Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The main thing that this "deal" has shown is that the elected goverment of the uk has surrendered its nearly all of its authority to make its own rules/regs and laws thus it is no longer an independant nation and is now just a state in the united federation of europe.
This referendum is the last roll of the dice to stay a country in our own right.

To be fair is not a done deal.

There's many more tedious months of this nonsense.

Skullhammer wrote:
The main thing that this "deal" has shown is that the elected goverment of the uk has surrendered its nearly all of its authority to make its own rules/regs and laws thus it is no longer an independant nation and is now just a state in the united federation of europe.
This referendum is the last roll of the dice to stay a country in our own right.

That simply is not true.

The EU has no power to make legislation for member states. What happens is that individual member states are expected to implement directives within their own law. For example, the Human Rights Act is the UK implementation of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

The UK also runs its own foreign policy and economic policy including currrency.

 Ketara wrote:

You are aware Scotland won't get another independence vote for at least another thirty to forty years, right? You might want to start thinking about where you think our nation should go with it's future on a current topic, as opposed to focusing on something been and gone. Scottish independence won't be an issue on the mainstream political agenda for most of either of our remaining lives, if necessarily ever again.

Haahahahahahahahhaahaaha!

No, seriously, what do you think the chances are that the SNP will shut up and get back in its box, or be out of power in Scotland for the next 20 years?

Seriously, why do you think it matters?

Because while you may not feel that it "won't be an issue no the mainstream political agenda" down in England, they are never, ever going to shut up about it here. It IS the mainstream political agenda in Scotland.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
The main thing that this "deal" has shown is that the elected goverment of the uk has surrendered its nearly all of its authority to make its own rules/regs and laws thus it is no longer an independant nation and is now just a state in the united federation of europe.
This referendum is the last roll of the dice to stay a country in our own right.

That simply is not true.

The EU has no power to make legislation for member states. What happens is that individual member states are expected to implement directives within their own law. For example, the Human Rights Act is the UK implementation of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

The UK also runs its own foreign policy and economic policy including currrency.

So the member states are "expected" to implement a "directive" from a non national body into law. So yes the eu makes the rules and the states implement them. Notice states not countries and that is the point. Countries make and implement there own laws/ rules etc not get given them to rubber stamp. Some are a good idea but what stops a country from implementing there own version, nothing except in the eu its one for all wether all want that version or not . And to me that means its not a country but a vassel.
People all over the world die and have died for there freedom to make there own rules/laws but the states of europe are just giving them away, even a quick look at the justice system shows this the eu court can and does over rule the highest court in the uk.
it starts with getting trade regs in line then laws and justice then taxs then defence and next you look your country is gone. and to me this is just wrong.

As for economics and forign policy yes they are independant for now. even then we (uk) can not form our own trade deals with anyone outside of the eu as thats done by the eu trade minister and the eu commisiners are pushing hard for a unified forign policy, so yes to me this is the last peaceful chance for the uk to remain independant.
its taken 40 years for this chance if it fails the uk will be nothing but a star on someone elses flag in another 40.

Skullhammer wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
The main thing that this "deal" has shown is that the elected goverment of the uk has surrendered its nearly all of its authority to make its own rules/regs and laws thus it is no longer an independant nation and is now just a state in the united federation of europe.
This referendum is the last roll of the dice to stay a country in our own right.

That simply is not true.

The EU has no power to make legislation for member states. What happens is that individual member states are expected to implement directives within their own law. For example, the Human Rights Act is the UK implementation of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

The UK also runs its own foreign policy and economic policy including currrency.

So the member states are "expected" to implement a "directive" from a non national body into law. So yes the eu makes the rules and the states implement them. Notice states not countries and that is the point. ... ....

Member states, member countries, member nations, these are piddling matters of nomenclature.

The fact is that EU directives do not pop out of some random Eurocrat's arsehole, according to a weird Illuminati plan designed to piss off Daily Mail readers. They are developed in cooperation between the member nations joined by treaty that was freely entered into, and Britain being the second most populous and second richest member, the UK has a big hand in these plans.

As for economics, here's Reuters reporting on trade deals signed between India and the UK without benefit of EU permission.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0T100920151113?irpc=932

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
The main thing that this "deal" has shown is that the elected goverment of the uk has surrendered its nearly all of its authority to make its own rules/regs and laws thus it is no longer an independant nation and is now just a state in the united federation of europe.
This referendum is the last roll of the dice to stay a country in our own right.

That simply is not true.

The EU has no power to make legislation for member states. What happens is that individual member states are expected to implement directives within their own law. For example, the Human Rights Act is the UK implementation of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

The UK also runs its own foreign policy and economic policy including currrency.

So the member states are "expected" to implement a "directive" from a non national body into law. So yes the eu makes the rules and the states implement them. Notice states not countries and that is the point. ... ....

Member states, member countries, member nations, these are piddling matters of nomenclature.

The fact is that EU directives do not pop out of some random Eurocrat's arsehole, according to a weird Illuminati plan designed to piss off Daily Mail readers. They are developed in cooperation between the member nations joined by treaty that was freely entered into, and Britain being the second most populous and second richest member, the UK has a big hand in these plans.

As for economics, here's Reuters reporting on trade deals signed between India and the UK without benefit of EU permission.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0T100920151113?irpc=932

It may have escaped your attention, Kilkrazy, but even with the threat of referendum, Cameron's concessions are about as valuable as a Nick Clegg promise!

This has been stage managed from day 1. By declaring his support to stay IN, Cameron undercut his own negotiating position before he even walked into the room!

The man is an incompetent buffoon, who, if he had better opposition, would have been run out of town long ago.

As others have rightly pointed out, if this is what we're getting when we're threatening to leave, then we'll get nothing if we stay in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think the UK voting as a whole to leave the EU whilst Scotland itself voted to stay in would be legitimate grounds for another independence referendum.

Really? I disagree. Because I'm pretty sure there wasn't a 'Vote to stay but we should have a look at it again every time a new foreign policy is decided' option on the polling card. Do we have to have a new Scottish referendum every time we leave or enter a new international organisation? Or sign/leave a new treaty? What about when we declare war? Does the whole country have to stop and double check to see whether or not Scotland feels that now would be the moment to go?

You simply cannot run a country on that basis. At some point, you have to accept. There was a referendum. It didn't go the way you wanted. That sucks for you. Seriously. Everyone likes it when things go their way. I'm genuinely sorry the world is not ordered the way you want it to be(no sarcasm). God only knows I wish it worked like that for me.

But the fact remains that the people voted. Demanding that you get to have another say on it every time the government makes a substantial foreign policy gesture means you're effectively hamstringing government. You're saying they should never make one without consulting a Scottish referendum. There's really absolutely no mandate for giving Scotland that level of power/influence over the rest of the country, and I would be quite politically vocal about anyone who suggested that there should be.

But Westminster has been hoist by its own petard, Ketara. Were you in Scotland during the referendum?

Let me tell you what I heard from Westminster most days for two years: family of nations, equal partnership in the UK, family of nations, equal partnership in the UK. Scotland's voice matters. You can see where this is going.

Westminster can't now complain if Scotland is asking to be consulted on such an important issue.

Scotland will be consulted through the medium of the referendum.

As regards Cameron's concessions, yes, they are worth very little. However it's always been obvious that he only introduced the idea of a referendum to placate the "blues under the bed", by which I mean the hard-line anti-Europeans working from within the Conservative Party. Big business is overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU.

To be honest, with things like Human Rights, and the Working Time Directive, the ordinary people and work force ought to be in favour too.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
The main thing that this "deal" has shown is that the elected goverment of the uk has surrendered its nearly all of its authority to make its own rules/regs and laws thus it is no longer an independant nation and is now just a state in the united federation of europe.
This referendum is the last roll of the dice to stay a country in our own right.

That simply is not true.

The EU has no power to make legislation for member states. What happens is that individual member states are expected to implement directives within their own law. For example, the Human Rights Act is the UK implementation of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

The UK also runs its own foreign policy and economic policy including currrency.

For how much longer does the UK run its own foreign policy? There is talk of an EU army, there is talk of the EU speaking as one for all members with regard to foreign affairs and so on.

Older relatives are telling me that in the 1970s, the EEC was sold as a free trade pact, and yet, years later it is morphing into something different.

The logical conclusion of the European project is a federal superstate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Scotland will be consulted through the medium of the referendum.

But herein lies the problem that has dogged the UK for years: Scotland, Wales, NI vote to stay, England votes Out, and the UK says adios to Brussels...

In this hypothetical situation, a second Scottish referendum is justifiable IMO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This has been stage managed from day 1. By declaring his support to stay IN, Cameron undercut his own negotiating position before he even walked into the room!

I don't think that has anything to do with it, the EU isn't negotiating with him, it's negotiating with us, and I doubt even the EU is stupid enough to believe the UK populace is just going to vote stay because.

The reason he got nothing is ideological, what he wants is just not what the EU is interested in.

In that hypothetical case, it would be a referendum to see if the rest of the UK wanted to eject England.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
The main thing that this "deal" has shown is that the elected goverment of the uk has surrendered its nearly all of its authority to make its own rules/regs and laws thus it is no longer an independant nation and is now just a state in the united federation of europe.
This referendum is the last roll of the dice to stay a country in our own right.

That simply is not true.

The EU has no power to make legislation for member states. What happens is that individual member states are expected to implement directives within their own law. For example, the Human Rights Act is the UK implementation of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

The UK also runs its own foreign policy and economic policy including currrency.

For how much longer does the UK run its own foreign policy? There is talk of an EU army, there is talk of the EU speaking as one for all members with regard to foreign affairs and so on.
...

Until the shadowy Eurocrat pulls another policy out of his mysterious Daily Mail defying arsehole. Or perhaps until the member nations' foreign ministers, working together under the treaty they entered into freely, come up with a policy to introduce an integrated foreign policy. There are lots of rational arguments in favour of such a position.

 Baragash wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This has been stage managed from day 1. By declaring his support to stay IN, Cameron undercut his own negotiating position before he even walked into the room!

I don't think that has anything to do with it, the EU isn't negotiating with him, it's negotiating with us, and I doubt even the EU is stupid enough to believe the UK populace is just going to vote stay because.

The reason he got nothing is ideological, what he wants is just not what the EU is interested in.

Cameron asked for nothing...and got half of that


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm going to have a general rant here, directed at nobody in particular.

There is an elite in the UK, and across Europe, that believes in the European project, come hell or high water. Nick Clegg is the living embodiment of this, a lickspittle who would sacrifice his nation's sovereignty in return for some EU quagno post. Neil Kinnock also did this.

But the elite fears the masses of Europe, hence their disgusting treatment of Greece and Italy, their interference in Hungary, and their shameful blind eye turned to Holland and France when they rejected change in their referendums a few years back.

The Tory party, once the embodiment of Euro-scepticism, has seen people who made a career out of being anti-Europe (May, Gove, Johnson) shamefully fall into line behind this sham of a deal.

Brexit scares the elites in this country, because if it goes through, they will have to get of their backsides and do some work to forge a role for Britain in the 21st century, instead of outsourcing it to Brussels' pen pushers.

Rant over

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But Westminster has been hoist by its own petard, Ketara. Were you in Scotland during the referendum?

Let me tell you what I heard from Westminster most days for two years: family of nations, equal partnership in the UK, family of nations, equal partnership in the UK. Scotland's voice matters. You can see where this is going.

Westminster can't now complain if Scotland is asking to be consulted on such an important issue.

That's right. Equal partnership. No single Scottish voter is superior or inferior to an English, Welsh, or Irish voter. Totally on board with that. That's why we have a national referendum, and everybody's votes are worth equal weight. Saying it should be any other way is an affront to democracy, and I'm pretty damn sure nobody said my vote should be devalued if Scotland stayed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Scotland will be consulted through the medium of the referendum.

But herein lies the problem that has dogged the UK for years: Scotland, Wales, NI vote to stay, England votes Out, and the UK says adios to Brussels...

In this hypothetical situation, a second Scottish referendum is justifiable IMO.

Why? I repeat again, what in the phrase 'equal partnership' means that:-

a) Scotland gets to hold a referendum for independence any time a substantive foreign policy gesture is made, and
b) Nobody else does?

Nobody agreed to that. That option was not on the polling card. I repeat, you cannot run a country like that. And even if you did, what you would effectively being saying is that Scottish voters should get super special treatment and consideration beyond the level of the average voter.

We all vote. As one nation. We pick the direction our nation is going. Collectively. Otherwise, what if England is roughly split, and Wales votes to leave and Scotland to stay? What happens then? Do we side with one or the other for fear either one might decide to split off? What if London votes to stay but most of the rest of England votes to leave? Should London break away?

This whole prospect of Scottish independence is done for now. We're one country. We have collective responsibility for our future. Proposing for a fresh referendum every time central government makes a decision someone in Scotland doesn't like is madness, both in terms of democracy and stable government. The choice was made. The majority of Scots wanted to stay. Done. Dusted. Asking for them to go to the polls again repeatedly is an insult to the choice that they made. It implies that they were too stupid to know what the 'correct' decision was.

Maybe in fifty years time, things will be different, and Scotland will break away. Alternatively, in fifty years, we may find Labour collapsed, some other party replaces it, boots the SNP out, and the independence agenda lies for another three hundred years. Who knows? But it really has no place in contemporary politics for another few decades.

 Ketara wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But Westminster has been hoist by its own petard, Ketara. Were you in Scotland during the referendum?

Let me tell you what I heard from Westminster most days for two years: family of nations, equal partnership in the UK, family of nations, equal partnership in the UK. Scotland's voice matters. You can see where this is going.

Westminster can't now complain if Scotland is asking to be consulted on such an important issue.

That's right. Equal partnership. No single Scottish voter is superior or inferior to an English, Welsh, or Irish voter. Totally on board with that. That's why we have a national referendum, and everybody's votes are worth equal weight. Saying it should be any other way is an affront to democracy, and I'm pretty damn sure nobody said my vote should be devalued if Scotland stayed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Scotland will be consulted through the medium of the referendum.

But herein lies the problem that has dogged the UK for years: Scotland, Wales, NI vote to stay, England votes Out, and the UK says adios to Brussels...

In this hypothetical situation, a second Scottish referendum is justifiable IMO.

Why? I repeat again, what in the phrase 'equal partnership' means that:-

a) Scotland gets to hold a referendum for independence any time a substantive foreign policy gesture is made, and
b) Nobody else does?

Nobody agreed to that. That option was not on the polling card. I repeat, you cannot run a country like that. And even if you did, what you would effectively being saying is that Scottish voters should get super special treatment and consideration beyond the level of the average voter.

We all vote. As one nation. We pick the direction our nation is going. Collectively. Otherwise, what if England is roughly split, and Wales votes to leave and Scotland to stay? What happens then? Do we side with one or the other for fear either one might decide to split off? What if London votes to stay but most of the rest of England votes to leave? Should London break away?

This whole prospect of Scottish independence is done for now. We're one country. We have collective responsibility for our future. Proposing for a fresh referendum every time central government makes a decision someone in Scotland doesn't like is madness, both in terms of democracy and stable government. The choice was made. The majority of Scots wanted to stay. Done. Dusted. Asking for them to go to the polls again repeatedly is an insult to the choice that they made. It implies that they were too stupid to know what the 'correct' decision was.

Maybe in fifty years time, things will be different, and Scotland will break away. Alternatively, in fifty years, we may find Labour collapsed, some other party replaces it, boots the SNP out, and the independence agenda lies for another three hundred years. Who knows? But it really has no place in contemporary politics for another few decades.

You're missing the point. It's not an equal partnership if one nation is 85% of the population.

Why should I, and my countrymen, be deprived of our EU citizenship if England votes to leave, and we vote to stay? Again, I repeat, the groundswell for a second referendum would be irresistible.

Scotland was a nation in its own right before it joined the union. It did not become greater England.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Why should I, and my countrymen, be deprived of our EU citizenship if England votes to leave, and we vote to stay?

This is the issue. Luke, I am your countryman.

You ultimately have very little in common with someone on the other side of Scotland to you that you do not also have in common with me. We share an island, a history, a heritage, a language, and a government. Yet you look at me, and believe that somehow, if you, me, two other Englishman, a Welshman and an Irishman in a group decide on something by vote, and your vote is not the one that decides it, we are oppressing you.

We are your countrymen. For better, or worse. That has been decided in the referendum. And so as countrymen together, we will take our referendum, and see which way our country shall go.

I doubt every single person in Scotland will vote to stay or that every single person in England will vote to leave.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I doubt every single person in Scotland will vote to stay or that every single person in England will vote to leave.

Very true. But IMO, Scotland is a unique case. If it were Yorkshire for example, claiming special privileges for the EU vote, I think that you and Ketara would have a point, but to the best of my knowledge, Yorkshire has never been a nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Why should I, and my countrymen, be deprived of our EU citizenship if England votes to leave, and we vote to stay?

This is the issue. Luke, I am your countryman.

You ultimately have very little in common with someone on the other side of Scotland to you that you do not also have in common with me. We share an island, a history, a heritage, a language, and a government. Yet you look at me, and believe that somehow, if you, me, two other Englishman, a Welshman and an Irishman in a group decide on something by vote, and your vote is not the one that decides it, we are oppressing you.

We are your countrymen. For better, or worse. That has been decided in the referendum. And so as countrymen together, we will take our referendum, and see which way our country shall go.

Apologies if that came out the wrong, way, Ketara. Of course you're my countryman, and of course we have all those bonds and history uniting us. As strange as it may sound, I'll always be a close friend to the UK, despite my belief in Scottish independence.

I firmly believe that the union has had its day, and that Scotland and England should go their separate ways, whilst still remaining close friends and allies.

When people leave home to start a new life for themselves, it doesn't mean they never speak to their parents ever again. They just want to stand on their own two feet. That's how I see it.

The geography of the UK was divided into various different nations, such as Wessex, Northumbria, Dal Riata and so on, over the past 2,000 years.

York was a Viking kingdom in the 800s.

Scotland came into being as a nation in its modern form in the late 1400s with the incorporation of the Isles.

Scottish independence will remain an issue as long as a large number of scots want independence, it's that simple. It's ridiculous to expect them to "get back in their box", especially when the "Vow" that was promised them has been hastily shoved under the rug once more.

Sorry (actually really sorry) to draw the comparison with Ireland again, but Ireland would not have gone for independence had it not been absolutely horrifically misgoverned by successive British governments, who were disinterested in it's wellbeing and focused on other things. The same is true of the rest of the colonies - had they been governed well, no doubt they would have been happy to remain part of the UK, like the Falklands and so on. The same applies to Scotland. The scots feel a grievance, they feel that they are misgoverned by a self interested Westminster centric cadre of elites. They feel that they vote left and get right, pretty much every time.

This is a real issue for the Scots, and pretending it's sorted out by the referendum will not make it less of an issue. There are no "rules" to this sort of thing. Nationalist sentiment is not, as it is often portrayed, mere irrational emotion, but is often a rational response to misgovernment by the greater power.

And this is so blindingly similar to people's views on the EU in England that I find the total inability to see it in those terms, weaseling around definitions of nationhood and so on, completely hilarious.

 Da Boss wrote:
And this is so blindingly similar to people's views on the EU in England that I find the total inability to see it in those terms, weaseling around definitions of nationhood and so on, completely hilarious.

It only becomes similar to this discussion if we demand another referendum in a couple of years time over a new (and probably mis-reported) major policy decision by the EU.

 Ketara wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure of that Ketara.

But we'll see. Perhaps the UK will continue to lurch forward as it has so far.

No central political party wanted to support independence. They have the reason now of, 'We had a referendum five/ten/fifteen years ago which gave an answer' for not holding another one. Generally speaking, I'd agree with them as well. You can't hold referendums on breaking up the nation every ten years, it would be disastrous for confidence in the economy. Not to mention the ethical dubiousness of keeping on pushing for referendums on the same point until you get the answer you want.

It'll take a good few decades before any sort of independence movement can reasonably assert that another one is justified. The referendum wasn't held on the pretext of, 'Vote one way for independence, and the other way if you want to stay but want a fresh referendum every time the country goes through a foreign policy/treaty change'. It was stay/go. The vote was held. The people decided. End of story for the next few three or four decades. Democracy in action, yadda yadda.

At the risk of sounding like Cameron's stupid bloody 'all in it together' slogan, it's been decided that we're all part of the same country. Done and dusted. So we all need to figure out what direction we, collectively, wish our country to go. This whole EU thing is a big deal, and will affect our nation's future substantially.

No, the referendum was held on the pretext of "the democratically-elected devolved government had a referendum pledge in their manifesto and won an outright majority". That's the inconvenient thing about democracy - whether you think it's "appropriate" for us to have another referendum in ten years, five years, or tomorrow is completely irrelevant, if we vote for one we get one, or else the UK is exposed for the sham-democracy many of us already believe it to be.

The decision to remain part of the UK was taken based on the circumstances present at the time, if those circumstances drastically change and the people here decide they want to have their say again, then that should be the end of the matter for anyone who actually believes in democracy and self-determination. Appealing to democracy to justify stifling self-determination is just about the most bare-faced cheek I can imagine - you don't get to decide that the matter is settled and everyone just has to shut up about it, any more than you can do that to supporters of the losing party in the wake of an election.

That sentiment goes doubly in cases like this where, despite what you think, the two questions very much are linked. Our membership of the EU and status as EU citizens was a massive point of contention during the referendum, and the security and continuation of that status as part of the UK was one of the main planks of the No campaign. If less than two years later we vote, as the polls presently suggest, to stay in by a 2-1 margin but are dragged out regardless because an England in the grip of tabloid UKIPpery produces a majority for leaving, you're damn right a lot of folk up here are going to consider that a "breach of contract" for want of a better term, and the current polling also suggests that in that event support for independence would go from the present 50/50 statistical tie to a majority in favour of leaving.

Which is, I suspect, why everyone who was so at-pains to peddle the "Scottish AND British, valued partners, we wubble oo Scotwand" line during the referendum campaign are suddenly back to the old "you had your say, now back in your box Jockos!" sentiment.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The geography of the UK was divided into various different nations, such as Wessex, Northumbria, Dal Riata and so on, over the past 2,000 years.

York was a Viking kingdom in the 800s.

Scotland came into being as a nation in its modern form in the late 1400s with the incorporation of the Isles.

And this kind of irrelevant bollocks is infuriating. The UK only came into being in its modern form in the early 20th century with the partition of Ireland, so if that's the metric we've got it beat by half a millennium. The UK is a state composed of a union of nations, not a nation itself; Scotland exists now as a distinct polity within that larger state, the existence of Holyrood is an acknowledgement of that, hell the Treaty of Union acknowledges that at-length. We have our own legal system ffs.

When Yorkshire or Wessex or wherever else start and sustain a campaign for greater political independence, gain their own representative body, and elect to it a party with the main goal of gaining political independence from whatever larger entity it is presently a part of then comparing us to them will be valid, until then it's a fallacious diversion used to imply an equivalence that simply doesn't exist.

It's a counterpoint to Do_I_Not_Like_It's point that there never was a kingdom of Yorkshire.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a counterpoint to Do_I_Not_Like_It's point that there never was a kingdom of Yorkshire.

Which was itself a counterpoint to your own statement that not everyone in Scotland would vote to stay. Perhaps not a completely correct counterpoint, which is why I expanded it and reframed it in the appropriate, modern context - the "British" polity exists only as a composite, but the same is not true of Scotland, or England, which are distinct(and despite what some will insist; that was true before the independence referendum and remains true after it). Whether there would be some measure of disagreement within that polity does not negate its existence nor its right to choose its own path - or at least, it didn't when it voted the way Unionists wanted it to; afterall, if 55-45 can be considered so utterly decisive that it can remove a question from the agenda for "30-40 years" as some assert, then surely a 66-33 or greater margin is even more worthy of democratic respect?

 Goliath wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The thing thats gets me is that the EU is clearly reformable. If some countries want change, it happens.

France and Greece want the rule changing on where an asylum seeker has to apply, and the EU is looking at changing this.
Germany is saying that asylum seekers will have to return home to Syria after the war, because its Germany she might get away with it.

However every attempt that the UK makes to reform policy is met with the handbrake on the same issues.

A part of that, so far as I can tell, is that most of the issues that get reformed are global issues; they apply to all member states.
The rules affecting where asylum seekers must apply will change, but they will change for all states.
The rules regarding asylum seekers will change, but will change for all states.
Britain's requests largely apply only to Britain, because we should get unique treatment because we're special for some reason?

If this were true the EU would tell France to process the Calais migrants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Graphite wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

You are aware Scotland won't get another independence vote for at least another thirty to forty years, right? You might want to start thinking about where you think our nation should go with it's future on a current topic, as opposed to focusing on something been and gone. Scottish independence won't be an issue on the mainstream political agenda for most of either of our remaining lives, if necessarily ever again.

Haahahahahahahahhaahaaha!

No, seriously, what do you think the chances are that the SNP will shut up and get back in its box, or be out of power in Scotland for the next 20 years?

The SNP wont shut up and will try to demand another referndum. But the SNP are like the Lib Dems, solid for regional government not so good for national. Though in this case the 'regional' government in question is 'national' in a historical sense. A lot of the current SNP vote has less to do with independent Scotland and more to do with demands for Devo Max, anti-austerity and demanding special treatment. The SNP honeymoon wont last forever either, they are racking up their own history of corruptions and will soon be seen as no better than Labour and the Tories.
People dont understand the advantage the SNP holds, which is twofold. First they havet been anywhere near power long enough to have the same bad rep as the traditional parties, though as I said that wot last. Secondly and more problematically they can be racially partisan and get away with it. The SNP only cares about Scotland, and giving the 5% of UK citizens who are Scottish an advantage regardless of the expense to the rest, and need only lock into that 5% to stay in power.

A referendum set up by the SNP without Westminster backing will likely wont count internationally. The EU doesn't want it, and many individual member states don't want it. The US also cautioned against Scottish independence.
The referendum in 2014 was necessary as there wasn't one in 1707. Now it has been accomplished its results hold. At an absolute minimum any future referendum should be a UK referendum as the status was confirmed in 2014 that Scotland is part of the UK. That is to say, if Scots vote on Scottish independence, the English get to vote to, and the Welsh etc. After all it effects every citizen of the UK, not just those living north of the border, and we all deserve the right to be balloted.
Also safeguards should be put in place to allow the Shetlands to remain in the UK, if they choose to do so, no matter what Holyrood thinks. which will effect the oil map. Finally any financial settlement or separation would have to happen on our terms. 2014 was on Holyroods terms, because it was a purely Scottish referendum. Now the Scots themselves have confirmed that Scotland is a part of the UK it's a UK issue if and how Scotland becomes independent. The citizens of the UK have every right to expect that Scotland would pay its share of debt, without promise of currency union, and said debt should be dirctly and legally linked to oil assets that iScotland would claim while still in the legal possession of he UK.

Yes the SNP is expected to try and force a new referendum, but this time we UK has full incumbancy and need not make this easy. If Scotland wants a divorce, then Westminster not Holyrood dictates all the terms.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
I wouldn't want to be outside the EU under this government, but at least a "no" vote would have the satisfaction of seeing Cameron hoisted by his own dishonest fear-mongering about benefits and migrants.

The benefits, I agree with. The migration thing, not so much. There is a serious issue there with regards to the strain on local resources that mass migration has caused.

To be fair to the EU, they can't budge an inch on migration - it's one of their founding principals. Any talk of reforming migration is just that - talk.

Then they need to police their external borders (Greece, Italy and the Mediterranean sea) ASAP.

The demise of the Schengen Area is inevitable if this crisis continues.

I was surprised to learn that if the UK leaves the EU, the UK gets its seat back on the WTO. Interesting...

So much for 'Little Britain'.

Have I wandered into a Scottish Independance thread somehow? Can I humbly suggest a seperate Brexit and Scottish Independence thread?

Back on topic:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm going to have a general rant here, directed at nobody in particular.

There is an elite in the UK, and across Europe, that believes in the European project, come hell or high water. Nick Clegg is the living embodiment of this, a lickspittle who would sacrifice his nation's sovereignty in return for some EU quagno post. Neil Kinnock also did this.

But the elite fears the masses of Europe, hence their disgusting treatment of Greece and Italy, their interference in Hungary, and their shameful blind eye turned to Holland and France when they rejected change in their referendums a few years back.

The Tory party, once the embodiment of Euro-scepticism, has seen people who made a career out of being anti-Europe (May, Gove, Johnson) shamefully fall into line behind this sham of a deal.

Brexit scares the elites in this country, because if it goes through, they will have to get of their backsides and do some work to forge a role for Britain in the 21st century, instead of outsourcing it to Brussels' pen pushers.

Rant over

Spot on. We would, literally, get the government we vote for and deserve. I really hate the whole "Well our Gov do/don't do X, so the EU will save us". To me, this attitude and belief feeds a whole pile of "why bother" mentality. Why aren't we able to implement those? For example, Working Time Directive. Sounds like a perfect policy that Labour could adopt and is pretty much in with the core principles of Labour. There's nothing stopping them or any other party having that as a policy to implement and it would appeal to their supposed core vote, the humble workers.

The whole EU project is like a ratchet democracy. We edge ever closer in a single direction, no deviation and no way to revert any changes. Sure, a few delays and grumbling happens, but that wheel marked "The European Project" cranks ever onwards, unaffected by elections, MEPs or member states wishes.

 zedmeister wrote:
Have I wandered into a Scottish Independance thread somehow? Can I humbly suggest a seperate Brexit and Scottish Independence thread?

...

A separate thread to discuss separation between the UK and EU, followed by separation between Scotland and the UK -- because they dislike being ruled undemocratically by a distant majority of foreigners who don't take their interests into account -- followed by Scotland applying to join the EU

That sounds awesome!