Glw. No doubt the Scots will beg to differ.
The Scots may beg to differ but the financial power is on the side of the English.
Scots will be out of the EU Single Market, and out of the UK Single Market. A very very weak position.
So being out of the EU Single Market is a weak position? This is what we have been trying to tell the eurosceptics since before they decided to wreck the bloody country.
Being outside of the EU and out of the UK is what he said.
So you have to be out of both for it to be weak?
Yes. One is the world's second or third largest single market, the other is the world's fifth largest. Scotland on its own is well down the rankings.
I certainly hope so. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right - she was right to resign.
Yep. If you want to be a bank regulator, you have to be above reproach. You've got to be squeaky clean and look squeaky clean. If you want to be the person investigating people for minor breaches of onerous rules, you'd better make sure that every I is dotted and every T is crossed in your own position.
Because since the last referendum a Scottish government was elected with a manifesto pledge for another referendum.
If at the next general election post Brexit a future government is elected with a manifesto pledge for another EU Referendum then so be it. No Leaver objects to that which I know of.
Is it a coincidence that the most bilious of embittered Remainers are the ones trying to stir this up?
Their faux sumpathy with the Scots is a charade.
I think they've (finally) moved from 'denial' on to 'anger' and are just lashing out.....
A little while back they were complaining it would take ten years to sort out Brexit. Today they complain that May is being dishonest in saying she won't know within two.
Somehow, the details of public sector expenditure and trade are meant to be identical in the relationships between Scotland/UK and UK/EU even though they aren't remotely comparable.
Oh, and referendums should be banned indefinitely was the cry not so long ago.
Golly, all the pro Brexit referendum, anti Indy referendum, pro Indy project fear, anti Brexit project fear, pro UK taking back control, anti Scotland taking back control, pro Brexit uncertainty, anti Indy uncertainty crew are in a right, old stew.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
Yep, for once you make sense. English nationalism is the opposite and equal reaction to Scottish nationalism.
Post EU Ref vote the Greens had already indicated they were up for IndyRef2 and some of them were criticising Sturgeon for being timid and not calling it immediately.
That suggest to me a fairly good reason for the EU to fast-track Scotland into the EU ... if they promised to designate their official language as 'English' it could be quite helpful to everyone already there.
I think this was mentioned on the Daily Politics on Friday - that an early deal will be reached on citizen rights, and then it will be on hold for a couple of months.
Golly, all the pro Brexit referendum, anti Indy referendum, pro Indy project fear, anti Brexit project fear, pro UK taking back control, anti Scotland taking back control, pro Brexit uncertainty, anti Indy uncertainty crew are in a right, old stew.
Top work lads, take a second Michelin star!
Actually on pb I have noticed quite a few Unionist Leavers recognise the inevitability of Scotland leaving.
"The 27 other members of the EU have pinpointed a meeting of government ministers in Luxembourg on June 20 as the moment to authorize the opening of two years of talks, two EU officials said on condition of anonymity."
In other words, take with a large pinch of salt...
What the fuck has Marcos Rojo got on the FA? Against Everton and Palace he committed the two worst challenges of the season and got just yellow cards, and yesterday he blatantly stamped on Eden Hazard, yet the FA take no retrospective action!
"The 27 other members of the EU have pinpointed a meeting of government ministers in Luxembourg on June 20 as the moment to authorize the opening of two years of talks, two EU officials said on condition of anonymity."
In other words, take with a large pinch of salt...
A50 states that the two year clock starts when the letter is sent.
In every single one of these threads I'm going to post about the maths not being on the side if independence while the question is framed as EU vs UK. Boring as that seems that's the betting play. Back No until the SNP leadership offers EEA membership as Scotland end point. Nowhere near enough No/Remainers are ready to back Yes and having a campaign based on staying in the EU at some level is pushing as many Yes/Leavers into the No camp (more I think) than is being won from the No/Remain.
I understand that she needs to frame the whole campaign on the EU since it is the leave vote which has given her just about enough ammunition to get a second vote, but essentially closing the door to proper independence won't win a referendum. No way.
Golly, all the pro Brexit referendum, anti Indy referendum, pro Indy project fear, anti Brexit project fear, pro UK taking back control, anti Scotland taking back control, pro Brexit uncertainty, anti Indy uncertainty crew are in a right, old stew.
Top work lads, take a second Michelin star!
Perhaps you can answer.
What exactly is this referendum in aid of?
Are you applying to join the EU if you manage to actually win this time?
Golly, all the pro Brexit referendum, anti Indy referendum, pro Indy project fear, anti Brexit project fear, pro UK taking back control, anti Scotland taking back control, pro Brexit uncertainty, anti Indy uncertainty crew are in a right, old stew.
Top work lads, take a second Michelin star!
Actually on pb I have noticed quite a few Unionist Leavers recognise the inevitability of Scotland leaving.
What's more bizarre is the Remainer attitude that because a majority in countries that makes up 11% of the UK don't want to leave, we should ignore the desires of a majority in countries making up 89% of the country that do want to leave.
"The 27 other members of the EU have pinpointed a meeting of government ministers in Luxembourg on June 20 as the moment to authorize the opening of two years of talks, two EU officials said on condition of anonymity."
In other words, take with a large pinch of salt...
A50 states that the two year clock starts when the letter is sent.
Considering The UK took 9 months from voting to Leave to triggering Article 50 I'm sure we won't be able to complain if the EU take a few months to consider their response.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
Yep, for once you make sense.
Except, here's a very different voice from the YES side. I bet a lot of the less shrieking Nats are feeling like this. They're exhausted. They don't want another vote. They are reluctant to campaign.
The change side is normally more enthusiastic, especially since they know *this* really is their last chance for a while. Bear in mind E.U citizens will have the vote, they will be overwhelmingly for Yes now I suspect.
It's interesting to note that when Ireland voted on the EU constitution / Lisbon Treaty, the turnout increased appreciably from the first to the second vote, with a little over a year between them.
Likewise, turnout increased in the two Danish Maastrict referendums over twenty years ago.
I'd have expected a decrease between first and second. Might we see an increased turnout in Scotland for a second referendum, despite an around 85% turnout in 2014?
If anyone is feeling depressed, I'd just like to point out that I have this minute finished a cracking chapter of my new thriller. My adorable little girl is LOST on Dartmoor in the dark she's run away.
The black granite tors look up at the indifferent stars. The green eyes of the Dartmoor ponies shine in the torchlight of the desperate, panicked parents. And the stones of Plague Market stand alone in the mist.
OOOOOOOOOH
Sounds like heaven. Are you sure she's not just gone stargazing?
"The 27 other members of the EU have pinpointed a meeting of government ministers in Luxembourg on June 20 as the moment to authorize the opening of two years of talks, two EU officials said on condition of anonymity."
In other words, take with a large pinch of salt...
A50 states that the two year clock starts when the letter is sent.
Considering The UK took 9 months from voting to Leave to triggering Article 50 I'm sure we won't be able to complain if the EU take a few months to consider their response.
Fair enough, although one wonders what they've been up to in the interim. The point still stands though, it won't be two years of talks from June 20th, it'll be one year and nine months. /pedant
If anyone is feeling depressed, I'd just like to point out that I have this minute finished a cracking chapter of my new thriller. My adorable little girl is LOST on Dartmoor in the dark she's run away.
The black granite tors look up at the indifferent stars. The green eyes of the Dartmoor ponies shine in the torchlight of the desperate, panicked parents. And the stones of Plague Market stand alone in the mist.
"The 27 other members of the EU have pinpointed a meeting of government ministers in Luxembourg on June 20 as the moment to authorize the opening of two years of talks, two EU officials said on condition of anonymity."
In other words, take with a large pinch of salt...
A50 states that the two year clock starts when the letter is sent.
Considering The UK took 9 months from voting to Leave to triggering Article 50 I'm sure we won't be able to complain if the EU take a few months to consider their response.
Fair enough, although one wonders what they've been up to in the interim. The point still stands though, it won't be two years of talks from June 20th, it'll be one year and nine months. /pedant
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
Yep, for once you make sense.
Except, here's a very different voice from the YES side. I bet a lot of the less shrieking Nats are feeling like this. They're exhausted. They don't want another vote. They are reluctant to campaign.
I can sympathise with such feelings. One EUref has rendered me apathetic. If Scotland has the strength for another referendum and chooses (perhaps because Unionists more exhausted than Nationalists) to separate, well Good Luck to them.
Actually, I merely wished them Good Luck before, knowing they didn't want anything else from an English person, but it was a much more sympathetic & interested Good Luck.
This time ... meh.
Only thing is, it will be even more hard to provide the clarity & certainty that article calls for than it was the first time round, because no-one will know what the Leave-EU terms will be.
"The 27 other members of the EU have pinpointed a meeting of government ministers in Luxembourg on June 20 as the moment to authorize the opening of two years of talks, two EU officials said on condition of anonymity."
In other words, take with a large pinch of salt...
A50 states that the two year clock starts when the letter is sent.
Considering The UK took 9 months from voting to Leave to triggering Article 50 I'm sure we won't be able to complain if the EU take a few months to consider their response.
Fair enough, although one wonders what they've been up to in the interim. The point still stands though, it won't be two years of talks from June 20th, it'll be one year and nine months. /pedant
I think they want to know how much cake the UK wants to have and how much they plan to eat.
Judging by this thread, Scotland is leaving the union. English nationalism will drive it away. Working on the basis of what suits England at the expense of Scottish interests will make the SNP's point for it.
Yep, for once you make sense.
Except, here's a very different voice from the YES side. I bet a lot of the less shrieking Nats are feeling like this. They're exhausted. They don't want another vote. They are reluctant to campaign.
"The 27 other members of the EU have pinpointed a meeting of government ministers in Luxembourg on June 20 as the moment to authorize the opening of two years of talks, two EU officials said on condition of anonymity."
In other words, take with a large pinch of salt...
A50 states that the two year clock starts when the letter is sent.
Considering The UK took 9 months from voting to Leave to triggering Article 50 I'm sure we won't be able to complain if the EU take a few months to consider their response.
Fair enough, although one wonders what they've been up to in the interim. The point still stands though, it won't be two years of talks from June 20th, it'll be one year and nine months. /pedant
I expect the idea is that the British will hear nothing but the sound of a ticking clock for three months, and if they phone up M. Barnier, they will get put through to an answerphone that plays "Time Is On My Side".
Comments
Their faux sumpathy with the Scots is a charade.
May commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
That is all that is required.
That is all that ever is required.
How do they defend the peg? What with?
Because TMay has to consider the position of the whole of the country, not just the SNP's private wishes.
1960 - £1 buys about Swiss Fr 13.00.
2017 - £1 buys about S.Fr 1.30.
When we had exchange controls, there were formal devaluations, complete with political embarrassment for the govt. in charge at the time.
I imagine this will be another devaluation but much of it has already occurred since June 2016.
I imagine an independent Scotland would want a Scottish £ and would prefer to be in the situation of Sweden or Denmark which have their own Krone and aren't really ty tied to the Euro ... although Denmark, being a well-run economy is pegged to the Euro and is probably comfortable with it.
There is no evidence that the Scots have changed their minds or seek an urgent refernedum. Tell Sturgeon where to go. Stop appeasing her. Stop feeding the troll.
Though personally I agree with you. There is no such thing as hard Brexit, just car crash Brexit.
Again, I think they will insist on a 3% deficit and look to Scotland to get its financial house in order. But they will not insist on rules that are not actually possible for Scotland to meet.
Do you not believe in the rule of law?
One of the requirements to join the Euro is to be a member of ERM II for two years prior. Do you know how many of the seven nations theoretically obliged to join the Euro are even members of ERM II? None of them.
Poland joined in 2004. It is now 2017. They could not join the Euro until 2019 even if they joined ERM II today.
The idea EU = Euro is completely fallacious in reality.
The Prime Minister clearly has the formal legal right to withhold a referendum. In present circumstances she has absolutely no moral authority to do so. The only argument given is her own convenience.
1) The SNP had a manifesto commitment to something that wasn't within their power to deliver. They can ask the UK PM for one, but that's all.
2) A majority of Scots don't want a second referendum right now.
Which is more meaningful?
I skimmed the document someone linked on the previous thread, and she's been really silly; it's not as if her brother was a junior teller in a Barclays branch in Llandovery. She had plenty of chances to put the record straight, but it seems she never considered that the rules also applied to her.
To give her some credit, she seemed to realise she had told the committee some incorrect information, and corrected it. She could have tried to bluff it out and hope no-one would notice.
I lie Osborne, but that tweet's ridiculous.
Oh, how we laughed...
PVV: 2.06 last matched
VVD: 2.08 last matched
https://twitter.com/scotgp/status/841621181320978438
https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/841690588818878464
Every post Brexit argument on here boils down to pretty much the same thing... people on here CANNOT ever admit they are wrong. .
Saying that, the door to Bute House does look a lot like No 10.
Listed under "Cameron's Assumptions".
PVV: 2.20 last matched
VVD: 2.04 last matched
If at the next general election post Brexit a future government is elected with a manifesto pledge for another EU Referendum then so be it. No Leaver objects to that which I know of.
Somehow, the details of public sector expenditure and trade are meant to be identical in the relationships between Scotland/UK and UK/EU even though they aren't remotely comparable.
Oh, and referendums should be banned indefinitely was the cry not so long ago.
Crazy stuff.
Top work lads, take a second Michelin star!
http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/NETHERLANDS-ELECTION/0100320E4KT/index.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social#section/parties
In other words, take with a large pinch of salt...
I understand that she needs to frame the whole campaign on the EU since it is the leave vote which has given her just about enough ammunition to get a second vote, but essentially closing the door to proper independence won't win a referendum. No way.
What exactly is this referendum in aid of?
Are you applying to join the EU if you manage to actually win this time?
I guess desperation takes many forms!
Watching Pointless and "Sunil" from Nottingham is on!
Wonder if that could be *THE* Sunil? :mopen_mouth:
Likewise, turnout increased in the two Danish Maastrict referendums over twenty years ago.
I'd have expected a decrease between first and second. Might we see an increased turnout in Scotland for a second referendum, despite an around 85% turnout in 2014?
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/841696541790371840
Actually, I merely wished them Good Luck before, knowing they didn't want anything else from an English person, but it was a much more sympathetic & interested Good Luck.
This time ... meh.
Only thing is, it will be even more hard to provide the clarity & certainty that article calls for than it was the first time round, because no-one will know what the Leave-EU terms will be.
Still, we can always employ more Civil Servants.
Hmmmmmm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t2NIuMzaDOs