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

[Shadowmelded]

Thats debatable

Spring 2019, 2 years after article 50 is activated. Realistically the Brexit negotiations would need to end before 2019 to allow for ratification in both Parliaments. No guarantee there would be an unanimous vote to extend negotiations beyond 2019.

[Rockyreg]

So his desire has been presented as a certainty. I´m not a native english speaker but isn´t this different from "scotland will become a member of the EU"?

Uhm, ok.

No they are saying he is presenting this as a certainty to the voters. The same way as pro-UK were presenting Scotland would have to leave the EU as a certainty.

- - - Updated - - -

Spring 2019, 2 years after article 50 is activated. Realistically the Brexit negotiations would need to end before 2019 to allow for ratification in both Parliaments. No guarantee there would be an unanimous vote to extend negotiations beyond 2019.

What if a transitional deal is negotiated where things largely remain as they are now?

[Shadowmelded]

What if a transitional deal is negotiated where things largely remain as they are now?

Seems unlikely given what the EU would want in return.

[Activi-T]

What if a transitional deal is negotiated where things largely remain as they are now?

That is how David Davies sees things going. We already have the same standards that the EU uses for goods now which is the major factor in trade deals between the EU and external countries so things trade, which is what the UK can EU care about the most for stability is relatively easy to keep the status quo. We only have 18 months after Article 50 is triggered to get everything sorted, sources within the EU said they'll need about 6 months to get things through the beurocratic machine in Brussels.

Deals and standards will naturally diverge over time but at the start things should be ok, according to the Brexit secretary at least.

[Rockyreg]

Seems unlikely given what the EU would want in return.

I would perfectly happy with that as long as the transitional phase is not forever!

- - - Updated - - -

We have a government threatening the eu with the possibility of a "no deal" and at the same time telling us that they have not concidered the impact of a "no deal". Brexit to date has been little more than a circus and I little faith in our government securing a deal that we can all live with.

I wouldn't listen too much about what is said at the moment from both sides. They will have a good idea of what 'no deal' will look like I'm sure. Even if they had done an in-depth analysis I doubt they would tell us as they would immediately be having fend off questions on what it would look like and they wouldn't want anyone to know, least not the EU negotiators

[Noradin]

The wicked witch of the south wants to ensure Scotland is all the way up shit creek before letting us decide our future.

That and they want to throw your weight around in the negotiations with the EU.

[Shadowmelded]

That and they want to throw your weight around in the negotiations with the EU.

And after Brexit, guess which class of citizens who got a vote last time in the indyref won't get one this time...

[Deleted]

Deals and standards will naturally diverge over time but at the start things should be ok, according to the Brexit secretary at least.

This will only work if the ECJ continues to be the final arbiter.
And as the Brexiteers have this paranoid delusional aversion to the ECJ, It ain't happening.

- - - Updated - - -

what brexiteers?

I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be. There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment. EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.

British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. Britain is and always will be a great European power, offering top-table opinions and giving leadership on everything from foreign policy to defence to counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing – all the things we need to do together to make our world safer.
The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal.

That's BoJo the clown himself - Do note the final sentences, where it is abundantly clear that he does not understand that, what he complains about, IS the common market.
I'm unsure if he is just a literate retard, delusional, or just a baldfaced liar.

[Deleted]

1. I never said it would mean Scotland is exempt from the rules, and I don't believe Scotland should be. What I'm saying, and what the legal experts are saying, is that Scotland is a unique case that wouldn't join a queue that doesn't exist (since Turkey applied, what, 30 years ago? Some nations have joined since then).

Actually the only "legal experts" whose opinion truly counts are the European Commission, and they have said: become independent, Then apply to join following th enormal process. Which will take years, because even in a fast track process it requires twenty seven countries to ratify a new member joining through their own parliaments. That is assuming Scotland met the fiscal rules, which it does not, and had created it's own currency and was willing to accept the euro and schengen (in 2014 the SNP rejected both)

2. Scotland doesn't have a deficit. The nation doesn't control its own economy, which means it can't possibly run its own deficit. The Westminster parliament either spends or allocates money on Scotland's behalf, and then allocates Scotland a portion of the debt.

Scotland at the moment has the same deficit as the UK.It is however very simple to calculate what Scotland's UK "regional" deficit is: the difference between revenue raised and spent within Scotland. That would show what Scotland's deficit would be if it was not part of the UK and did not receive money from the rest of the Union.

You have confused "debt" with "deficit"

3. Currency options are several, so let's not get too stuck on that. It's extraordinarily likely that a Sterling zone would be created, mainly because failing to do so would also do significant damage to the English economy for absolutely no reason; especially when the "recovery" isn't beating inflation.

1.The rest of the Uk did not and does not want a currency union.
2.A country applying to join the EU must have it'sown currency and central bank
3. An EU member in a currency union with a non EU member is impossible.
4. Even IF a currency union was possible, the following would apply:

Scotland would find itself using essentially an English currency because of the size differences. Naturally, that currency would be mostly run by and for England, with interest and exchange rates that suited England. Scotland would have "one vote in ten". Moreover, undoubtedly both partners would insist on binding controls for deficits and debts, to stop any one partner from acting irresponsibly and damaging the shared currency. England would find itself in a situation where it might be required to bail out Scotland, to prevent a run on the pound, but know that Scotland (again due to size difference) would never be able to help England in the same way.

So "independent" Scotland would have less independence than now. Of course, the Uk does have a single currency, but it does direct fiscal transfers within itself to compensate for a one-size-fits-all policy (which the euro does not, which is why it's in trouble)

Okay, so, you're arguing that the Czechs can't meet the Euro criteria and that Sweden are using a fudge, but... Both are, miraculously, in the European Union? Come on.

Because they joined the EU before the euro came into force

And they both certainly had their own currencies and centralbanks!

Look at the rules, rather than what British press tells you they are: joining the Euro, as a currency, requires joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism, and that's entirely voluntary. The reason the northern Eurozone doesn't push anyone into it is because the northern European economy is different to the southern, and it's not necessarily an economic benefit to shove it on anyone.

But creating your own currency and central bank before joining the EU is also a rule. Moreover,what would the rest of the Eu think of Scotland applying and saying "by the way we are gong to rig ourselves to avoid the euro"?

Actually most of southern europe is in the euro.Itis the eastern countries that have not (mostly because they can't)

Like I said, Scotland doesn't run a deficit. Actual economists (responsible for understanding Scottish expenditure, no less) Jim and Margaret Cuthbert have stated, quite clearly, that GERS tells you absolutely nothing about what an economy would look like in an independent Scotland. For a start, Scotland already contributes to British debt that it didn't rack up and is expected to pay for southern spending (such as the Olympics) that Scotland doesn't economically benefit from, and didn't get Barnett consequentials for. You could also immediately wipe off planned spending on Trident replacement, and Scotland would save money on defence because it contributes more than is spent on defence in Scotland.

Just like the res tof the Uk contributes to things in Scotland that do not necessarily benefit it. Of course Scotland wracks up British debt: spending in Scotland is more than £1200 per head higher. This year the Uk deficit will be £51 billion. £15 billion of that is spending in Scotland. A third of the deficit for this year...less than one tenth of the population.

"The GERS gives the definitve picture of Scotland's finances"

Source: "Scotland's Future"; quote by Mr A. Salmond.

After that, there are lots of options.

The Scottish government could raise the minimum wage or reduce VAT, in order to put more money in the pockets of the poorest (who have the highest propensity to consume). They could increase corporation tax, clamp down on its avoidance, or reduce/increase fuel duty depending on where that's sat. They could properly change income tax rules without the threat of dividend payments going to the treasury (as they currently do), or replace welfare with a citizen's income. Taxes on booze and fags are popular, oil tax revenue would come to Scotland, we could increase immigration to combat the ageing population, or subsidise our renewable industry that does very well, and is exportable.

If scotland raised the minimum wage it would drive businesses out and into next door. Scotland could not afford to reduce VAT; it would drive it's deficit even higher. The SNP were pledged to cut corporation tax and to keep it at least 3% below the rest of the UK's. It could not afford a citizen's income. Taxes on booze and fags are not popular. There is nothing to stop people migrating to Scotland now - either from the EU or the rest of the UK. It is not that people can't migrate to Scotland. It's that they don't want to. Why does Scotland lack immigrants when as part of the EU 500,000,000 people are free to go there? Even in the UK there are 65,000,000 people. England has had no such problem.

500,000 Scots have moved to England - equivalent to 8% of Scotland's population. The same number have moved to Scotland from England - less than 1%. Why? Scotland's population density is much lower. There is plenty of room. We speak the same language. It is apparently a paradise under SNP management.

It is worth noting that Nicola Sturgeon dropped a committment to implement a 50p taxrate on higher earners. Why? Because her advisers told her higher earners would leave, damaging the Scottish economy (just like in France, people moved into Belgium next door to avoid tax). Yes, Ms Sturgeon actually argued that taxes should be the same across the whole UK after demanding powers to vary Scotland's tax.

The IFR released a very recent study that independent Scotland would have to raise tax or cut spending by at least £1,000 per head to remain fiscally viable. If it did not it would probably go bankrupt, possibly after unsustainble borrowing (which is what the Greeks did, borrowing money using the euro's reputation mostly provided by Germany)

Do you know what all this has in common?

It's reserved, and is the building blocks of running your own economy.

It is all also highly unrealistic and is the usual fatuous "everything would be brilliant if we did it all ourselves even though the financial reality is that almost all the measures suggested to achieve this utopia are complete fantasies"

Even before you look at national insurance, council or income tax, there are a great many economic levers that Scotland could pull prior to borrowing. Don't forget, we'd also stop paying British debt as a percentage of population, rather than based on what is actually spent in Scotland.

Scotland doesn't "pay British debt".If you mean after independence Scotland would have to raise allthe money spent in Scotland within Scotland alone, you are correct. And that is where the 9.5% deficit comes from. Scotlands deficit is held down to the Uk average (obviously). The numbers are as follows for "regional" deficits:

Northern Ireland: £9 bn (34%, yes, spending there really is 34% above revenue raised)
Wales: 14bn
Scotland; £15 bn
England: £12 bn even though England is almost ten times as populous as the rest combined

This won't surprise you, but Alistair Darling was wrong. The Scottish economy contracted using GERS performance figures as the Scottish economy on its own. In short, the same economy that's apparently now worse than Greece somehow managed to absorb a shock in oil price collapse.

If the "broad shoulders" of the UK saved the Scottish economy, then it's those "broad shoulders" that are running a £9b deficit, or whatever the doomsayers are screeching that it is today.

Not the Scottish government.

You are correct: as far as it goes. All that matters is that spending in Scotland is £15 billion higher than revenue raised in Scotland, even assigning a 90% share of North Sea revenues as territorial waters would be under independence. You have actually pointed out that it's the Union that has absorbed this into it;s overall deficit and then averaged it across the entire UK.

Under independence, the Scottish government would run the same deficit unless it either
(a) cut spending
(b) raised taxes
(c) started borrowing on a massive and unsustainable level.

Actually, that's also not true.

According to that famous Scottish separatist writer Professor Brian Ashcroft, had Scotland been independent for the last 35 years then an independent oil fund would be between £60b and £100b in the bank. Sadly, it's just another wasted piece of public spending that got hoovered up by the treasury and squandered on tax breaks for those already rich.

An oil fund was establishe din Norway to avoid Dutch Disease (google it). An oil fund made no sense to the UK, which is much larger, with a more diverse economy, and where oil revenue was not at any time such a large part of national revenue that it risked "Dutch Disease". It was not bad planning, it just made no sense. The UK is not Norway, which had less thana tenth our population and much larger oil reserves and revenues

Arguing that the Scottish economy planned on oil is fine, to a point, because it's reasonable to say "we're going to account for where we'd likely sit, given the price per barrel at that point". But the Scottish economy is now being planned outside of that particular boom, so would only benefit from an increase on top of all the other economic levers I already mentioned.

Andre Wilson, who wrote the econoimic section in "Scotland's Future" publicly stated this week that oil was never treated as a bonus, it was treated as a base case and that a minimum of £5bn was presumed for every year...with no contingency plan at allfor this not happening.

They can't. If you read it, you'll see that Scottish specific figures are notoriously difficult to come up with because GERS was designed by Ian Lang, a Tory Secretary of State for Scotland, to undermine the performance of the Scottish economy. Yes, you read that right; Lang told John Major that it was designed for political reasons, and not a lot else.

The problem is that because the spending is allocated by England, "Scottish Government figures" are simply where they spent the Total Managed Expenditure (TME). So, the NHS for example, might see extra funding (which it does) because English privatization has a direct impact on health spending in Scotland, via Barnett. The fact the Scottish NHS is dramatically better than the English is incredible, considering the financial noose.

Ah.The old "The GERS is a perfidious plot designed by the English" routine. No mention of this when the Scottish Government in the form of the SNP used to boast loudly how it demonstrated the Scottish economy was outperforming the UK's.

NHS Scotland simply has more money per patient. It also benefits from the extra money scottish social care has - England doesn;t have free elderly care because the cost would be immense. Even in Scotland it is probably unsustainable. As to whether NHS Scotland is "dramatically" better, it probably isn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-across-the-uk

How much woul dit cost to extend Scottish level spending across the whole UK? another £1200 times 58,000,000 that's how much, And then the UK deficit would rocket up to almost Scottish levels.

Finance isn't that important.

Scotland has a population similar to other independent nations whose public services are better than Britain's. It's also worth noting that the Conservative party are happy selling off their grandmother's false teeth in order to save cash, so it's utterly unbelievable that they'd somehow just feel "generous" to Scotland, that great Tory heartland that returned one (that's one) MP to parliament, following a recount.

Yes, and those smaller nations tend to have much higher taxes. The SNP told people in 2014 they were going to cut tax and raise spending. If you want Scandinavian services you iwll need Scandinavian taxes. There is also Scotland;s geography: that makes it a very expensive place to provide services (much more so than, say a country like Denmark, how to take seriously anyone who can posts "Finances aren't that important"??

This is about a country that, ultimately, has diverged from England both culturally and politically, to the extent where its democratically elected representatives utterly dwarf the main English parties who all support austerity, nuclear weapons, privatization, tuition fees and anything else that's important. Scotland is far more European than England, no better illustrated in the different votes in the EU referendum.

That is simply a national conceit and story promulgated by the SNP. Naturally they are anxious to tell the Scots they are just irreconcilably different from England (guess why) and everyone likes to hear "you're better than your neighbours"

The most recent Social survey showed a dramatic rise in Euro-scepticism in Scotland. 67% of respondents either oppose the Eu or want it;s powers substantially reduced. There is hardly any support for the euro or Schengen.

Scots might favour "social justice" when the Uk foots the bill. Sturgeon has been very reluctant to use Holyroods powers to raise welfare because it would require her to raise taxes to pay for it and this owuld be unpopular. It is easy to vote for free prescriptions when youleave the dirty business of taxes to fund it to "Westminster" to sort out.

So, ultimately, this is about democracy. It's about holding accountable a Scottish government that Scots voted for, rather than hoping that a foreign government, even one as close as London, will somehow act in the best interests of Scots.

So Brussels would? Why is the "foreign government" in London so bad, but apparently the one in Brussels isn't?

And why should they? England is far bigger than Scotland, with far more MPs, and it's right that the Westminster parliament puts them first. But when that's the case, it's simply time for Scotland to say:

"We need to move on. We share common history and heritage, and many of us have family on either side of the border. But we also view ourselves differently in Europe, we view ourselves differently in our politics, and we want to make our own decisions about how to run an economy, build wealth and enjoy our Scottish culture. We want England to do the same; we don't want English culture to be sold as "British", just to keep us happy.

Wish us luck, and we wish you luck".

But in the Eu you would not make your own decisions (particularly in the euro - ask the Greeks)

The overwhelming impression in England is that we are an easy scapegoat for your problems and that all we ever hear is the SNP monaing and saying how awful we are compared to the wonderful Scots. Even more, that it's "anyone - except England"

The fundamental hypocrisy is that the SNP reject sharing any sort of governance of Scotland with it's neighbour on the same littl eisland, but so vociferously demands to share the governance of scotland with 27 other countries, some of which are thousands of miles away.

Divorces are rarely friendly. Undoubtedly the rest of the Uk would feelit had been rejected by Scotland (particularly given the SNP rhetoric), and it would not wish Scotland luck. At all.

The idea that Scotland can break the Union, which woul dimpose a profound economic shock and cause a consitutional crisis, then roll up and say "lets hug and stay best friends"....it is a fantasy/

- - - Updated - - -

True. That's why I think they will only link independence to Single Market membership, arguing that an independent Scotland can choose whether to become a full member at a later date, which will give them all the pro-European votes but also many Eurosceptics in favor of independence. That means no obligation to join the Euro or Schengen. I bet they will propose a Scottish pound in their manifesto. And the Pound sterling devaluation has hardly it bottom yet, once a hard Brexit is a fact it'll likely drop again. Hardly the beacon of stability. Then later of course the SNP will want to join the EU, but they won't have to argue in favor of the Euro or Schengen to win IndyRef2.

Which means that somewhat hilarously, Sturgeon has been banging on about "Scotland being dragged out of the Eu against it's will" and "we need to protect Scotland's place at the heart of Europe", "we want a seat at the top table" etc is complete balls

"we demand a referendum to become independent because of the Uk leaving the EU, but once we become independent we don't plan to join the Eu anyway" sounds unhinged.

It is obvious that the EU is simply a figleaf, the only thing the SNP are interested in is independence, at any cost, the Eu is simply a convenient excuse?

You know Sturgeon has been droning on about how her "compromise" would stop a referendum? You know, if either the Uk as a whole or Scotland stayed in the single market she wouldn;t call for one?

Alex Salmond admitted on his radio show thi smonring that even if the UK had stayed in the EEA, which is pretty much being in the single market without being in the EU - the SNP would have still called for a referendum.

Mrs May would have given a blackmailer everything she demanded and gone against the majority of voters in the Uk and her own party and it wouldn't have done a thing.

There is no point trying to appease the SNP because you can;t. They don;t want to be and their only purpose is independence, at any cost, regardless of what anyone else might or might not do.

[Tinch]

Reducing the amount of time outside and thus the impact it has on our economy isn't a bad idea though. And it doesn't seem like the EU expects the accession talks to be long since we already implement EU law.

Sturgeon's argument is completely illogical though.

She wants to have the referendum vote before the UK leaves the EU because she thinks they're going to get a bad deal and it will negatively affect the Scottish economy, i.e. the 16% of its trade that it does with the EU. So her solution? Lets leave the Union which we expect will get a bad deal with the EU as soon as possible, even though that will negatively affect 63% of our trade.

And the icing on the cake? Scotland's biggest single export market is the US - a country that doesn't have a trade deal with the EU and who's President Nicola Sturgeon called for to be BANNED from the UK just last year. The same man who has called for a swift free trade deal with the UK after we leave the EU. You really couldn't make this up!

Its obvious that the reason why she wants to have the referendum in late 2018-early 2019 has nothing to do with the economy, its simply the period in which she thinks she'll have the best chance of winning. Its independence at all costs.

[Rockyreg]

This will only work if the ECJ continues to be the final arbiter.
And as the Brexiteers have this paranoid delusional aversion to the ECJ, It ain't happening.

- - - Updated - - -




That's BoJo the clown himself - Do note the final sentences, where it is abundantly clear that he does not understand that, what he complains about, IS the common market.
I'm unsure if he is just a literate retard, delusional, or just a baldfaced liar.

I won't disagree with on your opinion of our dear Boris, I do I think he is a bit of a twat and more importantly a liability. But in what you quoted he is not saying that we will stay in the single market.

[Deleted]

I won't disagree with on your opinion of our dear Boris, I do I think he is a bit of a twat and more importantly a liability. But in what you quoted he is not saying that we will stay in the single market.

British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.

[Suggs]

So the UK was the EU's Scotland.

The EU was Uk's cancerous oversized tumor.
Make the most of your pretty little bubble, the Eu bond wont last forever....

[Crispin]

The UK was EU's cancerous oversized tumor.
Make the most of your pretty little bubble, the UK bond wont last forever....

See what I did there?

[Rockyreg]

British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.

The only contentious point there is the 'free trade' point as we won't know the outcome of that for a couple of years. But are you saying the EU is just going to put up a wall and refuse UK citizens entry? At no point has he said we are staying in the single market.

[Mayhem]

The only contentious point there is the 'free trade' point as we won't know the outcome of that for a couple of years. But are you saying the EU is just going to put up a wall and refuse UK citizens entry? At no point has he said we are staying in the single market.

Well in combination with "and access to the single market" it´s obvious that he is saying "we are staying in the single market", how else would you get free trade and access to the single market if you don´t stay in the single market?!?

[Rockyreg]

Well in combination with "and access to the single market" it´s obvious that he is saying "we are staying in the single market", how else would you get free trade and access to the single market if you don´t stay in the single market?!?

Because he is saying the UK will get a free trade deal, which we will, we just don't now how long that will be. Every country has access to the single market to some degree.

[Mayhem]

Because he is saying the UK will get a free trade deal, which we will, we just don't now how long that will be. Every country has access to the single market to some degree.

That however is in contradiction to the beginning of the sentence "british people will still be able...".

[Rockyreg]

That however is in contradiction to the beginning of the sentence "british people will still be able...".

Thats not in contradiction at all. Which of those things will British people not be able to do in the UK is no longer in the single market?

[Deleted]

It is quite hilarious. The SNP are dropping increasing hints that they would not even pursue EU membership after independence.

"We are calling an independence referendum because the people of Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and are being dragged out of it against their will"

"We have decided after independence we won't join the EU anyway"

It sounds completely unhinged.

The SNP are caught by their own rhetoric. They have seized on the EU as an "issue" to force a referendum, because all they care about is repeated referenda and trying to get people to vote for separation.

The problem is, a million Scots voted Leave (Sturgeon treats them as invisible). And a third of them were Yes voters in 2014.

She has bet the farm and made her whole campaign about the EU. But the most recent survery show not only are the Scottish voters increasingly EU-sceptic (with a big rise), they are also increasingly dissatisfied with the SNP as a government (though Sturgeon herself is personally popular). There has been a strong rise is the number who responded that the Scottish Government is doing badly on education and NHS Scotland.

This is all a big distraction, pick a fight with Westminster before the SNP honeymoon period really wears off. They lost their overall majority and have to rely on the Greens. It is quite likely that in 2021 the Unionist parties would hold the majority again.

So allthe stuff about Eu membership is rubbish. As a member of the EEA Scotland would not have a "seat at the top table" or "influence in Brussels we donot have in Westminster", let alone "secure Scotland's place atthe heart of Europe"

For many months Sturgeon has said that if the Uk "compromised" and kept the Uk (or at least scotland) in the single market she would not call a referendum.
Alex Salmond admitted on his radio show yesterday that even if the Uk had joined the EEA (with full single market rights)....
the SNP would have demanded a referendum anyway


The SNP never had the slightest intent to "compromise". Mrs May certainly knew that and decided to not even engage in a pointless exercise