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.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.

Hardly threatening given the context and a UDI will in all likelihood lead to full independence, or at least home rule. Anything otherwise would look distinctly dubious for one of the worlds supposedly leading democracies.

A UDI in any scenario other than Westminster denying Scotland independence after a democratic vote that way, would lead to SNP members being arrested for attempting to stage a coup. Because that is what it would be. And is why they would never attempt it.

Secondly, this thing about, 'If a party gets elected to the Scottish Parliament with a subsection of their manifesto being "have another indy referendum" it has to be held or democracy is being thwarted' is a load of tosh. Many parties put lots of things in their manifesto which are ignored by them after seizing power, and people vote for parties for many reasons other than a specific clause in a manifesto. Equating a vote for a party with a wholehearted endorsement of every item on their manifesto is plain daft.

A manifesto is a statement of intent. Nothing more, nothing less. If the party gets in and chooses to press for an indy ref, then that's their choice, but it still remains up to the will of the democratic majority of the UK as to whether or not it happens. Under UK law, only Westminster can authorise referendums. What the SNP chooses to campaign for is entirely their department. But they do not have the legal power or right to hold an indy ref, anymore than an elected councillor has the right to enforce an 'Invade Norway' part of their personal manifesto when elected. It's simply not up to them, and the people voting for them are not necessarily supporting every aspect of their manifesto.

If the desire is still there in twenty years time, then no doubt there will be another referendum. But enforcing the timing of it to ensure the smooth running and stability of the country is a fact. You can't have one every five years, or whenever a policy shift happens that the ruling party in Holyrood do not like. You cannot run a country like that, as I have pointed out elsewhere. As for that 'thwarting the will of the democratic majority', well, as I just pointed out, a vote for the SNP does not equate a vote for independence. The two are not interdependently linked. And no country runs on the basis of entirely pure democracy anyway. It's why me and ten of my mates can't all 'democratically decide' not to pay taxes. Or every prisoner can't 'democratically decide' they want to be released. Democracy is grand and all, but the running of the country has always taken precedence up to a point, and always will.

That's all I'll say on another indyref for this thread now, as we're getting off track. Dragging it laboriously backwards:-

Yodhrin wrote:You'll struggle to find many folk up here who'll be terrified by that prospectus, given it's pretty much the same as the policies supported by all the main parties here bar the Tories(who consistently attract 12-16% of the vote, though they might go a couple of points higher this year by stealing some of the Orange Labour block with their explicit and vehement Unionism-based campaigning). Christ the Scottish Government have been one of the main advocates for the Interconnector scheme, it would be fantastic for us as it would let us sell renewables energy capacity to the continent.

I can understand why Scotland might feel an interdependent energy scheme good for them. With Scotland's economy currently in the doldrums, it needs any boost it can get in that regard. And personally? I don't necessarily oppose the idea.

It's just that I know that once energy policy is being run from Brussels, there'll be something else on the agenda. And then something else. The EU never just leaves it as it is and says, 'Right, we've sorted what needs sorting', every time it finishes clawing a new piece of power to itself, it starts targeting another one. It'll be a unified energy policy, then a unified fishing database scheme (because of conservation, etc), then a unified monitoring system for EU waters to monitor the fishermen, then a unified maritime boundary for those fishermen and electric cables/oil pipes, then a unified coastguard system, etcetc.

It's always a question of seizing power by degrees. And that's what's begun to make me weary of the whole thing, and quite cynical. Its neverending push to acquire power and drive towards a federalised system. But because it is never honestly announced that way that to begin with, I don't value or believe this 'exclusion' for Britain from 'Ever Greater Union' one jot.

 Ketara wrote:

A UDI in any scenario other than Westminster denying Scotland independence after a democratic vote that way, would lead to SNP members being arrested for attempting to stage a coup. Because that is what it would be. And is why they would never attempt it.

I'm not sure why you bothered posting that as it is blatantly obvious.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm quite angry that Cameron's demands have been met. I'm quite angry about the nature of his demands, too. The EU needs reform, but apparently what Cameron sees as reform is:
- Benefit cuts (big shock from a Tory there)
...
...

I agree with most of the post - but why is it only Britain should try and get these reforms - does no one in any posiiton of power in Europe want to stop the gravy train they are a part of....shockingly............ Were we the only chance of EU reform?

All countries get their special needs answered - France most of all - Dual parliment is only because they, the French scream and wail if its even mentioned.

The time for widespread support of EU reform would have been the run-up to the Maastricht Treaty referenda a few years ago. The polling and results showed a significant amount of popular dissatisfaction with the current EU system and the ongoing proposals. Nothing was done, of course, however there is not reason to suppose all this dissent has gone away.

This gives Britain three choices; to stay in the EU and work for reform from within, to exit the EU and work for reform from outside with the intention of rejoining when it has been achieved, or to leave and stay gone.

If enough people genuinely aren't interested in the overall idea of partnership with Europe on any conceivable terms, then I suppose we should just feth off.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.

Hardly threatening given the context and a UDI will in all likelihood lead to full independence, or at least home rule. Anything otherwise would look distinctly dubious for one of the worlds supposedly leading democracies.

Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.

 Mr Morden wrote:

I agree with most of the post - but why is it only Britain should try and get these reforms - does no one in any posiiton of power in Europe want to stop the gravy train they are a part of....shockingly............ Were we the only chance of EU reform?

All countries get their special needs answered - France most of all - Dual parliment is only because they, the French scream and wail if its even mentioned.

The "all" countries that get their special treatment to my knowledge are Germoney, France and UK. Everyone else gets browbeat into submission.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.

Hardly threatening given the context and a UDI will in all likelihood lead to full independence, or at least home rule. Anything otherwise would look distinctly dubious for one of the worlds supposedly leading democracies.

Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.

Scotland will have another referendum if it wants one. Tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, decade, century, never...

End of argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, back OT.

Anybody here good at calculating voting intentions and statistics?

Is the dakka poll enough of a vote to correlate it upon the nation? Yes and No are pretty neck and neck, and as usual, the undecided are keeping people guessing.

Is it the case that an opinion poll needs at least a 1000 votes or something to make it statistically significant?

 Orlanth wrote:

Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.

If the UK leaves the EU there would be valid grounds for another referendum (even if it is called something different and doesn't have the backing of Westminster) which the SNP will all but certainly be interested in pursuing.

End of argument.

The polls are almost neck and neck with slight favour to the IN vote. But as the last general election showed, there's been a slight skew to underreporting of conservative votes in recent times. Either voters are shy or they aren't as likely to participate in surveys like YouGov, which is entirely voluntary, meaning they are under reported. Given that the OUT vote is being tarred as the intolerant inward looking one, it could be that such people are less keen to support it publicly. UKIP only have one MP it's easy to forget they got 12% of the votes cast. It's safe to assume most of those would vote OUT. Also I think people are generally more likely to find the motivation to go and vote for a change than to support the status quo, that's why surges in dissatisfied voters coming out causes a change in parliament. A lot of people I've spoken to are either OUT or undecided, like myself. I don't see this strong feeling for staying IN. For all these reasons, it's going to be hard to call unless there's a strong swing one way or the other prior to the vote.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The polls are almost neck and neck with slight favour to the IN vote. But as the last general election showed, there's been a slight skew to underreporting of conservative votes in recent times. Either voters are shy or they aren't as likely to participate in surveys like YouGov, which is entirely voluntary, meaning they are under reported. Given that the OUT vote is being tarred as the intolerant inward looking one, it could be that such people are less keen to support it publicly. UKIP only have one MP it's easy to forget they got 12% of the votes cast. It's safe to assume most of those would vote OUT. Also I think people are generally more likely to find the motivation to go and vote for a change than to support the status quo, that's why surges in dissatisfied voters coming out causes a change in parliament. A lot of people I've spoken to are either OUT or undecided, like myself. I don't see this strong feeling for staying IN. For all these reasons, it's going to be hard to call unless there's a strong swing one way or the other prior to the vote.

I have a sneaky suspicion that this one is going to be a 55-60% in favour of 'OUT'. I'm not certain right now if that would be the best result, and indeed, is more the result of a decade of highanded EU behaviour/dysfunctionality, skewed media reporting, and a general ignorance of the facts, as opposed to anything related to Cameron's spin or recent affairs.

Quite frankly I'm so uninformed on the whole issue I'm not sure where to stand.

I love the idea of an integrated Europe. In practice (again from my very isolated, narrow and ill educated view) it appears to be a giant mass of bureaucracy passing down sweeping edicts that largely seem to favour countries that have more boldly embraced the EU than the UK ever has. There's also so little interest in EU elections and an apathy to the whole process that it's little wonder why this seems to happen. We probably made this bed and now have to wallow in our ignorance.

The deal negotiated by the PM truly means nothing to me. I'm not sure what I want from the EU but it's not some sort of strange list of special exemptions on issues everyone should be tackling. That's a fsilure I feel of the PM to identify what matters to people as a whole but what's done is done.

Also I hope there will be more campaigning from the EU. As much as I appreciate letting folks come to their own decision having experienced the let down that was the entire Scottish Independence campaign (referring to the manner in which both sides capitalised on political interest both during and after the campaign, not referting either way to the result) it would be nice to understand why those in the system value or dislike a British presence. I doubt that will happen in any real meaningful way.

A lot of soul searching to do.

Perhaps people would like to give examples of the sweeping edicts that favour other countries and not the UK.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people would like to give examples of the sweeping edicts that favour other countries and not the UK.

Are you kidding?

CAP is a licence for French farming to print money. The French have that pretty well stitched up for evermore. No French leader will dare take on the French farmers.

Wasn't "Cod wars" a big thing that turned many people against the EU?

I also seem to remember some sort of arguments alleging the EU trying to "scam people out of a full pint."

I think it's that sort of argument and issues that's going to end up driving most peoples public opinion to an out vote.

And the fact Cameron wants in, means that a lot of people might vote out. Just out of spite if anything else.....

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people would like to give examples of the sweeping edicts that favour other countries and not the UK.

Having two hugely expensive parliment buildings and having to communte between the two of them purely to keep the French happy is a perfect example of where Europe's priorities lie and the lack of will or ability to reform.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.

If the UK leaves the EU there would be valid grounds for another referendum (even if it is called something different and doesn't have the backing of Westminster) which the SNP will all but certainly be interested in pursuing.

End of argument.

Actually not because if the SNP decided to do this the rest of the UK would demand to have a say on any ballot as it effects the whole of the UK.
Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.

Scotland made a choice, and chose to remain part of the UK. It happened. If the SNP wants out it will be up to the whole of the UK to decide, not 5% of the UK electorate.

 Compel wrote:
Wasn't "Cod wars" a big thing that turned many people against the EU?

I also seem to remember some sort of arguments alleging the EU trying to "scam people out of a full pint."

I think it's that sort of argument and issues that's going to end up driving most peoples public opinion to an out vote.

The cod wars was back in the 1970s - Britain against Iceland. The last victory of the British Empire


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.

If the UK leaves the EU there would be valid grounds for another referendum (even if it is called something different and doesn't have the backing of Westminster) which the SNP will all but certainly be interested in pursuing.

End of argument.

Actually not because if the SNP decided to do this the rest of the UK would demand to have a say on any ballot as it effects the whole of the UK.
Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.

Scotland made a choice, and chose to remain part of the UK. It happened. If the SNP wants out it will be up to the whole of the UK to decide, not 5% of the UK electorate.

Everytime Scotland and referendum appear in the same sentence, you always threaten a one man invasion of Scotland

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.

I sometimes wonder if you inhabit the same world as the rest of us.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Wasn't "Cod wars" a big thing that turned many people against the EU?

I also seem to remember some sort of arguments alleging the EU trying to "scam people out of a full pint."

I think it's that sort of argument and issues that's going to end up driving most peoples public opinion to an out vote.

The cod wars was back in the 1970s - Britain against Iceland. The last victory of the British Empire

Actually the British lost. and the 'cod war' went on for several decades until the UN created exclusive economic zones at sea.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.

If the UK leaves the EU there would be valid grounds for another referendum (even if it is called something different and doesn't have the backing of Westminster) which the SNP will all but certainly be interested in pursuing.

End of argument.

Actually not because if the SNP decided to do this the rest of the UK would demand to have a say on any ballot as it effects the whole of the UK.
Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.

Scotland made a choice, and chose to remain part of the UK. It happened. If the SNP wants out it will be up to the whole of the UK to decide, not 5% of the UK electorate.

Everytime Scotland and referendum appear in the same sentence, you always threaten a one man invasion of Scotland

Why invade? We ship you Buckfast, 'tis a far more effective way of disrupting Scotland.

 Compel wrote:
Wasn't "Cod wars" a big thing that turned many people against the EU?

I also seem to remember some sort of arguments alleging the EU trying to "scam people out of a full pint."

I think it's that sort of argument and issues that's going to end up driving most peoples public opinion to an out vote.

Cod Wars was in the 1960s, before we joined.

When I go to the pub, I buy a pint.

These issues would appear to be misunderstood. Of course that won't matter as a result is a result.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.

I sometimes wonder if you inhabit the same world as the rest of us.

I never said that! Must be a bug in the system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people would like to give examples of the sweeping edicts that favour other countries and not the UK.

The first and most obvious place to start would be the budget. We put in a large sum of money, and get less back. Other countries put in less and get lots back.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/11221427/EU-budget-what-you-need-to-know.html

With regards to the common fishing policies the EU set up in the 1990's, I believe there was substantial favouritism shown to Spain when our quota was slashed down to a negligible amount, but Spain barely lost anything. Since then, we barely have a fishing industry anymore, whilst Spain currently have 32.5% of the total European quota.

There've been concerns in the past that France and Germany have been able to successfully influence the Commission when facing issues. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/443f0cd2-9143-11db-b71a-0000779e2340.html#axzz40q7CD8y2

I could go on (there are more), but having pointed the above out, I feel that concerns of 'favouritism' are overplayed most of the time. It does happen, but that sort of thing happens in any form of government, and I don't feel they're any worse than our own in this regard.

There you go, not 'edicts' but points at which our government has failed to negotiate successfully. Will they automatically gain the ability to negotiate better once outside the EU?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people would like to give examples of the sweeping edicts that favour other countries and not the UK.

As you're quoting me I would like to refer you to the start of my post where I point out how ignorant I am on the whole issue. That is my perception of the EU. Informed by bias media, my own ignorant understanding of world events, the general apathy towards MEP elections, as another poster mentioned the need for two parliamentary buildings, inequalutues in the budget, a list of significant scandals including a few dodgy attempts at cover ups - just combines into a general concern that certain EU countries are favoured. It's a general statement that rather inaccurately sums up my own ignorant feelings of concern about another political system that cannot be held accountable.

Maybe the solution is for the UK to leave and campaign for reform from the outside, maybe we should stay and attempt to integrate more whilst leading the charge for reform that benefits everyone. Honestly I don't know.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There you go, not 'edicts' but points at which our government has failed to negotiate successfully. Will they automatically gain the ability to negotiate better once outside the EU?

Do we have to keep paying for the multiple Euro parliments and the Eurocrats unlimited sand unregulated expense accounts outside the EU?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There you go, not 'edicts' but points at which our government has failed to negotiate successfully. Will they automatically gain the ability to negotiate better once outside the EU?

Possibly. It takes us from 'competing' within a unified policy to setting our own. Instead of squabbling over a 'common' fishing quota which takes into account everyone's water and interests, we have our own maritime space, within which we set our own quota, for example.

I intend to do a substantial amount of investigation and mini-writeups on various aspects closer to the time in order to make up my own mind on this important issue. Certainly, it's not a decision I plan to make without thorough investigation and consideration.

 Compel wrote:
Wasn't "Cod wars" a big thing that turned many people against the EU?

I also seem to remember some sort of arguments alleging the EU trying to "scam people out of a full pint."

I think it's that sort of argument and issues that's going to end up driving most peoples public opinion to an out vote.

The Cod Wars were three major disputes over fisheries that took place between 1958 and 1976, though the issues that led to the disputes can be traced back to 1415.


Iceland wasn't always in the right in those disputes. And the only reasons that Iceland is considered the "victor" in all three Cod Wars is because the Royal Navy held back, plus Iceland constantly threatened to leave NATO and remove United States forces off of it's soil. Iceland was strategically important to NATO, being key to the defense of the GIUK Gap during the Cold War. This caused a lot of pressure on the United Kingdom to relent to Iceland's demands in just about every case, much to the detriment of Britain's already declining fisheries.


The European Union didn't even exist in it's current form when the Third Cod War ended in 1976.

EU..... You mean the Eu that alone wastes 10's of millions on the second parliament millions moving, renting trains, when it already has one parliament.... That's just the start of things....

Its stupidity runs deep.

No other such country runs that wasteful extra in modern day and age.

Maybe "Cod Wars" was the wrong term then? The thought was mostly based on the regular complaints back up home in Scotland from, well, I guess you could call them the 'man in the street' about other countries in the EU (I think Spain is usually called out involving it) being the reason for the increases in prices of their fish and chips!

True or not (I'm somewhat suspicious of this myself, considering I'm now in England and a bag of fish and chips is like a third cheaper compared to back home...), it seems to be a common opinion.

It seems staying in the EU is going to be potentially a hard sell. I think my home town even received some EU (and National Lottery) money for a development project. I believe the phrase best used to describe the result is 'boondoggle.'

 jhe90 wrote:
EU..... You mean the Eu that alone wastes 10's of millions on the second parliament millions moving, renting trains, when it already has one parliament.... That's just the start of things....

Its stupidity runs deep.

No other such country runs that wasteful extra in modern day and age.

Indeed - more than a hundred Million punds a year just to please the French.

Cameron should have been addressing this sort of corruption rather the nonsense he has come back with - likely got a nice cushy job in the Eurozone linned up when he finishes his term of office