The SNP look for dividing lines with England, and then align themselves accordingly. Not the other way round.
We were told in 2014 that if we wanted to stay in the EU that we should vote No to stay aligned with England. How did that work out?
Badly.
What you should have been told was that while leaving the UK would have terminated your EU membership and therefore voting Remain was the only pathway to retaining it, voting Remain was not in itself a guarantee of staying in given the realistic possibility of a vote on EU membership in the near future. But the second bit kind of got lost in the wash.
In fairness, very few people foresaw that the UK would vote to leave the EU, especially if Scotland was voting (and one factor that tipped the scales was lower turnout in Scotland). But it was still, in practice, a lie.
You were lied to, repeatedly, by both sides, which unfortunately set the tone for the EU referendum in 2016.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
I would be interested to see the underlying data behind that Business for Scotland chart. I suspect a lot has to do with the trade in financial services, especially for investment houses HQ'd in Edinburgh.
Export Performance In 2017, the financial and business services sector accounted for around 10.3 per cent (£3.4bn) of Scotland’s total international exports and 27.1 per cent (£13.2bn) of Scotland’s total exports to the rest of the UK. International exports in this sector have increased reasonably consistently over time, despite a brief dip during the 2007/8 financial crisis. Exports to the rest of the UK have also increased over time, though the impact of the financial crisis is more apparent, with exports yet to return to their pre-crisis peak (Figure 1).
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites and Brownites
Hold on a minute - you are the one itching to send the troops in!
I am a Remain voting Tory
But aren't you a born-again Leaver?
I don't see Ken Clarke raising a people's militia to support the Union.
I respected the Brexit vote but still would prefer a trade deal with the EU post Brexit.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What does the corresponding chart for Scotland look like ?
Scotland accounts for 7.5% of rUK's trade rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
Whenever I have someone Irish berate me for the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, I always ask "so I guess you would have been against Irish independence in 1922?". Usually that shuts them up.
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have a referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
Absolutely spot on. Would also give Edinburgh a useful competitive advantage in the island of Britain – would be in the Eurozone.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have another referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
If you want to wait 41 years like the Eurosceptics did, I'm sure that would count as a generation.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What does the corresponding chart for Scotland look like ?
Scotland accounts for 7.5% of rUK's trade rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
Whenever I have someone Irish berate me for the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, I always ask "so I guess you would have been against Irish independence in 1922?". Usually that shuts them up.
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have a referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
The first EEC referendum was 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016.
So on that basis I would agree to indyref2 in 2055
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What does the corresponding chart for Scotland look like ?
Scotland accounts for 7.5% of rUK's trade rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
Whenever I have someone Irish berate me for the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, I always ask "so I guess you would have been against Irish independence in 1922?". Usually that shuts them up.
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have a referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
The first EEC referendum was 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016.
So on that basis I would agree to indyref2 in 2055
Then perhaps it is fortunate it isn't your decision.
The SNP look for dividing lines with England, and then align themselves accordingly. Not the other way round.
We were told in 2014 that if we wanted to stay in the EU that we should vote No to stay aligned with England. How did that work out?
Badly.
What you should have been told was that while leaving the UK would have terminated your EU membership and therefore voting Remain was the only pathway to retaining it, voting Remain was not in itself a guarantee of staying in given the realistic possibility of a vote on EU membership in the near future. But the second bit kind of got lost in the wash.
In fairness, very few people foresaw that the UK would vote to leave the EU, especially if Scotland was voting (and one factor that tipped the scales was lower turnout in Scotland). But it was still, in practice, a lie.
You were lied to, repeatedly, by both sides, which unfortunately set the tone for the EU referendum in 2016.
Well, the deal is the winners own subsequent events. If there hadn't been an EU referendum, or Remain had won it, Indy would be coasting along on sub 45%, the Union on 55% plus and the SNP would be at best hoping for some sort of a deal with the Greens after May next year. Unionists could have had the Union or Brexit, but they got greedy and wanted both. They just need to suck it up.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What does the corresponding chart for Scotland look like ?
Scotland accounts for 7.5% of rUK's trade rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
Whenever I have someone Irish berate me for the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, I always ask "so I guess you would have been against Irish independence in 1922?". Usually that shuts them up.
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have a referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
The first EEC referendum was 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016.
So on that basis I would agree to indyref2 in 2055
The first Scottish Parliament ref was in 1979 and the second in 1999.
So on that basis I would say you are full of excrement.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What does the corresponding chart for Scotland look like ?
Scotland accounts for 7.5% of rUK's trade rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
Whenever I have someone Irish berate me for the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, I always ask "so I guess you would have been against Irish independence in 1922?". Usually that shuts them up.
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have a referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
The first EEC referendum was 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016.
So on that basis I would agree to indyref2 in 2055
The first Scottish Parliament ref was in 1979 and the second in 1999.
So on that basis I would say you are full of excrement.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What does the corresponding chart for Scotland look like ?
Scotland accounts for 7.5% of rUK's trade rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
Whenever I have someone Irish berate me for the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, I always ask "so I guess you would have been against Irish independence in 1922?". Usually that shuts them up.
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have a referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
The first EEC referendum was 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016.
So on that basis I would agree to indyref2 in 2055
The first Scottish Parliament ref was in 1979 and the second in 1999.
So on that basis I would say you are full of excrement.
Just be thankful he hasn't used the Welsh Parliament. First summoned in 1405, next summoned 1408, next summoned 1999.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have another referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
If you want to wait 41 years like the Eurosceptics did, I'm sure that would count as a generation.
Like the Eurosceptics did (cos they didn't have any choice), I'll wait for my country to vote for a party that has a referendum as a central part of their manifesto to win an election.
Thankfully it looks like we may be spared 41 years of Eurosceptic-style pissing and moaning.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
Absolutely spot on. Would also give Edinburgh a useful competitive advantage in the island of Britain – would be in the Eurozone.
I think Edinburgh thrives as the bridge between the rUK and the eurozone in this scenario, surely @DavidL would be happy about that ?
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
The principles are very similar. However, my identity is British and I supported British independence from the EU but not home-islands separation and independence on top too. It's all about identity and how you feel.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
If your identity is British why vote for Johnson who is on a course to destroy the country as we know (and love) it?
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
I think that post is entirely logical.
The one spanner in the works, which otherwise would have made it a much easier option for Scotland, is us leaving the EU and therefore putting a border between us. It is the Northern Ireland argument again.
If we hadn't voted to leave, Scottish Independence was much easier (assuming the EU allowed them to maintain their membership).
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
The principles are very similar. However, my identity is British and I supported British independence from the EU but not home-islands separation and independence on top too. It's all about identity and how you feel.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
If your identity is British why vote for Johnson who is on a course to destroy the country as we know (and love) it?
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
I would be interested to see the underlying data behind that Business for Scotland chart. I suspect a lot has to do with the trade in financial services, especially for investment houses HQ'd in Edinburgh.
What they've done is to disingenuously split the EU figure, which doesn't make sense as it requires one trade deal with the EU. So a lot of the EU total is hidden off the right edge of the graph, whereas if you had a bar for the EU it would dwarf that for Scotland.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What does the corresponding chart for Scotland look like ?
Scotland accounts for 7.5% of rUK's trade rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
Whenever I have someone Irish berate me for the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, I always ask "so I guess you would have been against Irish independence in 1922?". Usually that shuts them up.
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have a referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
The first EEC referendum was 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016.
So on that basis I would agree to indyref2 in 2055
The first Scottish Parliament ref was in 1979 and the second in 1999.
So on that basis I would say you are full of excrement.
So you are happy to pencil in 2034 for indyref2 then?
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
The flip side is that SNP are telling Scotland they will marry a super model and have weekly winning lottery tickets, to fund their jet-set lifestyle.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
I would be interested to see the underlying data behind that Business for Scotland chart. I suspect a lot has to do with the trade in financial services, especially for investment houses HQ'd in Edinburgh.
What they've done is to disingenuously split the EU figure, which doesn't make sense as it requires one trade deal with the EU. So a lot of the EU total is hidden off the right edge of the graph, whereas if you had a bar for the EU it would dwarf that for Scotland.
Yeah, it's not called the single market for nothing. The same plot for Scotland would show rUK dwarfing the EU, let alone the individual member states.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
The principles are very similar. However, my identity is British and I supported British independence from the EU but not home-islands separation and independence on top too. It's all about identity and how you feel.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
If your identity is British why vote for Johnson who is on a course to destroy the country as we know (and love) it?
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
The principles are very similar. However, my identity is British and I supported British independence from the EU but not home-islands separation and independence on top too. It's all about identity and how you feel.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
If your identity is British why vote for Johnson who is on a course to destroy the country as we know (and love) it?
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
The principles are very similar. However, my identity is British and I supported British independence from the EU but not home-islands separation and independence on top too. It's all about identity and how you feel.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
If your identity is British why vote for Johnson who is on a course to destroy the country as we know (and love) it?
Did you see the other guy at the last GE ?!
Reminds me of the fave refrain of Trump voters.
You're seriously comparing Clinton to Corbyn ?
Both were extremely polarising candidates and bad choices for their respective parties imo.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
The flip side is that SNP are telling Scotland they will marry a super model and have weekly winning lottery tickets, to fund their jet-set lifestyle.
Who said this:
'Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3?'
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
The principles are very similar. However, my identity is British and I supported British independence from the EU but not home-islands separation and independence on top too. It's all about identity and how you feel.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
If your identity is British why vote for Johnson who is on a course to destroy the country as we know (and love) it?
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
Err. That's largely because opinion has moved against it. So much so that even polling on the question is rare nowadays. But when it happens it is 25 to 33%. There are numerous, complex political and demographic reasons for this on both a provincial and federal level, but comparisons with Scotland are not really apt because of this.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
Tbh I didn't notice a shortage of everyone in Britain having a say last time round. If you mean that everyone should have a vote, I'm afraid that would force me down the tedious 'Brexit should have been an EU wide vote' line, which would be distressing for everyone.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
The principles are very similar. However, my identity is British and I supported British independence from the EU but not home-islands separation and independence on top too. It's all about identity and how you feel.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
If your identity is British why vote for Johnson who is on a course to destroy the country as we know (and love) it?
Did you see the other guy at the last GE ?!
Reminds me of the fave refrain of Trump voters.
You're seriously comparing Clinton to Corbyn ?
I thought it was comparing Corbyn to Trump.
In terms of running a country, a Clinton administration is miles ahead of the other three options I think. Corbyn bang last, Johnson slightly above Trump. For electioneering, Clinton slides down the list somewhat.
How can anyone democratically support no Indy Ref if the SNP get a majority next year.
I oppose Independence strongly but I simply cannot understand how that is not a case for another referendum.
I agree that, in my judgement, a majority (which could consist of Greens as well as the SNP) elected to Holyrood on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum would be a democratic mandate for one to happen.
And yet. I don't think each election is a year zero event that erases all past history. It's not necessarily entirely anti-democratic to oppose another referendum on the basis of holding people to the commitment at the previous referendum that it would be a once-in-a-generation event.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
Tbh I didn't notice a shortage of everyone in Britain having a say last time round. If you mean that everyone should have a vote, I'm afraid that would force me down the tedious 'Brexit should have been an EU wide vote' line, which would be distressing for everyone.
Although it would have been quite funny if we'd voted to stay in the EU by a narrow margin and everyone else had told us to fuck off.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
Tbh I didn't notice a shortage of everyone in Britain having a say last time round. If you mean that everyone should have a vote, I'm afraid that would force me down the tedious 'Brexit should have been an EU wide vote' line, which would be distressing for everyone.
False analagy - much more of a nation than EU is. Not beyond the wit of man to devise a weighting: Scot = 1.0, Non Scot 0.5. We can argue about the weighting, but at least everyone would get a say.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
Err. That's largely because opinion has moved against it. So much so that even polling on the question is rare nowadays. But when it happens it is 25 to 33%. There are numerous, complex political and demographic reasons for this on both a provincial and federal level, but comparisons with Scotland are not really apt because of this.
That is after Quebec's indyref2, before its indyref2 Yes to independence from Canada led most polls but No won 51% to 49% as Don't Knows went No.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
The flip side is that SNP are telling Scotland they will marry a super model and have weekly winning lottery tickets, to fund their jet-set lifestyle.
Who said this:
'Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3?'
In his case the analysis is not totally incorrect, perhaps he should have said voting Tory will cause "my wife" etc. and "increase my chances of owning a BMW M3".
He does after all now enjoy a chauffer driven Jaguar and he has exchanged his wife for a trophy mistress.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
Err. That's largely because opinion has moved against it. So much so that even polling on the question is rare nowadays. But when it happens it is 25 to 33%. There are numerous, complex political and demographic reasons for this on both a provincial and federal level, but comparisons with Scotland are not really apt because of this.
That is after Quebec's indyref2, before its indyref2 Yes to independence from Canada led most polls but No won 51% to 49% as Don't Knows went No.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
The flip side is that SNP are telling Scotland they will marry a super model and have weekly winning lottery tickets, to fund their jet-set lifestyle.
Who said this:
'Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3?'
In his case the analysis is not totally incorrect, perhaps he should have said voting Tory will cause "my wife" etc. and "increase my chances of owning a BMW M3".
He does after all now enjoy a chauffer driven Jaguar and he has exchanged his wife for a trophy mistress.
In many ways, the more telling comment in that speech was this comment and aside.
'Can't remember what my line on drugs is. What's my line on drugs?'
Setting his inability to master policy detail early...
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
Err. That's largely because opinion has moved against it. So much so that even polling on the question is rare nowadays. But when it happens it is 25 to 33%. There are numerous, complex political and demographic reasons for this on both a provincial and federal level, but comparisons with Scotland are not really apt because of this.
That is after Quebec's indyref2, before its indyref2 Yes to independence from Canada led most polls but No won 51% to 49% as Don't Knows went No.
So very apt for Scotland
Indeed so lets see how Scotland's Indyref2.
Glad you're on the same page now.
Quebec's indyref2 was in 1995, 15 years after its first referendum in 1980.
So that means 2029 for Scotland's indyref2 at the earliest
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
By implication you think we should aim to re-incorporate Ireland into the UK?
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
By implication you think we should aim to re-incorporate Ireland into the UK?
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
Err. That's largely because opinion has moved against it. So much so that even polling on the question is rare nowadays. But when it happens it is 25 to 33%. There are numerous, complex political and demographic reasons for this on both a provincial and federal level, but comparisons with Scotland are not really apt because of this.
That is after Quebec's indyref2, before its indyref2 Yes to independence from Canada led most polls but No won 51% to 49% as Don't Knows went No.
So very apt for Scotland
Indeed so lets see how Scotland's Indyref2.
Glad you're on the same page now.
Quebec's indyref2 was in 1995, 15 years after its first referendum in 1980.
So that means 2029 for Scotland's indyref2 at the earliest
No it means 2029 at the latest if we follow their precedence. No reason it can't be earlier if the Scots vote to have it earlier.
Handily they're having an election next year so let's see what they say then.
Walked past an outdoor rave/party in a square in Palermo, we decided to join for a bit. Really hoping we can get the clubs open ASAP as there is definitely something lacking from life at the moment and I think dancing in bars and clubs is part of it. It was the first time either myself of my wife have really just cut loose and had a proper dance since probably Xmas last year, we'd normally go to bars at least once every couple of weeks with friends and go to a nostalgia 90s night every couple of months as well. I've just realised how much I miss it and meeting friends there.
Hmm, clubs look to be globally an absolute hotspot for transmission; definitely one to keep closed if you want the total risk budget low enough for schools. Enjoy the holiday !
There's only so long that we can reasonably expect people not to do things like going to clubs and bars. Humanity has got through much worse things than Covid-19 in the past without ruining everything worthwhile about life. What disturbs me is the number of otherwise reasonable people who seem to honestly expect people to live like hermits for 18 months or 2 years.
FPT: Vaccine is heading out in rapid time, "There's only so long" takes us past the point one is likely out in my opinion.
Indeed.
We need to get life pretty much back to normal until a vaccine is out, we're probably well past the halfway point of until then If we can get pretty much back to normal but without nightclubs, with quarantining of foreign travel and with face masks . . . then I can live with that until there's a vaccine.
Its better than another damn lockdown. That needs to be avoided.
To nightclubs, I would also add gigs and loud music in pubs. Vocalisation and people getting physically close so they can hear each other are a recipe for spread. Sadly football crowds too. Quiet crowds in theatres or lectures etc may well be safe. Unfortunate, and I am a fan of live music, but not safe at present.
I suppose one counterpoint to that is that people who frequent nightclubs and gigs are unlikely to be adversely affected by Covid, so as long as they are careful not to meet vulnerable groups it would improve immunity with very little if any detriment to health.
They not only need to avoid vulnerable groups, they need also to avoid people who come into contact with vulnerable groups. Which essentially means the lives of people who want to go to a club or work in a club have to do so in total isolation.
That might work for professional sports people but I can't see most club goers adhering to those rules.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
Err. That's largely because opinion has moved against it. So much so that even polling on the question is rare nowadays. But when it happens it is 25 to 33%. There are numerous, complex political and demographic reasons for this on both a provincial and federal level, but comparisons with Scotland are not really apt because of this.
That is after Quebec's indyref2, before its indyref2 Yes to independence from Canada led most polls but No won 51% to 49% as Don't Knows went No.
So very apt for Scotland
Indeed so lets see how Scotland's Indyref2.
Glad you're on the same page now.
Quebec's indyref2 was in 1995, 15 years after its first referendum in 1980.
So that means 2029 for Scotland's indyref2 at the earliest
No it means 2029 at the latest if we follow their precedence. No reason it can't be earlier if the Scots vote to have it earlier.
Handily they're having an election next year so let's see what they say then.
Hey, don't quibble. 26 years have been knocked off already.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
Nobody regards the English as fondly as the English.
Though the idea of the self hating Englishman seems to be gaining currency, that is anyone who doesn't like Jim Davidson, statchoos and changes their pants every day.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
The flip side is that SNP are telling Scotland they will marry a super model and have weekly winning lottery tickets, to fund their jet-set lifestyle.
Who said this:
'Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3?'
In his case the analysis is not totally incorrect, perhaps he should have said voting Tory will cause "my wife" etc. and "increase my chances of owning a BMW M3".
He does after all now enjoy a chauffer driven Jaguar and he has exchanged his wife for a trophy mistress.
In many ways, the more telling comment in that speech was this comment and aside.
'Can't remember what my line on drugs is. What's my line on drugs?'
Setting his inability to master policy detail early...
or cleverly sidestepping future charges of hypocrisy on drugs (see Gove, M).
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
The flip side is that SNP are telling Scotland they will marry a super model and have weekly winning lottery tickets, to fund their jet-set lifestyle.
Who said this:
'Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3?'
In his case the analysis is not totally incorrect, perhaps he should have said voting Tory will cause "my wife" etc. and "increase my chances of owning a BMW M3".
He does after all now enjoy a chauffer driven Jaguar and he has exchanged his wife for a trophy mistress.
In many ways, the more telling comment in that speech was this comment and aside.
'Can't remember what my line on drugs is. What's my line on drugs?'
Setting his inability to master policy detail early...
That statement may also have been broadly accurate, given his interest in more liberal epicurean lifestyles. Although you are probably on the money with your interpretation.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
The more problematic one is describing Northern Ireland as a country.
Ulster was a country. Ireland was/is a country. Northern Ireland is a construct.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
The more problematic one is describing Northern Ireland as a country.
Ulster was a country. Ireland was/is a country. Northern Ireland is a construct.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
The more problematic one is describing Northern Ireland as a country.
Ulster was a country. Ireland was/is a country. Northern Ireland is a construct.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
Wales is de-facto a country, and I can imagine most Welsh people would consider it a county. “Murr principality” types are irrelevant.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
So says the world renowned financial expert who can see future country budgets and deficits
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
I would be interested to see the underlying data behind that Business for Scotland chart. I suspect a lot has to do with the trade in financial services, especially for investment houses HQ'd in Edinburgh.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
Wales is de-facto a country, and I can imagine most Welsh people would consider it a county. “Murr principality” types are irrelevant.
For sure, but in a legal and technical sense it is a principality, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be for. If I wanted to know how Welsh people felt about it I'd go and ask them if I want to know what the legal status of Wales is I would expect something that purports to be an encyclopedia to know.
The government exercises this perfectly. Williamson has taken responsibility for what's happened and made the u-turn himself and taken responsibility to sort out the mess that's resulted.
That's quite right. I don't like Williamson at the best of times but he's doing the right thing here.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What does the corresponding chart for Scotland look like ?
Scotland accounts for 7.5% of rUK's trade rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
Whenever I have someone Irish berate me for the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, I always ask "so I guess you would have been against Irish independence in 1922?". Usually that shuts them up.
Whenever I have some English Brexiteer berate me for wanting Scotland to have a referendum on leaving the the UK on the grounds of democratic will, I always ask "so I guess you were actually against England having a vote on Brexit then?". Unfortunately that hardly ever shuts them up.
The first EEC referendum was 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016.
So on that basis I would agree to indyref2 in 2055
The first Scottish Parliament ref was in 1979 and the second in 1999.
So on that basis I would say you are full of excrement.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
Absolutely spot on. Would also give Edinburgh a useful competitive advantage in the island of Britain – would be in the Eurozone.
I think Edinburgh thrives as the bridge between the rUK and the eurozone in this scenario, surely @DavidL would be happy about that ?
I do not think that Scotland would be better off in the Euro or in the EU when rUK is not. Our trade is currently dominated by intra UK trade which would have all of the NI issues plus a currency issue as well. The Euro has been a cross to bear for several countries, notably the PIIGS, and I fear it would be for us too.
But, if Scotland were to vote for independence, I would concede that this is a better scenario than most of the others. Still a long, long way from cost free of course and not entirely in our own hands because it very much depends on the nature of the Brexit deal that the UK strikes and the co-operation of the EU in accelerating our membership application.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
Wales is de-facto a country, and I can imagine most Welsh people would consider it a county. “Murr principality” types are irrelevant.
For sure, but in a legal and technical sense it is a principality, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be for. If I wanted to know how Welsh people felt about it I'd go and ask them if I want to know what the legal status of Wales is I would expect something that purports to be an encyclopedia to know.
Wales is a country officially now, its not a principality anymore.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
can file this lot under total whining self interest bollox,
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
Wales is de-facto a country, and I can imagine most Welsh people would consider it a county. “Murr principality” types are irrelevant.
For sure, but in a legal and technical sense it is a principality, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be for. If I wanted to know how Welsh people felt about it I'd go and ask them if I want to know what the legal status of Wales is I would expect something that purports to be an encyclopedia to know.
The “legal” status of Wales is probably highly disputed. The consequence of the various Welsh Acts over the last 20 years, as well as others, probably change the status of “Wales” as it was when it was incorporated into the Kingdom of England.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
The more problematic one is describing Northern Ireland as a country.
Ulster was a country. Ireland was/is a country. Northern Ireland is a construct.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
Is being a principality and a country mutually exclusive?
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
Wales is de-facto a country, and I can imagine most Welsh people would consider it a county. “Murr principality” types are irrelevant.
For sure, but in a legal and technical sense it is a principality, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be for. If I wanted to know how Welsh people felt about it I'd go and ask them if I want to know what the legal status of Wales is I would expect something that purports to be an encyclopedia to know.
It hasn't been legally a principality for nine years now. The legal and technical definition is that it is a country.
The government exercises this perfectly. Williamson has taken responsibility for what's happened and made the u-turn himself and taken responsibility to sort out the mess that's resulted.
That's quite right. I don't like Williamson at the best of times but he's doing the right thing here.
I blame Tony Blair. Taking responsibility for something used to mean resigning, not issuing a half-arsed apology and sacking an underling.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
More utter unionist tripe. It is the UK that needs to provide the access to their shit systems that is at fault. Lady Haw Haw once again, are you physically able of telling the truth.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
For once I strongly agree with you.
Unionists musn`t make the same mistake that Remain did in the EU Ref. That is, to only base their arguments on pragmatic factors.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
It's not one nation though, is it?
What word do you use to describe the UK, then? Country? Nation state?
A unitary state? Wiki describes the UK as consisting 'of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Wikipedia is wrong because Wales isn't a country, it's a principality. Also, it's Wikipedia.
The more problematic one is describing Northern Ireland as a country.
Ulster was a country. Ireland was/is a country. Northern Ireland is a construct.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
More utter unionist tripe. It is the UK that needs to provide the access to their shit systems that is at fault. Lady Haw Haw once again, are you physically able of telling the truth.
Comments
What you should have been told was that while leaving the UK would have terminated your EU membership and therefore voting Remain was the only pathway to retaining it, voting Remain was not in itself a guarantee of staying in given the realistic possibility of a vote on EU membership in the near future. But the second bit kind of got lost in the wash.
In fairness, very few people foresaw that the UK would vote to leave the EU, especially if Scotland was voting (and one factor that tipped the scales was lower turnout in Scotland). But it was still, in practice, a lie.
You were lied to, repeatedly, by both sides, which unfortunately set the tone for the EU referendum in 2016.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53817598
It would be an interesting set of negotiations.
Perhaps by then we’d have learned something from the coming Brexit mess.
In 2017, the financial and business services sector accounted for around 10.3 per cent (£3.4bn) of Scotland’s total international exports and 27.1 per cent (£13.2bn) of Scotland’s total exports to the rest of the UK. International exports in this sector have increased reasonably consistently over time, despite a brief dip during the 2007/8 financial crisis. Exports to the rest of the UK have also increased over time, though the impact of the financial crisis is more apparent, with exports yet to return to their pre-crisis peak (Figure 1).
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotland-a-trading-nation/sectors/financial-and-business-services/
So on that basis I would agree to indyref2 in 2055
So on that basis I would say you are full of excrement.
Thankfully it looks like we may be spared 41 years of Eurosceptic-style pissing and moaning.
The one spanner in the works, which otherwise would have made it a much easier option for Scotland, is us leaving the EU and therefore putting a border between us. It is the Northern Ireland argument again.
If we hadn't voted to leave, Scottish Independence was much easier (assuming the EU allowed them to maintain their membership).
Erhhhhh
https://news.stv.tv/politics/1435913-ministers-delay-full-control-of-welfare-powers-until-2024?top
I oppose Independence strongly but I simply cannot understand how that is not a case for another referendum.
I agree that the case for Scottish independence is largely emotional, as long as it is accepted that in this case the emotion runs both ways. I am emotionally attached to Britain, I`m British way more than I am English. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English - all equal as far as I`m concerned. All British. One nation.
That`s why if there is another Scottish referendum everyone in Britain should have a say. We all have emotions and identity invested in this issue. It`s a great shame - indeed a tragedy - that Scots don`t regard English people as fondly as the English do the Scots.
'Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3?'
So much so that even polling on the question is rare nowadays. But when it happens it is 25 to 33%.
There are numerous, complex political and demographic reasons for this on both a provincial and federal level, but comparisons with Scotland are not really apt because of this.
Tbh I didn't notice a shortage of everyone in Britain having a say last time round. If you mean that everyone should have a vote, I'm afraid that would force me down the tedious 'Brexit should have been an EU wide vote' line, which would be distressing for everyone.
For electioneering, Clinton slides down the list somewhat.
And yet. I don't think each election is a year zero event that erases all past history. It's not necessarily entirely anti-democratic to oppose another referendum on the basis of holding people to the commitment at the previous referendum that it would be a once-in-a-generation event.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1295678493137817600?s=20
Can 'Project Fear' lay claim to be the most influential political term of the the last 10 years? Top 5 at least.
So very apt for Scotland
He does after all now enjoy a chauffer driven Jaguar and he has exchanged his wife for a trophy mistress.
Glad you're on the same page now.
'Can't remember what my line on drugs is. What's my line on drugs?'
Setting his inability to master policy detail early...
So that means 2029 for Scotland's indyref2 at the earliest
Handily they're having an election next year so let's see what they say then.
That might work for professional sports people but I can't see most club goers adhering to those rules.
Ironically Unionists who are keen on the one nation thing seem to ignore the implications of the word union.
Ulster was a country. Ireland was/is a country. Northern Ireland is a construct.
That's quite right. I don't like Williamson at the best of times but he's doing the right thing here.
But, if Scotland were to vote for independence, I would concede that this is a better scenario than most of the others. Still a long, long way from cost free of course and not entirely in our own hands because it very much depends on the nature of the Brexit deal that the UK strikes and the co-operation of the EU in accelerating our membership application.
The correct term for Northern Ireland is "province".
https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso_3166-2_newsletter_ii-3_2011-12-13.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/swedens-covid-19-strategist-under-fire-over-herd-immunity-emails
Anders Tegnell appears to have asked if higher death rate for older people might be acceptable...