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.

 Ketara wrote:
...You can keep trying to find some amazing plan that will allow western investment to pour into Africa and revolutionise it, and bring trade and prosperity to all our people, but I maintain. If it were possible, it would have happened by now. The places that got lucky with mineral wealth are hellholes for the people who extract it, and all the money poured into Africa disappears into Swiss bank accounts far faster than anywhere else. The simple fact is that Africa is a bad place to do business, and a terrible place to invest if you want a return on your money.

Well, that maybe true now, but we may not have a whole lot of choice in the coming years. It may not be palatable, but I think we're going to be making some fairly unpalatable choices with regards to trade over the next few years.
Markets in Africa maybe where we end up, as well as with other more traditional trading partners, and according to the ONS;

the amount the UK invested in Africa more than doubled between 2005 and 2014 from £20.8 billion to £42.5 billion. South Africa was the largest recipient of UK FDI in Africa, accounting for 29.8% of total UK FDI in the continent in 2014.

In terms of industry, mining and quarrying, and financial services were the main industrial groupings in receipt of UK FDI, accounting for 54.4% and 34.3% of total UK FDI into Africa in 2014, respectively.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/theukstradeandinvestmentrelationshipwithafrica/2016

It appears that the UK Govt has already started to move, albeit slowly, in that direction anyway.

I should have followed my father's advice: nobody ever went bankrupt selling booze, coffins, or toilet paper.

If I had, I wouldn't be giving two hoots for cliff edge Brexit or worrying about the nation's future being in the hands of these clowns.

Sturgeon is going for it

Now to watch Theresa May Goosestep all over it whilst banging on about 'will of the people' for Brexit Unless You're Scottish.

Eh. No surprise there. And if another referendum is held and lost, she'll be banging on for another one three years later, on the basis that getting voted for gives her a 'mandate' to keep asking for them.

It irritates me the way she's essentially ignoring all reality and exaggerating to make the point she wants to make, but then again, they all do it. Politicians, eh?

....makes that potential Trumplethinskin visit a bit more awkward then eh ?

 Ketara wrote:
Eh. No surprise there. And if another referendum is held and lost, she'll be banging on for another one three years later, on the basis that getting voted for gives her a 'mandate' to keep asking for them.

It irritates me the way she's essentially ignoring all reality and exaggerating to make the point she wants to make, but then again, they all do it. Politicians, eh?

Last time around, remaining in Europe was a big factor for many 'remain' voters. Of course, Little Englanders pulled the rug from under that one, so I think in this case the call for a further referendum is justified, simply because the parameters have had such a massive shift.

The referendum is on!

You can't stop the signal baby!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Eh. No surprise there. And if another referendum is held and lost, she'll be banging on for another one three years later, on the basis that getting voted for gives her a 'mandate' to keep asking for them.

It irritates me the way she's essentially ignoring all reality and exaggerating to make the point she wants to make, but then again, they all do it. Politicians, eh?

Who can blame us? If you want to mortgage your future to Liam Fox, IDS, Bojo, Gove, Hammond, Hunt, and May, then I wish you all the luck in the world.

watch this clip

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/840981294674771968

The screen is visible by guests/those in the studio.


Now go here :

https://twitter.com/LiamFoxMP/status/705674061016387584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


how the feth is that acceptable.

And he's one of the architects of our new future.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Eh. No surprise there. And if another referendum is held and lost, she'll be banging on for another one three years later, on the basis that getting voted for gives her a 'mandate' to keep asking for them.

It irritates me the way she's essentially ignoring all reality and exaggerating to make the point she wants to make, but then again, they all do it. Politicians, eh?

Last time around, remaining in Europe was a big factor for many 'remain' voters. Of course, Little Englanders pulled the rug from under that one, so I think in this case the call for a further referendum is justified, simply because the parameters have had such a massive shift.

That was always a possibility. The UK Government retain control of foreign policy, and they consider the UK as a unit. That fact was known in the last referendum.

Not to mention that now? Scotland is heavily drawing on the British exchequer after the oil market collapsed. And Brussels is busy planning out more unified financial powers, which Scotland on its own will not have the weight to modify.

I'm half convinced this is a bluff on Sturgeon's part. She wants her call for a referendum to be shot down, because trying to win a referendum on the basis of promising future cuts and less governmental power? She'll lose. But if she can demand a referendum, have it refused, and then spend another five years hammering in how how puir wee scotland has been ignored? That would work nicely.

Well, given it's not so much Westminster but a small gang of sociopathic Tories determined to crash our economy with mindless 'deal or we'll walk away' nonsense, I'd vote to detach myself from their grasp.

 reds8n wrote:
watch this clip

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/840981294674771968

The screen is visible by guests/those in the studio.


Now go here :

https://twitter.com/LiamFoxMP/status/705674061016387584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


how the feth is that acceptable.

And he's one of the architects of our new future.

It was often said that a monkey with a red rosette could win for Labour in Glasgow. I think the same could be said for a monkey with a blue rosette in parts of England!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, given it's not so much Westminster but a small gang of sociopathic Tories determined to crash our economy with mindless 'deal or we'll walk away' nonsense, I'd vote to detach myself from their grasp.

I backed Brexit, voted for it, and still think it's a good idea, but I made the mistake of overestimating the ability of the Tory party to at least be mildly competent.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, given it's not so much Westminster but a small gang of sociopathic Tories determined to crash our economy with mindless 'deal or we'll walk away' nonsense, I'd vote to detach myself from their grasp.

With the real possibility that your ruling party acts like the tory party and any ills they inflict on the population will be as a result of those foreigners down south. Politically a successful indy ref leads to really pertinent questions being asked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I backed Brexit, voted for it, and still think it's a good idea, but I made the mistake of overestimating the ability of the Tory party to at least be mildly competent.

Me too.

Is it really that hard to at a minimum set up a binding referendum? Its rhetorical really no side really though that leave was really an option so it wouldnt have mattered so much.

Tories: "Brexit was a UK vote and we'll Leave as the UK."

Scotland:

UK government says no need for another Scottish independence referendum and it would be "divisive and cause huge economic uncertainty".




...hmm ..

Better the possibility, than actually having May and Co doing just whatever they want as incompetently as they possibly can.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, given it's not so much Westminster but a small gang of sociopathic Tories determined to crash our economy with mindless 'deal or we'll walk away' nonsense, I'd vote to detach myself from their grasp.

With the real possibility that your ruling party acts like the tory party and any ills they inflict on the population will be as a result of those foreigners down south. Politically a successful indy ref leads to really pertinent questions being asked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I backed Brexit, voted for it, and still think it's a good idea, but I made the mistake of overestimating the ability of the Tory party to at least be mildly competent.

Me too.

Is it really that hard to at a minimum set up a binding referendum? Its rhetorical really no side really though that leave was really an option so it wouldnt have mattered so much.

Much worse was the fact that Dave and George refused to consider a leave victory for even a nano-second. So no contingency plan = clusterfeth

That reason and that reason alone, is the damning proof that David Cameron was not fit to hold the office of First Lord of the Treasury.

How that phony, that fraud, was ever propelled to high office is a mystery I will never solve until my dying day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Things is, during the last referendum, the EU was happy to do the UK's bidding and shoot down an independent Scotland's prospects in the EU.

But now with Brexit, and Bojo seriously off the EU, I think Brussels will happily throw a few hand grenades into the mix, just to annoy May and her cabinet.

Expect the EU to make noises about making Scotland a special deal if it votes to leave the UK.

And before somebody mentions Spain, we have 100% concrete evidence that Spain has no objection to an indy Scotland joining the EU if it LEGALLY leaves the UK.

I remember seeing this at the time, should've been straight down the bookies.


So disgraced Minister Fox is a liar, Gove is wrong about almost everything, Bojo is a laughing stock who no one in the Eu takes seriously, Farage is being helped/helping the Russians, The wetherspoons guy wants exceptions made for EU workers based on geographical proximity , NI peace deal is in difficulties and Scotland might leave the UK.

.... thank God we're taking back control.

Agreed. The problems are coming thick and fast for May. A week really is a long time in politics.

Some of the great Prime Ministers of British history would struggle to make a success of all of this. May and her mob of misfits, crooks, and chancers are out of their depth on this one.

So....

The SNP puts into its 2011 manifesto that if it gets to form a the Scottish government, they'll have an independence referendum. Expecting to be a minority government and have any such bill voted down. Unexpectedly they win a majority, and have to hold a referendum they probably thought they had no chance whatsoever to win. Against all odds they get reasonably close - 45% to 55%.

The Conservatives then put into their manifesto that they'll hold an EU referendum, expecting to be in coalition with the Lib Dems again. They do this to shut up the Eurosceptics. This, again, does not work out as intended.

For the 2016 election, the SNP again puts in the manifesto about having a referendum if something really major happens, e.g. an out vote. They don't QUITE get a majority, but close enough with Green support. Against their expectations, there is a leave vote. The SNP probably don't want a referendum at this point, since there's a fair chance that they won't win, but they now have two choices - call a Indyref2, or break their manifesto commitments.

Which is worse for them? They're kindof stuck. If the Conservatives had put in their manifesto "we will pass no legislation to empower the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum" they'd have fairly good grounds to tell the SNP to go away, but they didn't. They're stuck as well.

 Graphite wrote:
So....

The SNP puts into its 2011 manifesto that if it gets to form a the Scottish government, they'll have an independence referendum. Expecting to be a minority government and have any such bill voted down. Unexpectedly they win a majority, and have to hold a referendum they probably thought they had no chance whatsoever to win. Against all odds they get reasonably close - 45% to 55%.

The Conservatives then put into their manifesto that they'll hold an EU referendum, expecting to be in coalition with the Lib Dems again. They do this to shut up the Eurosceptics. This, again, does not work out as intended.

For the 2016 election, the SNP again puts in the manifesto about having a referendum if something really major happens, e.g. an out vote. They don't QUITE get a majority, but close enough with Green support. Against their expectations, there is a leave vote. The SNP probably don't want a referendum at this point, since there's a fair chance that they won't win, but they now have two choices - call a Indyref2, or break their manifesto commitments.

Which is worse for them? They're kindof stuck. If the Conservatives had put in their manifesto "we will pass no legislation to empower the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum" they'd have fairly good grounds to tell the SNP to go away, but they didn't. They're stuck as well.

Eh, the Conservatives are perfectly happy to break their own manifesto promises. They pledged in their manifesto not to raise National Insurance and tried to do just that in the latest budget.

Which went totally un-noticed, and worked out really well for them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Eh. No surprise there. And if another referendum is held and lost, she'll be banging on for another one three years later, on the basis that getting voted for gives her a 'mandate' to keep asking for them.

It irritates me the way she's essentially ignoring all reality and exaggerating to make the point she wants to make, but then again, they all do it. Politicians, eh?

Last time around, remaining in Europe was a big factor for many 'remain' voters. Of course, Little Englanders pulled the rug from under that one, so I think in this case the call for a further referendum is justified, simply because the parameters have had such a massive shift.

Oh ffs, give over with this"Little Englander" bs, its juvenile. We should all be refraining from calling people names for having a different opinion.

So... are ya'll going to invoke article 50 in the next few days?

 whembly wrote:
So... are ya'll going to invoke article 50 in the next few days?

We're...thinking about it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... are ya'll going to invoke article 50 in the next few days?

We're...thinking about it.

Okay...

I'll be honest, my interest is totally greedy... I suspect the pound will take a bit of a pounding in the exchange before bouncing back up. I've got some Forgeworld stuff lined up.

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... are ya'll going to invoke article 50 in the next few days?

We're...thinking about it.

Okay...

I'll be honest, my interest is totally greedy... I suspect the pound will take a bit of a pounding in the exchange before bouncing back up. I've got some Forgeworld stuff lined up.

Fine by me, its a boost to British manufacturing.

 Graphite wrote:
So....

The SNP puts into its 2011 manifesto that if it gets to form a the Scottish government, they'll have an independence referendum. Expecting to be a minority government and have any such bill voted down. Unexpectedly they win a majority, and have to hold a referendum they probably thought they had no chance whatsoever to win. Against all odds they get reasonably close - 45% to 55%.

The Conservatives then put into their manifesto that they'll hold an EU referendum, expecting to be in coalition with the Lib Dems again. They do this to shut up the Eurosceptics. This, again, does not work out as intended.

For the 2016 election, the SNP again puts in the manifesto about having a referendum if something really major happens, e.g. an out vote. They don't QUITE get a majority, but close enough with Green support. Against their expectations, there is a leave vote. The SNP probably don't want a referendum at this point, since there's a fair chance that they won't win, but they now have two choices - call a Indyref2, or break their manifesto commitments.

Which is worse for them? They're kindof stuck. If the Conservatives had put in their manifesto "we will pass no legislation to empower the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum" they'd have fairly good grounds to tell the SNP to go away, but they didn't. They're stuck as well.

Which is essentially why Indyref2 is completely valid. It's not a 'neverendium' nor does the SNP somehow not have the right to call for a second referendum. It is literally in their manifesto (which incidentally saw them gain a larger share of the vote than any other party in the UK).

Personally I think its a little bit premature but then the sheer intransigence of May has forced things to a head sooner than most people would like but, without strengthened devolved powers, it was always going to happen. Resurrecting the empty shell that was the 'vow' won't work this time.

On the other hand perhaps this is a Machiavellian ploy on the part of the Tories to force a second referendum while they still have a chance of winning, that would require competence though so....

Ladbrooks have 8/11 odds of Scotland voting for independence by 2020

Scotland can't legally hold a unilateral referendum, can it? It has to be authorized by Parliament, like the last one.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
So....

The SNP puts into its 2011 manifesto that if it gets to form a the Scottish government, they'll have an independence referendum. Expecting to be a minority government and have any such bill voted down. Unexpectedly they win a majority, and have to hold a referendum they probably thought they had no chance whatsoever to win. Against all odds they get reasonably close - 45% to 55%.

The Conservatives then put into their manifesto that they'll hold an EU referendum, expecting to be in coalition with the Lib Dems again. They do this to shut up the Eurosceptics. This, again, does not work out as intended.

For the 2016 election, the SNP again puts in the manifesto about having a referendum if something really major happens, e.g. an out vote. They don't QUITE get a majority, but close enough with Green support. Against their expectations, there is a leave vote. The SNP probably don't want a referendum at this point, since there's a fair chance that they won't win, but they now have two choices - call a Indyref2, or break their manifesto commitments.

Which is worse for them? They're kindof stuck. If the Conservatives had put in their manifesto "we will pass no legislation to empower the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum" they'd have fairly good grounds to tell the SNP to go away, but they didn't. They're stuck as well.

Which is essentially why Indyref2 is completely valid. It's not a 'neverendium' nor does the SNP somehow not have the right to call for a second referendum. It is literally in their manifesto (which incidentally saw them gain a larger share of the vote than any other party in the UK).

Personally I think its a little bit premature but then the sheer intransigence of May has forced things to a head sooner than most people would like but, without strengthened devolved powers, it was always going to happen. Resurrecting the empty shell that was the 'vow' won't work this time.

On the other hand perhaps this is a Machiavellian ploy on the part of the Tories to force a second referendum while they still have a chance of winning, that would require competence though so....

Ladbrooks have 8/11 odds of Scotland voting for independence by 2020

Nevermind strengthened powers, as the FM said in her speech May's government are planning to legislate on already devolved matters without consent and the Article 50 court case demonstrated categorically that there's no legal force behind the Sewel Convention's inclusion in the Scotland Act. Honestly I think most pro-indy folk up here have been pretty surprised by just how intransigent May's been, she could have cut the legs out from under the SNP pretty easily even without making any firm committments to a differentiated settlement for Scotland in the EU negotiations merely by engaging with Sturgeon sincerely and promising to discuss the matter with Europe during the talks. Instead she's been just as bull-headed and stubborn towards the Scottish government as she has been towards the EU.

To an extent, that intransigence will have forced the timing, but I'm not sure it's as disadvantageous as some will assume. Certainly having another referendum so soon isn't ideal, but the state of affairs this time isn't just different in terms of the political justifications: Scottish Labour are a husk, they have no money, even less of an activist base, and most of the upper echelons are vehemently anti-Corbyn so interactions with the UK party will remain fraught. The Scottish Tories might have overtaken Labour to become the opposition in the Scottish Parliament by fishing for the staunch unionist vote, but they're in no danger of actually challenging the SNP any time soon and despite the almost disturbing fondness among the mainstream press up here for Ruth Davidson the Tories are still utterly toxic, plus while they're better off financially than SLab they won't be flush by any means after this year's council election campaign. The Lib Dems, contrary to the impression you get from the media, are even more of a rump than SLab, smaller now than the Greens. This time around the biggest and best-funded branch of the unionist campaign is likely to be "Scotland in Union", an unlikely alliance of the extremely wealthy unionist upper-crust with the more literate and vertrebrate elements of ultra-Loyalism, who despite their healthy war chest probably won't go down quite as well with swing voters as the Labour-led campaign of 2014. The UK Tories are the UK Tories, if May sends Bobo the Clown and that smarmy wee turd Fox up here to campaign they'd be as well to concede right now. UK Labour are riven with the PLP vs Corbyn power struggle, and the local branches in the North of England that provided a lot of bussed-in foot soldiers for the 2014 Better Together campaign have UKIP to contend with. The Civil Service, which last time spent nearly a solid year prior to the vote churning out negative "reports" for BT activists to quote on the telly, will be consumed by Brexit negotiations and preparations, and the London-centric portion of the media's attention will likewise be divided.

By contrast the SNP have a pretty ridiculous amount of money to spend courtesy of the post-indyref membership surge and an activist base to match, and the Greens have grown significantly since 2014 as well. While it looks like unionist commentators will be content to stick with screeching about the oil price, the "currency question", and the price of a 2nd class stamp in 2027, groups like Common Weal and RIC have been and will continue to do some really detailed work on refining and improving the pro-indy argument, and most of the local branches of the Yes campaign have remained active and will be ready to get going again fairly quickly. The media landscape is slightly different from 2014 as well; by no means is it a level playing field, the media in Scotland is still either skeptical or outright unionist by a large margin, but the pro-indy alternative media is far better established this time around, is pretty well funded, and is reinforced by the presence of a daily pro-indy newspaper that can ensure the stories the alternative media generate make it onto the TV paper/headline reviews even if the BBC insist on continuing to outright ignore websites with a larger monthly readership than most Scottish newspapers. Further, some of the media voices that were stridently pro-union last time around like the Daily Record are likely to be less so this time - I doubt many will outright switch sides, but they'll likely give the case a fairer hearing. And of course, there's a chunk of voters from last time who will very likely have changed their view en masse in a way that will be beneficial for Yes - EU nationals. Not to mention that the mood music from the EU itself is quite different this time and could get less favourable for the UK as the campaign progresses if negotiations are as fraught as it appears they will be based on the UK government's behaviour so far.

It's not a slam-dunk by any means, pensioners and euroskeptic Yes voters are going to take a lot of persuading, but given the above mentioned givens and the fact that polling shows essentially a dead heat at the moment, I think this time it will be our campaign to lose.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Scotland can't legally hold a unilateral referendum, can it? It has to be authorized by Parliament, like the last one.

Short answer: maybe.
Long answer: maaayyyyyybe?

Basically, we don't know, because last time the issue was sidestepped with the Section 30 Order explicitly granting temporary powers to do it. It's probable that a court would rule against the Scottish Parliament being able to hold a binding referendum, but they could probably get away with a consultative one if they fudged the question a little. Realistically though, May would have to be a complete fething wantwit to refuse another Section 30, since it would play really bloody badly and the Scottish government could hold essentially a proxy referendum by triggering an early election and putting an explicit "a vote for us is a vote for independence" provision in their manifesto.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Scotland can't legally hold a unilateral referendum, can it? It has to be authorized by Parliament, like the last one.

But it would be hard for Parliament to deny such a request without also harming its own "will of the people" narrative. After all, if a single referendum, brought about not by any sudden change in the UKs position in the EU, was good enough to set the UK on an apparently irreversible course to leaving the EU then why should Scotland be denied the same freedom with regards to leaving the UK, when it has much more of a reason to do so than the UK had in leaving the EU? It was in the SNP manifesto, after all.

Perfect example of the double edged nature of tying the legitimacy of a political direction to populist sentiment.