Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, calls for fresh independence referendum

[Tijuana]

As an American, I support any nation that wants to achieve true freedom, by throwing off the shackles of their British overlords. If you want to borrow some guns, and do it proper, just hit us up. We got 3 guns for every citizen, but most of us only have two hands. #arkansasexception

[Pua]

Not tue. The actual numbers are:

Referendum
within the next 1-2 Years - 32%
after Brexit negotiations are complete 18%
not in the next few years 51%

I'd have checked your numbers before you posted. Just do 'em now, please. We can pretend nobody noticed (but we'll obviously remember that I did).

And as for the mandate, the manifesto was pretty clear and was in completely unambiguous language; Scotland is being taken out of the EU, against its vote and with its recommendations (the Scotland's Place in Europe document) being completely ignored. The democratic deficit is the point I keep raising, and the point you keep blithely ignoring.

I wonder why?

Currency options:

Here are the currency options I consider, according to Dr. Craig Dalzell (under review by Mike Danson). I also agree with his conclusions.

If it's all the same to you, I'll go with the thoughts and considerations of academics and not someone who thinks "Scotland has to join the Euro".

The trade problems are nothing to dowith running a surplus. They are all about how leaving a Uk single market where you send 64% of your exports and get about 80% of your imports yojoin a single market worth about 16% of your trade makes sense.

What percentage of Scotland's trade with England is forwarded to the EU, and vice versa?

What's that? You don't know?

Then don't pull figures out of GERS or, more commonly known, "your arse".

It's also funny that you now cite 80% of imports from England, an England that'd suddenly not want to trade with Scotland upon independence because... Well, nobody really knows or has a decent answer.

It couldn't possibly be an empty threat, could it?

According to the SNP, the EU will do a terrible trade deal with the UK and it could all fall back to WTO rules and include tarrifs and so on.

However, as part of the EU, Scotland would have to comply with that agreement, which means Scotland would be forced into a terrible deal with what is by far and away it's biggest trade partner. Which makes no sense.

No, the SNP have stated that the EU will do a deal that's terrible for the UK, because no deal can be better than full membership of the EU and its single market; the EU also holds all the strength in the debate. And under WTO rules, why couldn't Scotland and England make their own trade deal, particularly if Scotland was using the pound?

For goodness sake man, think about what you're posting before hitting submit. At the moment you're arguing several things lumped together, that are contradictory, and are just hoping I won't spot them. Sadly, I've a bit more experience with this debate than you think.

No you have attempted to wish away an inconvenient truth, which is simply this: public spending in Scotland per head is much higher than the revenue raised per head.

No, you've attempted to wish what you think is probably right into existence. Don't confuse "facts" with "estimates that nobody can account for the methodology of".

If it had any real chance of joining NATO, Scotland would have to stump up 2% GDP on defense.

Rubbish.

Out of the 28 member states of NATO, I think four (yes, four) spend 2% of their GDP on defence; the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece and (if I remember correctly) Estonia. I could maybe give you France, but I think they spent a bit less than 2% in 2016 - I'd need to check. Several of those countries barely spend 1% of their GDP on defence. And, before you say it, there's also no requirement for the proliferation of nuclear weapons because, as of the last count, only three of the 28 nations in NATO have nuclear weapons (the United States, the United Kingdom and, IIRC, France).

But, you go on to say something interesting; it's this:

Scotland has a very large and strategically important air and seaspace to defend.

It sure does. And let's not forget, that the first operational deployment of Russia's aircraft carrier-cruiser went past that area twice in the last year (on its trip toward the Mediterranean, and on the way home). Are we honestly going to argue that Scotland's strategic position on the map wouldn't be held under consideration when it comes to membership of NATO? I find that hard to believe, and so does anyone who thinks about it.

The suggested Scottish Defense Force would be hopelessly inadequate to the task (a handful of jets and couple of destroyers). The plan did not even include airborne radar or at-sea and in-air refuelling capacity: they wanted the Royal Navy and Airforce to do it for them!

The Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy have all been paid for, at least in part, via Scottish revenue. What's even more interesting, is that the higher up the country you go, the larger percentage of servicemen and women you tend to find; ultimately, if you just took all the Scots out of the British military, the British military would cease to function. I wouldn't go so far as drawing a conclusion from this, but I'd be more inclined to think that actual military experts would work this out and not you or I.

As an aside:

The SNP's white paper on the Scottish Defence Force was a complete mess, and was clearly written by someone with no real knowledge of how the military works.

Incorrect.Andrew Wilson who headed the SNP's independence economic group and revealed last week that although the document "Scotland's Future" repeatedly stated that "oil is just a bonus" and "independent Scotland would not depend on oil", the economic section of the same paper laying out budget, taxation and fiscal policies did not treat oil as a bonus: it was instead treated as a basis. Everything was predicated on oil revenues, and no alternative or contingency plan was presented that illustrated what would happen if oil revenues fell.

Wilson has already retracted those statements, but it doesn't matter. Of course Scotland's Future was likely to count on oil revenue; it was how the economy was structured, as far as the SNP were concerned. But, once again, you're completely missing the point I'm trying to make:

It's not up to the SNP how an independent Scotland would look.

It'd be up to the people of Scotland to vote for who they thought were the best people to run Scotland, and its economy. The reason people like you (and the entire gamut of British 'media') get so fixated on individual policy, is because they're the easiest things to attack when taken in a vacuum. Scotland's Future was a far bigger plan than independence from the EU for Britain was, yet somehow the plan for that is considered "better".

I'll say it one more time:

This is about Scots voting for their own government, and getting the policies they choose.

You can go on and on about the SNP all you want. In future, I won't be responding. To me, independence is about OPTIONS which, at the moment, are utterly lacking. When it comes to big ticket items such as aggressive foreign policy, austerity, tuition fees, nuclear weapons and the dismantling of public services, Scotland votes the opposite to the policies that are now being enacted.

The Scottish government, with almost no economic levers to use, is then criticised for not being able to sort out the mess.

I say, enough. Let Scotland get on with it, and see how the country does when it's not having to work under the thumbscrew of regressive policies that we didn't vote for.

It's that simple.

[Deleted]

[Rockyreg]

I believe he wrote that, I believe plenty of people told him it was insane, (and pointing out the regulatory regime is the common market) and then i believe that he shut up for a week before becoming FM.
Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you like.
We will see how deluded the UK's negotiating positions wind up being.

I don't need to draw any conclusions, I merely asked a simple question of you, which was to point out to me where he said we would be staying in the single market. You can't do that without second-guessing what he said so really there is nothing more to be said on the matter.

If only there wasn't this other issue where they fuck a segment of the population over...
Maybe a geographically constrained part residing in the north...

Thats a matter of opinion, others might argue they have it pretty good.

So you mean the small minority of the Voters who voted Ukip should have been ignored?

They made their voice heard enough to get a referendum didn't they?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you for real? You think the UK are going to get rid of the bad stuff and keep the good stuff?

Anyway this is going in circles.

Its an irrelevance what I think. Its only going round in circles because you refuse to admit you are wrong, you cannot show me in that statement where Boris says we are staying in the single market.

[Noradin]

I don't need to draw any conclusions, I merely asked a simple question of you, which was to point out to me where he said we would be staying in the single market. You can't do that without second-guessing what he said so really there is nothing more to be said on the matter.

And he did, but you proceeded to pretend not to understand simple English sentences if they happen to be longer than four words.

[Deleted]

sturgeon before she became leader of the snp.

[Rockyreg]

And he did, but you proceeded to pretend not to understand simple English sentences if they happen to be longer than four words.

Did he fuck, he linked one part of the text as saying he must of meant staying in the single market but ignored the rest about the ECJ which means clearly not being in the single market.

I understand English just fine mate, it obvious that you do not as none of you can answer my rather simple request.

- - - Updated - - -

sturgeon before she became leader of the snp.

Has anybody ever seen them in the same room together?

[Noradin]

I understand English just fine mate, it obvious that you do not as none of you can answer my rather simple request.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge it does not mean everyone else cannot see it is there.

[Rockyreg]

Just because you refuse to acknowledge it does not mean everyone else cannot see it is there.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the rest of his statement completely contradicting your 'evidence'. Give it up man.

[Noradin]

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the rest of his statement completely contradicting your 'evidence'. Give it up man.

You mean the part where he conflated the ECHR with the ECJ?
Getting out of the EU will not get the UK out of the ECHR, so that part was nonsense anyway.

[Rockyreg]

You mean the part where he conflated the ECHR with the ECJ?
Getting out of the EU will not get the UK out of the ECHR, so that part was nonsense anyway.

Yes let's ignore the part that destroys your entire argument. Jesus, I thought it was us brits that were the 'cherry pickers'

Where does he even mention the ECHR?

[Mayhem]

Yes let's ignore the part that destroys your entire argument. Jesus, I thought it was us brits that were the 'cherry pickers'

Where does he even mention the ECHR?

You mean like how you ignore the parts about continue to have free trade and access to the single market? I mean unless you think the boris can see into the future he either meant staying in the single market (considering everything else he promised british people would still be able to do) or he knows the outcome of future negotiations.

[Rockyreg]

You mean like how you ignore the parts about continue to have free trade and access to the single market? I mean unless you think the boris can see into the future he either meant staying in the single market (considering everything else he promised british people would still be able to do) or he knows the outcome of future negotiations.

You know what I think he meant. Ultimately he is being a politician trying to reassure people. What he is not doing is saying the UK is staying in the single market.

[Tinch]

It's also funny that you now cite 80% of imports from England, an England that'd suddenly not want to trade with Scotland upon independence because... Well, nobody really knows or has a decent answer.

It couldn't possibly be an empty threat, could it?

It's not that rUK wouldn't want to trade with Scotland, its that this may be hindered is Scotland was a part of the EU. After all, its been the SNP and the Remain side that have been telling us that we're going to get a bad deal with the EU.

No, the SNP have stated that the EU will do a deal that's terrible for the UK, because no deal can be better than full membership of the EU and its single market; the EU also holds all the strength in the debate. And under WTO rules, why couldn't Scotland and England make their own trade deal, particularly if Scotland was using the pound?

For goodness sake man, think about what you're posting before hitting submit. At the moment you're arguing several things lumped together, that are contradictory, and are just hoping I won't spot them. Sadly, I've a bit more experience with this debate than you think.

Because EU member states cannot make their own bilateral trade agreements. If Scotland joins the EU, it gets the same trade agreement with rUK that every other EU member state does, you won't get any special treatment.

The Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy have all been paid for, at least in part, via Scottish revenue. What's even more interesting, is that the higher up the country you go, the larger percentage of servicemen and women you tend to find; ultimately, if you just took all the Scots out of the British military, the British military would cease to function. I wouldn't go so far as drawing a conclusion from this, but I'd be more inclined to think that actual military experts would work this out and not you or I.

But if Scotland became independent, this would have to happen surely? Unless we're going to have a shared military, which could essentially mean that Scotland would likely be tied into Trident and all the other things about the UK military that you cite as reasons for wanting independence.

[caervek]

Saw this post by a Scottish dude on another forum that pretty much perfectly sums up the situation:

Most Scottish people couldn't care less about the EU because only a third voted to stay in it. Independance would mean leaving the EU anyway. Anybody who thinks any different is either so blinkered by the crap spouted by the SNP or are living in a dream world. Scotland is not and never has been a member of the EU. The UK is the member and Scotland would have to apply for membership.

The majority of the Scottish people don't want a referendum, it's the SNP that is pushing for it because that's the only thing they exist for. The greens are in it with them because there are so few of them it's the only way they can make themselves look important. We had enough of this nonsense the first time around and the bile and hatred divided the country and now that witch is starting it up all over again. The English are getting involved because they are in the completely wrong opinion that the Scottish people are pushing for it. They are not. It's the SNP and their die hard nationalists that live in a complete fantasy land that are pushing for it.

[Obelisk Kai]

Saw this post by a Scottish dude on another forum that pretty much perfectly sums up the situation:

That is less summing up the situation and more summing up the opinion of a Scottish Unionist.

[caervek]

That is less summing up the situation and more summing up the opinion of a Scottish Unionist.

Except the guy isn't a unionist, he's just telling it how it is from a neutral pov.

[The Glitch]

Except the guy isn't a unionist, he's just telling it how it is from a neutral pov.

He doesn't sound neutral at all. And Oh hey, Scottish person here, and I can tell you people I know think the opposite or differently. Doesn't mean everyone or even the majority feel the same! /gasp.

[Obelisk Kai]

He doesn't sound neutral at all. And Oh hey, Scottish person here, and I can tell you people I know think the opposite or differently. Doesn't mean everyone or even the majority feel the same! /gasp.

Seems to me that this can actually go either way, although I am not Scottish I have a strong vested interest in the outcome.

[Pua]

It's not that rUK wouldn't want to trade with Scotland, its that this may be hindered is Scotland was a part of the EU. After all, its been the SNP and the Remain side that have been telling us that we're going to get a bad deal with the EU.

Yes, but if Scotland is in the EU then Scotland will be on the good side of the deal.

It's also worth noting that if Scotland were in the EEA, and not the EU, a bilateral trade agreement between Scotland and England could potentially allow England through-access to the single market. I'm not 100% sure if it's possible, but I can't see a reason why not.

Because EU member states cannot make their own bilateral trade agreements. If Scotland joins the EU, it gets the same trade agreement with rUK that every other EU member state does, you won't get any special treatment.

You've missed the point. I was saying that if England and Scotland both ended up under WTO rules, they could sign a bilateral agreement under those terms (as hinted before). Were Scotland in the EU: see above.

But if Scotland became independent, this would have to happen surely? Unless we're going to have a shared military, which could essentially mean that Scotland would likely be tied into Trident and all the other things about the UK military that you cite as reasons for wanting independence.

Like I said, I'd be loathe to draw any conclusions about it until it was properly reviewed by people who actually know what the impact would be. I suspect a level of practicality would take over in the short term (say, eight to ten years), where a conjoined British military would continue to serve the entirety of the British isles until it could be properly split up.

But having your own defence is a rather large aspect of being independent, and a shared military doesn't achieve that. Funnily enough, Trident doesn't bother me that much; an agreement for Scotland to stop paying toward nuclear re-armament could be reached if Faslane were to remain the base for the period I'm talking about (remember, the nuclear deterrent cannot, as yet, be housed anywhere in England).

The bigger issue is the aggressive foreign policy I talked about, because there's really no way that Scottish money wouldn't be poured into it unless there was some kind of veto or lock that was held by the Scottish government. Somehow, I can't see warmongers in Westminster accepting something like that.

In the end, Scotland would look to spend around 1.2 to 1.4% on defence, in accordance with a country its size, and a transitional period to get there would probably be sensible.

Except the guy isn't a unionist, he's just telling it how it is from a neutral pov.

There's nothing "neutral" about that post; you can tell, because his recounting of the experience is completely at odds with the reality of what actually happened. Also, ignoring the wrong conclusions he presents, the tone is a clear giveaway. A neutral wouldn't describe the democratically elected First Minister, with the highest share of the vote in Scottish parliamentary history, a "witch".

In short, you can pretty much discount it entirely. It's hateful gobbledygook of the highest order.