SNP Politics

[Horus]

Can Nichola Sturgeon legitimately claim she has a mandate for another Scottish referendum when the figures show that around 1.6 million Scots voted to remain in the EU, but over 2.0 million voted against Scottish Independence at the last vote when a UK referendum was known to be on the agenda, so according to her logic 1.6 million votes trumps 2.0 million votes, or am I misunderstanding this?

[Who2]

If they vote out, they will be on their knees and that's guaranteed, no Scottish MP's, no subsidies, border controls, the ruddy Euro.
Never forget the Scots have always preferred France ever since Bonny Prince Charlie....

[carrie]

It's Great Britain that is a member of the EU, if Scotland decided to hold another referendum to leave GB and won. Then they would have to apply to join the EU. This would surely entail them being part of the Euro zone, Shengan and the whole sorry mess. Let them get on with it.

[Horus]

I could not agree more Dr and if my own observations are correct the majority of people in England in particular could not care less if they leave, maybe a case of crying wolf once too often and tired of hearing the old refrain?

And what you say is correct Carrie, even though the SNP do not think so.

[Who2]

I had for over 30 years supported Jeremy Corben and his principles, but he sacrificed his principles to leave the EU for the sake of the Labour party.
And for that reason alone I stopped supporting him, it was obvious to all he was against the EU and always has been.
"A man who denies his his principles denies his right to lead, for me he lost his integrity..

[Horus]

Exactly Dr, but I fear he will be very hard to remove if his supporters dig their heels in, we live in interesting times and we will have to endure a very rocky few moths before it settles down somewhat.

[newcastle]

Can Nichola Sturgeon legitimately claim she has a mandate for another Scottish referendum when the figures show that around 1.6 million Scots voted to remain in the EU, but over 2.0 million voted against Scottish Independence at the last vote when a UK referendum was known to be on the agenda, so according to her logic 1.6 million votes trumps 2.0 million votes, or am I misunderstanding this?

Deliberately so, I suspect

You minx, Horus

The SNP argue, very reasonably, that the only reason that the independence vote failed was precisely because of the possibility that they would NOT be admitted to the EU, post independence.

That argument (against independence) has now disappeared and Scotland are evidently pro-EU membership.

Of course, there's still the chance they would not get into EU as an independent state....but a minor risk, given that EU admit any old crap country nowadays
.

[HEPZIBAH]

My [lack of] understanding of the situation.

So, if Scotland becomes independent of England, and if Scotland then joins the EU, and then gets into the whole Shengan thingy, surely that would mean that there would have to be border patrols on the English/Scottish border. Perhaps they will save some money (that stuff that everyone has been talking about saving and splashing about..oops I mean spending on important things...but that doesn't really exist) and build on Hadrian's foundations, and fill a few of the plundered gaps in his wall.

[newcastle]

My [lack of] understanding of the situation.

So, if Scotland becomes independent of England, and if Scotland then joins the EU, and then gets into the whole Shengan thingy, surely that would mean that there would have to be border patrols on the English/Scottish border. Perhaps they will save some money (that stuff that everyone has been talking about saving and splashing about..oops I mean spending on important things...but that doesn't really exist) and build on Hadrian's foundations, and fill a few of the plundered gaps in his wall.

Spot on Hepzibah.

But first they'll have to build the wall between Ireland and Northern Ireland....a more imminent problem.

Sounds like a job for the Chinese....they have a track record in walls to keep out undesirables.

Who knows....maybe we can ask Europe to pay for it !(like Trump is proposing for Mexico)

[Horus]

Basic mistake you guys, Hadrians wall is not the border (I have walked its length many times) go a bit further North more towards the Antonine wall, but not as far.

[HEPZIBAH]

Basic mistake you guys, Hadrians wall is not the border (I have walked its length many times) go a bit further North more towards the Antonine wall, but not as far.

OK... that would help cut out the cost of surveys and it sounds like No Man's Land is already in place. It just needs the Entrance Gate (Passport Control) putting in place.

[Who2]

I certainly do want Jeremy to be ousted he was elected on his principals and integrity, I just want him to relocate them,
which I'm sure he will.
Politics as we all know is a dirty business but somebody has to do it.
We voted them all in and they hopefully do their best for Britain.
Least we can do this, is called Democracy in action.
Bet Ms Queen & family are knocking back the G&t's celebrating...
Ps: 55% of Scotland voted to stay in Britain that's why is called Britain..
Pss: That's why on the front of my passport it says:

United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Island

[newcastle]

I certainly do want Jeremy to be ousted he was elected on his principals and integrity, I just want him to relocate them,
which I'm sure he will.
Politics as we all know is a dirty business but somebody has to do it.
We voted them all in and they hopefully do their best for Britain.
Least we can do this, is called Democracy in action.
Bet Ms Queen & family are knocking back the G&t's celebration...
Ps: 55% of Scotland voted to stay in Britain that's why is called Britain..

AsGroucho Marx Jeremy Corbyn said :

"Those are my principles -
if you don't like them....I have others"

[Hafiz]

First principles tells you the following. You are elected to protect the interests of your electors.

If Scots interests are compromised by leaving the EU then you say so and you suggest ways in which Scots interests might be preserved or enhanced.

To do otherwise would be undemocratic - not securing the interests of your electors. If you are not prepared to advocate your electors interests you should go. Either now or be voted out at the next election. A moral person would either do their job now or go now.

Scotland has not done well for a long time and several generations of the welfare state have not helped it find a form of economic independence.

The Scots feelings of not having a fair share of the welfare state go back generations and the current surge of interest in looking for others to help represents a view that Scotland will be better 'looked after' in Europe than it ever was in the UK. They maybe right - but the important factor is that they think they are right based on a firm impression of generations of English selfishness, London-centric decision-making, failed nationalizations and welfare dependency. Any desperate Scot would be prepared to think that new 'friends' will be no worse than 'old'

Current sentiments have less to do with historic Stuart-Francophile interests of the 17th and 18th century than the political carelessness of recent centuries towards Scotland's economic and social needs. It is now not in good shape and it looks to its limited opportunities, the lessons of the past and the future.

You reap what you sow.

An aside. If Scotland secedes what will happen to the UK submarine nuclear deterrent - the greatly feared Trident. Will an English loch be found to conceal it or will it be based in the shallow Thames Estuary? Maybe in the Thames it could become a nuclear theme park and a memorial to power past.

[newcastle]

By the same token, the duty of the Westminster parliament is to protect the interests of UK citizens as a whole and if they consider that Scotland seceding from the Union would be detrimental to the UK as a whole they would have a moral duty to refuse any request for a referendum on the matter.

Bearing in mind the recent experience with the EU referendum, I can't see Nicola Sturgeon getting very far with this one.

[Hafiz]

I agree.

Everyone has their duty to their voters and their interests. Depends what voters and whether the national view gets broken down into regional one and how nations get broken down into regions because of mismanagement or identity issues. Think of Ireland. Conquered by William the C's brother but never fairly managed. After nearly a thousand years they still wanted out.

My point is that some interests have been systematically sacrificed to others and this - the haves and the have nots - is a big part of the cause of the current problem.

An effective national government governs for all and shares out the spoils to avoid regional grievance. Differences are smoothed over and loyalty bought from the weaker. If a national government cannot both govern for all whilst maintaining the interests of minorities and marginals the state will fragment. Spain and Belgium are good examples of poor national governments but, on the other hand, the diverse and recently unified (I mean 1871) Germany is an example of good national government. Good and fair government does not seem to have been done for for the Scots for generations. There are also questions of identity but I stay well away from them.

You are right, constitutionally, although the UK does not have an agreed let alone a written constitution, Its constitution are acts of parliament that can be changed momentarily and a set of unwritten conventions. Nothing is set in stone. However, given current legislation, London can block anything that the Scots propose.

London's current legal powers are not the political and public relations issue. Were there to be aggrieved and overwhelming opinion (not there yet) no responsible government could face the world and be seen to oppress public opinion. In any event the cat is already out - the previous agreement by London to a plebiscite in Scotland means that London has already agreed in principle to the notion of self determination for Scotland. Whether that is in the EU or not seems immaterial. A vote once agreed to means that another can be held.

[newcastle]

Whilst Scotland, indeed any nation, has a fundamental right to self-determination it is not, as a matter of practicality, going to happen any time soon. In fact....at all.

It's unlikely they'd be granted a referendum on the matter by Westminster which would leave them trying to muster support for the proposal in some other way.....a petition on Facebook perhaps

Then, having garnered the verifiable support of umpteen millions of Scots (definition?) I suppose they could then approach the United Nations and get a majority declaration that they should be regarded as an independent nation.

The UK would then cheerfully ignore all their efforts, using its veto in the Security council, if necessary, as a last resort.

As I say...without the cooperation of Westminster, who are unlikely to be for Scottish independence, the idea is dead in the water.

As the diplomatic route is patently hopeless, their best bet is to form an army and march south , surround the House of Parliament and demand submission to their demands. It's only 300 years since they last gave that a go.....worth a try I suppose.

[Hafiz]

Newcastle - the cat is already out. Westminster agreed 2 years ago to give the Scots the right to vote on independence. At that time they said no.

A right once given cannot after be withdrawn. For example I am not aware that Westminster said that the vote of 2 years ago was a once only offer - never to be repeated. After the last vote every commentator publically accepted that, at some time in the future, the Scottish Nationalists would have another go. Now is that time. No one said that it was a once and final vote.Once agreed it becomes an indefinite and renewable right.

Issues like the United Nations were never voiced last time and are irrelevant now. Any future vote will proceed on the same clear basis as the last vote. Jokes about occupation are welcome but ignore the issue that since the last vote little has been done to win Scotland back to a Unionist position. You should think more about how legal niceties are balanced against grievance and how that equation works out in the long term. History gives you only one answer.

The principle of possible separation has already been conceded by Westminster 2 years ago. They agreed to it. No new theory or principle is now needed. Its now a second run of the same principle.

The Scots have a now indefinite right established by Westminster, if they want, to be an independent nation. Once independent they can do what they want. Its a done deal, the only question is the start date - 1 year, a thousand years.

[newcastle]

Newcastle - the cat is already out. Westminster agreed 2 years ago to give the Scots the right to vote on independence.As I said....this is a right enshrined in International Law. It does not require agreement by Westminster At that time they said no.

A right once given cannot after be withdrawn.So you say.....but it wasn't 'given'....it 'exists' For example I am not aware that Westminster said that the vote of 2 years ago was a once only offer - never to be repeated. After the last vote every commentator publically accepted that, at some time in the future, the Scottish Nationalists would have another go. Now is that timeIn your opinion...but not, I suspect, in the opinion of Westminster MPs. No one said that it was a once and final vote.

Issues like the United Nations were never voiced last time and are irrelevant nowIt's their only course if Westminster doesn't comply. Any future vote will proceed on the same clear basis as the last vote. Jokes about occupation are welcome but ignore the issue that since the last vote little has been done to win Scotland back to a Unionist position. You should think more about how legal niceties are balanced against grievance and how that equation works out in the long term. History gives you only one answer.Now who's joking! I don't see the prospect of conflict weighing heavily on the minds at Westminster....in the real world!

The principle of possible separation has already been conceded by Westminster 2 years ago. They agreed to it. No new theory or principle is now needed. Its now a second run of the same principle.They are trying this line as we speak....good luck to them!

The Scots have a right established by Westminster, if they want, to be an independent nationNo...established by International Law...see above comments. Once independent they can do what they want. Its a done deal, the only question is the start date - 1 year, a thousand years.Make that...never

If nothing else, the recent fiasco will have alerted Westminster to the dangers of a referendum not producing the desired (from their perspective) result. Accordingly , despite what you say, I would be surprised if they voluntarily acceded to the request from SNP for another referendum.....leaving them to jump up and down and stamp their feet....and not much else