UKC

If the people of Scotland were told in 2014 that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote to Stay in the UK, which they were and later did, and if 3/5ths of Scots voted to Remain in the EU during the Brexit vote, which they did, in the interests of democracy on a UK wide basis, the case for a people's vote on Brexit would seem to be a strong one? 

If I'd voted to Stay in the 2014 Indy Reff because I'd wanted Scotland to stay in the EU, I'd possibly now be feeling rather betrayed or disenfranchised.

I thought you were a Buddhist? 

That is my exact position.

Betrayed and disenfranchised doesn't begin to cover it. Absolutely raging would be more like it!

What exactly is a people's vote on Brexit ?. I'm one of the people and I already cast my vote . Yes we were fed lies and misinformation by both sides and I guarantee if we have a second vote we will get lies and misinformation again. What exactly would a second vote achieve anyway?. 

If the next one was leave then there would be calls for a third vote (I think this is the outcome we would see, from the ones I know the great unwashed and the factory and site workers still think it's a great idea and I have heard a lot say they didn't vote last time but they would this time through fear of not leaving)

If the vote was to stay there would be calls for a third vote because after one for out then one for in there is a split decision and people would call for a best of 3 nailing down an overall majority. 

Me too and if there was another indyref I'd vote for independence if it meant Scotland in the EU. I know a few people in the same position but it's not a clear cut thing.

Imagine you were buying a car, and the choice was "white" or "another colour". We now know what the other colour is.

"Rustyturd"

Sorry that's rubbish.

I haven't met a more staunch remainer than myself. Now we have more of an idea how things are looking there should definitely be a vote on what the deal is going forward.
However, if the result is to leave a 2nd time knowing what we now know that would be it as far as I'm concerned. I would no longer be able to carry on the fight because it would be pointless - the "playing chess with a pigeon" phrase comes to mind.

Enty

The thing is, we probably wouldn't get in to EU, not straight away anyway. However, I would still vote for independence now as we could get the closest possible alignment with the EU and keep free movement etc. I don't want to go down with the sinking ship!

The 'lies and information by both sides' argument is a classic Trump tactic: since everyone knows he is a pathological liar he doesn't waste time denying it, he just diverts attention and tries to normalise it by shouting the other side are as bad.   Remain was pretty inept during the referendum but basically honest.   Some elements of Leave were verging on the criminal.   The doom and gloom predictions Remain made in the 2016 referendum are not lies, they are reasonable predictions which are quite likely to be proved correct if Brexit actually happens.

If there is another vote the Government will need to state what Leave means.  That is a major difference between a second vote and the 2016 referendum.   There is also far less opportunity to bullsh*t about 'the deal' and no wave of immigrants from Syria for Leave to scare people with.

Just like in 2016, there are still three groups Remain / Soft Leave / Hard Leave.   Remain is the largest of the three groups but in 2016 the other two options added together were slightly larger than Remain on its own.    Once Leave is forced to choose between Soft and Hard variants it will lose by miles.

I think the lies would be a bit easier to see through this time.

That's pretty much how I feel,  just south of the border! 

  Every Sympathy

I don't think we we fed much in the way of lies and misinformation by the Remain campaign. Not because I think the Remainers were intrinsically more truthful but because their campaign was so poor - they hardly said much other than it is better to be in a club than out of it.

What we know now Brexit is going to be far more complicated than we were led to believe before the referendum. It is now more than two years since the referendum and is there anyone who can say with even the slightest confidence how our relationship with the EU will be about any aspect of Brexit?

The EU has been an easy target to blame for everything some do not like and that influenced the vote. For example, the comments of how the EU are making our laws. The EU are not some external agency telling us what to do; we are part of the EU and we voted for many of the laws that have been allegedly imposed on us. Even when we did not vote for a particular piece of legislation that is just what happens when you are a part of a club - you always get your say but you don't always get your way.

I think we should have another referendum because there cannot be an informed decision without the information and that was lacking in June 2016. 

Dave 

In 2014 the only way to remain in the EU was to stay in the UK. We voted to stay in the UK and hence stayed in the EU. 

In 2014 the liklihood of an EU referendum was an issue raised by 'Yes' (quite rightly  but not with the inference that a 'yes' would keep us in the EU) and was a live factor during the independence referendum. I clearly remember thinking one down one to go. 

I don't see how anyone was betrayed or disenfranchised. They might be mightily hacked off, I know I am.

In my less charitable moments I am also mightily hacked off with those who now it is done express their anger but were nowhere to be seen during the actual campaign. All we had to do was change the mind of one in fifty. Rant over.

Sorry, that's not aimed at anyone in particular or even anyone on this site. I just get fed up being lectured on the evils of it all by people I know didn't do anything except vote. Especially when I am trying to enjoy climbing /hillwalking. 

And to answer the question I think it makes the case for a second indyref stronger but I would like to see that after the  brexit terms are known and after the next Scottish elections. If we are going to have another referendum lets be absolutely clear there is a mandate for it and what the issues are. I don't think it makes the case for a 'peoples vote' stronger, but that is quite a strong position anyway.

If Scotland had left the UK in 2014 we would still be in the EU.  The whole 'if you leave the UK you leave the EU' thing is just Westminster FUD and always was.     Even if you believe the EU would act completely against its own interests the very worst case would have been a couple of years in the EEA - still in the single market and customs union - and then back in the EU as a new member state.   

With Scotland outside the UK but in the EU Brexit would never have happened because the Scotland border would be a 100x worse problem for Brexit than the Northern Ireland one. 

How? Through what mechanism would that have been possible?

Though I think you are right EEA membership would probably have been achievable quite quickly.

It's the same as the question of whether Article 50 can be revoked which has now been referred to the ECJ.  There are legal opinions arguing that Scotland could stay in if it wanted but the UK government chose to present it as a settled issue because it strengthened its FUD.

At a practical level once there is a YES vote for Independence it is far more convenient for all concerned to keep Scotland in the EU.  Assuming there was a legal issue the EU could just have a quick summit and sign it off and avoid all the disruption and pointless administrative busy-work of a state leaving and in a couple of years coming back.   I don't see why Spain or any other member state would use a veto to stop Scotland staying in continuously when all it would achieve is a couple of years delay.  There's no upside because once Scotland is back in it will have a vote (and on some issues a veto) which it could use on an issue which was important to Spain. 

I would bet that single market/custom union membership would have been continuous and the UK and Ireland would have advocated on Scotland's behalf to ensure this happened because it makes life easier for everyone.

In what way is it related to Article 50? Article 50 concerns the withdrawal of a signatory state from a treaty not the accession of a new state to that treaty.

It would be interesting to see those legal opinions.

The fundamental problem is that the EU is a treaty between the governments of sovereign states. Until a state exists it cannot sign a treaty.

The EU had a quite clear position on Catalonia, if a 'region' leave a member state it leaves the EU. What from the EU's position would be different?

This looks remarkably like a version of Liam Fox's  Brexit deal 'should be one of the easiest in human history' I think on a practical level all sorts of unknown unknowns will spring up though I doubt a veto would be one.

I quite agree. I have never believed the disaster narrative for independence or Brexit. A bad idea yes but not the end of things.

If I was a leaver, I'd support a People's Vote (horrible branding, I much prefer Final Say) referendum because I'd want Brexit to be carried out democratically and in a way that didn't lead to a bitterly divided and resentful population. I'd consider that worth the risk of losing Brexit altogether.

There are too many people to reply to so I will reply to myself. Exaggerating things a bit I know but remain basically tried to scare us by claiming the day after the vote the UK economy would tank. Leave told us it would be a land of milk and honey. Now I can't speak for all sectors but in manufactoring my customers and the customers of my competitors are investing and expanding. I'm tendering now for expansions that are planned for after march next year. We don't hear about the small to medium businesses in the news though, they are more focused on the big names for shock value.

It's related to Article 50 in that different lawyers interpret the treaty and the precedent in different ways and it would need the ECJ to make a definitive ruling.

You are begging the question by stating it is about the accession of a new state.  Whether Scotland is a new state or a very old state choosing to leave a union with the rest of the UK would be one of the questions.  Another argument would be that a member state splitting results in two member states within the EU not one inside and one outside.   

To be fair most people voted to remain as part of the UK because they wanted to continue to be within the UK, not because of membership of the EU. I accept that EU membership was an issue but only a side issue and was far from being the main argument. 

Probably fairer to say that Leave spun Remain's warnings of the medium to long terms effects of Brexit that way.  Not dissimilar to BoJo's "it won't lead to World War Three" - which no sane Leaver said in the first place, rather pointing out that the EU had helped to sustain one of the longest periods of peace between sovereign states in modern European history.

Don't forget that around 30-35% of YES voters in the Scottish Referendum voted to LEAVE the EU. Perhaps if the SNP had put more effort into the REMAIN campaign we wouldn't be leaving the EU. I strongly resent my REMAIN vote being used as an excuse for Scotland to leave the UK. [Not as much as I resent the threats from the cyberNats. EG. I won't be welcome in an Independent Scotland and will have to get out. How do they ever think this is going to persuade NO voters to vote YES in a 2nd Scottish Independence Referendum? I'd be interested to hear the views of Tom in Edinburgh and under Independence supporters on this forum on this.]

Not only has Brexit been a betrayal of what Scottish voters were led to believe in 2014. But the promise to advance devolution was an outright lie. This government and Brexit are now actively eroding the powers of the Scottish parliament ( that 70% of Scots voted for ) and the influence of devolved government. Along with all the progress we've made since 1999. Anybody in Edinburgh last Saturday, with 100,000 peacefully marching in support of independence, will be in no doubt that there is a growing and unstoppable grassroots movement in Scotland that doesn't want to be part of "Brexit Britain".

Yes, a hard border with England would be a disaster for Scotland, but that is what we'd get if Brexit goes ahead in anything but it's softest form and we then vote for independence. Basically I think Scotland has been completely shafted by Brexit against our will whatever we do.

agreed entirely

you ought to keep solidarity with the rest of us who feel shafted - this govt and the ERG is shafting all of us - we are getting perhaps what we voted for as an electorate for shafting the LibDems as punishment for the one time they did have some influence on a largely Tory government.

In that sense the non-Scottish electorate has brought about Brexit and what went around came around

Why wouldn't you be welcome in an independent Scotland?! Always welcome in my book!

I don't think it was that SNP didn't put much effort into the remain campaign as much as Scotland in general didn't. I think the result here was a foregone conclusion and no one really campaigned. There were hardly any posters up and I think I only saw campaigners in town once or twice. Maybe a bit of apathy in the wake of the indyref?

I'm not so much an independence supporter as an EU supporter, so independence is worth it to get closer to EU. I think this is why the SNP are biding their time too, as the Brexit deal or otherwise will have a big impact on Scotland's view.

I  certainly don't think independence would be all roses, but I'd take it over Brexit! 

I think you are in the same position as leavers are with sovereignty. A stateable but ultimately unsustainable position. 

To my mind any future independence campaign would be more credible if it accepted that in the short term at least EU membership was not an option but did it's best to set up early membership of the EEA. That way there might also be the possibility of a softish border with rUK.

What markets would these customers be operating in, UK based, or EU, or more worldwide? It's logical that a weaker pound would make a business which exports have more sales, but I guess talking about what big businesses are doing or considering doing in the event of different kinds of Brexit could variously be called 'shock value', 'concern value', or 'this is happening and it's going to affect people's lives value' (if you see what I mean). It may just be that the focus is on big businesses because people think it's important, due to the numbers affected through employment and the supply chains involved.

The whole EU referendum felt like a side show and non-issue to me living in central Edinburgh.  There was pretty much no campaigning because pretty much nobody wanted to leave.  With no visible leave campaign and coffers and energy depleted after the Independence referendum the SNP and other parties didn't put much effort into campaigning for remain.   

I think a mistake was made by the SNP and the Scottish offshoots of Labour/Lib Dems/Tories in that they didn't think past what they could see in Scotland and work out that getting a high turnout of Remain voters in Scotland might be crucial to an overall majority in the UK.  People just assumed England would vote Remain too.

When I went to vote on the EU referendum day and saw how dead the polling station was I started to feel a bit of disquiet but still thought everything would be fine.

Police Scotland thought 20000

(still a healthy number) 

I agree that, if we get a Brexit that takes us out of the single market and the customs union then Scotland is going to be seriously screwed and Independence is going to be a much tougher road.   As pro-Remain and pro-Independence I am angry as hell about it.

I guess talking about whether it was a side issue or a bigger part of the argument could eventually come down to how one defines such things. It was definitely very clearly stated, however, that if Scotland left the UK, that it would have to ask to rejoin the EU, that it couldn't continue in a 'business as usual' sense, that it would have to switch over from the British Pound to the Euro, which would cause problems for businesses in Scotland who have trade within the UK (that a border might be required between Scotland and England was raised by some as well IIRC), with all of these points being used to make the case for Scotland to stay in the UK.  Additionally too, the regional parts (residents from there may dislike this term - so apologies to them) of France/Spain which are having difficulties with being recognised as independent entities, were used as a 'fear stick' along the lines that France and Spain (and possibly other countries) might not even accept Scotland's independent membership of the EU, because it would send the wrong message to Catalonia and similar areas.  The argument basically went 'Given all this potential uncertainty, stay in the UK to remain a member of the EU as well, and to void economic uncertainty'.

In some documentation involved, it was stated that there was the potential at some point in the future for the UK to have a referendum on whether to stay in the EU, but the message of Scotland having to stay in the UK to avoid economic turmoil with this relating to it's trade with the EU as a part of the UK was given very loudly and clearly. I remember absorbing and pondering it all at the time. 

As pro-remain and pro-union I am too (for mostly the same reasons) 

I think the answer is that England and Wales need to go independent, leave Scotland and NI being called the UK with our existing EU membership!

It was clearly stated by people with no authority to make the determination.  It's a legal question for the ECJ.

This was stated by the 'No' campaign which doesn't make it true.  There is a difference between how people would actually react after a YES vote as opposed to what they say they would do in order to get a NO vote.

And, yes, this is a similar argument to what the Leave campaign made with respect to the EU.  The difference being that Scotland would not have been asking a club of 27 nations to change their rules to suit one member that wanted to leave.   Scotland would have been asking to stay in the EU on exactly the same terms as before and conducting a 1 to 1 negotiation with rUK on the use of the pound.   If we'd had to switch to the Euro that would have been fine too.

I drove past this demo on the way home from the BLCCs, there were people already leaving and a string of them all the way up the royal mile and a very large group in front of the parliament.   I thought it looked bigger than what you see when something like Murrayfield or Easter Road chucks out but nothing like as large as say the Festival/New Year Fireworks crowd.   So my guess would be a lot more than 20k but nothing like as much as 100K - maybe 40K.   The cops are famous for low-balling numbers in demonstrations.

Thanks, sounds like a fair assessment.

Yeah, cheers mate. I was knocking doors, distributing leaflets, helping man a stall in town and greeting people and being a polling agent and counting agent. It cost me a lot of evenings and some days I could have been out on the hills or crags.

Hopefully you were active too, and aren't just accusing others of not doing things you didn't do yourself.

I don't really know what you mean here. Have you had an online spat with some sort of racist idiot or something like that? If so, I'll happily condemn them and their views, and can't imagine many others wouldn't.

I think there's some truth in that - it was left, to a large extent, to the branches to decide what to do in their areas.

Well, the Stirling SNP certainly campaigned. As did Stirling Labour and Lib Dem (pro-remain), though we didn't see a lot of them, and the Stirling Tories (pro-leave) also campaigned. And some other group of leavers, who were considerably less pleasant to be around.

We only did a small number of days in town before Jo Cox was murdered and everyone called that off. We did a lot of door-knocking too, though we were using our own database so knocking on the doors of people who were or had been SNP supporters and/or Yes voters. The official Remain campaign did very little, to the point that we found out from them just the night before that they "thought the SNP were handling the boards and greeting at the polling stations". So we did; it was pretty hectic getting it ready in time.

With my Scottish grandma I'd be up for that, I look forward to my new EU passport.

Having English Scottish and Irish blood, in declining amounts respectively, the potential break up of the UK kinda saddens me, but that'd be up to the Irish and Scottish to decide. Irish Republicans could seem to be cheerier, and some pro Indy people have their fire back too, tho it might not happen of course. The union tensions were always there, and Cameron's referendum has stressed them.

It would allow the public to vote for the particular compromised version of 'Leave' that is available and realistically deliverable, or reject it. It also solves the serious problem parliament has made for itself by too early, too emphatically rejecting options which must in the national interest remain available.

Not from. That will probably be the trigger for me to move on though, I didn't want or make this mess an I've no interest in living through it.

So do I and I think that's a good thing, if people really do want what they have coming warts and all they should have it, if they don't they should have the opportunity to reject it.

Cameron has doomed us to at least a wasted decade, probably two whichever way the next few months pan out. Personally I don't see how pretending a third referendum on the issue (2016 was after all the 2nd) is undemocratic so as to railroad through changes no longer supported by the majority of the electorate makes the situation better. If we still support leaving on known terms we leave.

I fear then Britain will be diminished as businesses and people with options cut their investments in the place and look to do the same. That happens however brexit comes to pass.

jk

It’s worth pointing out that we have not left yet. There are range of economic outcome predicted depending on what basis we leave and the optimism or pessimism of various economists. The government’s own studies are a good starting place. Very little of it makes happy reading. Even many Brexit advocates acknowledge that it will cause considerable hardship, but think that it will be worth it, probably because they don’t think the hardship will affect them.

It seems 'soft leave'/EEA/Norway is perhaps the biggest group now [more caveats than I can face typing] http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/10/11/strip-away-the-propaganda-and-ev...

Curiously nobody is advocating it and my guess is we would likely reject it anyway because of the toxicity and dishonesty of the process that has brought us to this point.

jk

As a remainer I think you are right.There will be no change in the outcome.

Better not to have a second vote.

The Brexit referendum was committed to as part of the Tory party manifesto in 2015. Its what got them the vote to form a government. This was committed to as a response to the ever growing threat of UKIP and caused a lot of UKIP voters to vote Conservative.

The Scottish government passed the bill for the independence referendum in 2013 after being the green light to do so by the UK government. There were 4 main issues throughout the debate of which membership of the EU was one. The others being North Sea oil, currency arrangements and public expenditure.  An exit poll revealed that the majority of no votes were due to the desire to stay in the sterling currency zone and the majority of yes votes were due to disaffection with Westminster rule. As I said earlier I'm sure remaining in the EU was a factor but was far from being the main argument other that Alex Salmond saying it wouldn't be a problem to remain part of the EU every time he was questioned about it.

In my opinion there is no doubt Scotland made the right decision. Of course the ardent nationalists on this forum will disagree vehemently and present all sorts of half truths or assumptions about why they should be independent and why England and Westminster are the bogeyman but they can't even agree how many people turned up for a protest march in their own capital city. Independence is far from a settled issue and the fact remains that Scotland's biggest most affluent customer and consumer of its goods and services is the Rof UK and most people in Scotland recognise this. Don't forget Tom and the other nationalists use these forums to push their own political agenda. The Brexit referendum was held in June 2016. The last general election was held a year later. The SNP managed to lose  37% of its Westminster seats. Obviously the SNP see Brexit as an opportunity to further their independance argument and the UK government are giving them plenty of ammunition at the moment. 

Is that not what everyone with a political view is doing or are some people using the forums to push other people's agendas?

And of course it's only an 'agenda' when you disagree with it...

Well of course but my point is that because Tom in Edinburgh is a Scottish nationalist it doesn't make him a political expert or anything as such. Timmd was earlier doffing his cap and bowing because of Toms nationalistic leanings. My point being he is presenting only one  side of the argument and therefore can't be trusted to present a rounded argument.

Nobody said it was the main argument.  Obviously disaffection from Westminster rule is the main argument for Independence.    More people are disaffected from Westminster rule as a result of Brexit.   Brexit doesn't need to be the largest issue, it just needs to be a big enough issue to switch the majority for NO last time to a majority for YES.  

WTF does counting numbers at a demo have to do with anything.   Every demo there ever was the organisers have given a higher estimate than the police.   

I'll try not to.

From a completely unsustainable all-time-high and it still has 35 out of 59 MPs.   I could see the SNP losing more MPs because they are being isolated and ignored at Westminster.   The only way a regional party can be effective at Westminster is in an alliance and Labour are not interested in forming one.   Possibly the SNP should withdraw from Westminster politics altogether like Sinn Fein.

Yes, I find it astounding that the EEA option isn't being pursued - it was touted by numerous leavers during the campaign (I have provided the extensive list in the past on here, and it includes Boris), it respects the vote to leave and the narrowness of the majority, apparently 20% of leavers are OK with this, so it reflects the majority in the UK.  It avoids all the issues to do with NI, it protects the economy; free trade benefits of Brexit are clearly fantasy.  However it is politically unpalatable with the Tories, and they will be dammed by history for not doing it.  Not before laying this once great nation low.  And they call Remainers traitors. 

I'm not sure Tom or I are any more of Scottish nationalists than you are a British one, unless I'm misremembering (small 'n', I'm not casting aspersions!)

...and right enough, there you are pushing your political agenda! 

56 out of 59 seats was a freak result, that election was basically a proxy independence vote and 45-ish% of the vote tends to win you the seat in multi-party first past the post.

At the last Westminster election, the SNP still won 35/59 Scottish seats, 59% of them, which would have been an astounding result in its own right if it had happened at any other time. Keep in mind that the next most successful party was the Tories, who won only 13/59 Scottish seats, or 22% - not much more than a third as many as the SNP.

I'm not sure this is particularly relevant, though. Seats won by the SNP and Scottish Greens in the next Scottish election should matter much more, and I don't have a good feel for how that will pan out.

That's the kind of response I expected. Knee jerk, emotional and without logic. How is withdrawing its group of MPs from Westminster going to help it's cause? I'm sure it would be a tonic for the SNP troops but it's hardly going to help it's cause is it?

Claiming x 5 the turnout for the recent march seems to be stretching it a bit though Tom doesnt it? Seems a bit desperate.

Reading this post reminds me of what my Spanish teacher said he noticed during the fishing disputes between Spain and England, he'd read the national papers for each country, and they'd both put forward points of view which came across as well reasoned and objective, but which always in the end gave their own nation's point of view as being 'the right one', considering all the facts. I'm not convinced you're entirely objective, but it's a little tricky to define quite why.

Edit: The use of 'ardent nationalists' for any Scottish people who want self determination is probably one of the reasons to be honest, though.

I don't think the difference between 'a desire for self determination' and 'nationalism' is always a clear cut one.  This government is doing an excellent job of furthering the cause of the SNP, without a doubt.

I think this will be the end state, though. It is the best solution to the whole mess from an EU point of view. So they will "guide" the UK towards it.

end 2018: UK accepts the backstop and transition.

end 2020: UK accepts EEA+CU and a new transition/implementation

As long as there is no clear majority in the country for any specific scenario, it is the most likely outcome.

Is Berkshit really worth as much as Balkanisation of the UK.  It didn't turn out very well in Yugoslavia, at all.  The various groups and races took back control and the rest of us have learnt nothing from this, despite the fact it was little over 20 years ago, in central Europe.

Eerrrr.....Scottish Nationalists is the name of the political party ......it wasn't me that named it. 

Obviously (allowing for your miss spelling, though it being a Freudian slip might be an interesting possibility).

I'm talking about the subjective view of people who want independence from outwith of their countries. Nationalism (or nationalists) has negative connotations, where as people saying they want self determination - doesn't particularly. 

A friend/now facebook friend was talking about not liking the nationalism in Scotland during the Indy Reff, where as I took a more benign point of view.  It sets me wondering if the negative tone which comes across in your posts about the SNP and pro independence Scottish people/residents is because you view it as nationalism, more than a desire for self determination.

Edit: The spirit of my posts, to be clear, is more along the lines of 'This seems to be the subjective nature of life', more than me painting you in a particular way, but there seems to be a tone in your posts, which is what prompted this train of thinking. 

Err, no. The party is called the Scottish National Party. Not all Scottish nationalists support the Scottish National Party. And quite clearly not everyone who votes SNP supports independence.

Tom wasn't claiming that, neither to be fair were the SNP. It was the 'All under one banner' organisation. They are a little less measured in their attitudes. 

I think you'll find Police Scotland estimated 100,000, and so did a couple of senior officers I chatted to on the day. Edinburgh City Council ( if you're a little cynical ....perhaps for political reasons? ), estimated 20,000. It's always difficult to estimate the actual number of bog crowds, but it was definitely much nearer 100,000. It was at least twice as big as the march in Glasgow with over 40,000 demonstrators. Police Scotland were great incidentally. Low key and friendly policing. 

My current expectations are along the following lines.

1. The UK is simply not sufficiently politically and administratively competent as a nation to leave the EU therefore it is not going to happen.

2. Scottish independence: the train has left the station. For your own safety, please keep off the tracks.

3. United Ireland. It's already high on the agenda. More stupidity can make it a reality. And we have the Tories and the DUP involved!

4. The Scots and Irish are viewed by countries across Europe as good Europeans and the English as a massive political pain in the 4rse. Whose version of the future do you think the 27 will support?

Some interesting points there Jim.

Incorrect.

I'm not sure what you base that prejudice on Roger. Whenever I've attended any of the AUOB events they've been friendly, inclusive and well organised. It's a genuinely grassroots movement. The Edinburgh event was a great example of how to bring together people of all ages, backgrounds and incidentally, nationalities, who now all feel that the union is fundamentally broken and operates to the disadvantage of Scotland and specifically democracy in Scotland. Personally I find it inspiring that so many people care enough to get out and make their voices heard.

The treatment of my daughter in Inverness when she refused a handout. Any organisation that is that into flags I find worrying. Its agenda seems to be independence for independence sake. 

I am possibly a little hard on it for the first reason. Which may not be typical. 

I stand corrected. 

Just a pity that in the last election in Scotland there was a surge in support for Ruth Davidson’s lot and if I am correct the SNP lost seats. 

Make  of that what you will ......

Nope, the lies were fed on one side.

The DUP's behavior is unbelievable, their actions seem likely to hasten a united Ireland if they torpedo May's attempts at some form of agreement and precipitate a hard Brexit.  Who'd have thought a corrupt group of religious nutters from a region where 70% of people want to remain in the EU could hold such sway over Brexit.  Taking back control has never felt better.

Oh, and can we have that £1 Bn back please Arlene?

If somebody was rude to your daughter that was obviously stupid and wrong. But I can assure you that everybody I met last Saturday was friendly, open and interested in democracy, fairness and building a better Scotland. It was the sheer diversity of the marchers that was so encouraging. There was even a group calling themselves "Rangers Fans for Independence"...... now that tells you something has really changed since 2014! The nationalists you should worry about at the moment are the ones waving the Union Jack. 

Oh look, the OBR says we've taken a 2-2.5% GDP hit since the referendum and we haven't even left yet.  Looks like project fear is project reality.  And the Brexiter politician's keep lying about there being an overall economic benefit from Brexit. By all means be in favour of the leaving the EU, but don't pretend it's not going to make the country poorer.   

I think it depends on what sector you’re in. There are plenty of SME’s deeply worried about Brexit from what I see on Twitter. 

 I think your posts have shown me how 'random and odd' I can sometimes come across to other people. Hello fellow random.  

I dunno how much of a Buddhist I am really, I find stuff from Buddhism helpful, like about how speculative thoughts about other people/the world can agitate the mind, but I tried meditating and found that I didn't like how it made my mind feel. I'd recommend that anybody should give delving into different related texts and books and things etc a try though, I've come across some beneficial things by doing so.

To be fair, it is not a very good name!

About 13000 seems a closer estimate: https://www.aforceforgood.uk/single-post/2018/10/08/AFFG-Reveals-Number-at-...

re the substantive part of the thread.

With significant nationalist movements in 12 EU countries at the moment it would likely that any bid that an independent Scotland would make to join the EU would meet with some resistance. Joining would likely be a long and painful process although eventually I imagine an independent Scotland would be allowed in, on the terms of the EU. All new members are now required to join the Euro and have the ECB as their central bank. This of course does limit fiscal autonomy considerably, I believe for example that no country in the Eurozone is allowed to run a current account deficit of more than 3.5% now so borrowing to grow the economy becomes problematic. Many in Europe believe, quite rightly, that the Eurozone crisis has proved that you can't have monetary union without political union so one can see that a country whose population comprises 1% of the total EU and would have 5 MEPs in a parliament of 500 may well end up in the long with less autonomy than Scotland has now in the UK.

The elephant in the room regarding independence is the Growth commission report, or the "cuts commission" as it is referred to in non SNP circles. For those who haven't studied the 340 page document produced by a number of SNP MPs and MSPs, pro independence businessmen and economists in any great detail, the report concludes what everyone else has been saying all along. That an independent Scotland would be significantly worse off that it is now even factoring in Brexit. It does however guild the lily, or tries to, by assuming that a Scottish economy would grow faster than the UK economy because small countries economies grow faster than big countries economies therefore in ten or fifiteen years Scotland would be back to where it is now economically speaking. They justify this assertion by choosing 12 small countries and showing that their rate of GDP growth is in fact greater than the average. I had a look myself, it's not difficult to do. First I drew a graph of GDP growth against population for every country in the world. In fact if there is any correlation with size then it works the other way, big economies have been growing a little faster than small economies. I then looked at just the liberal democracies in the world and guess what? No difference, the trend was just the same. It's no wonder that the report was never debated at the SNP conference and seems to have vanished without trace in nationalist circles. A sober assessment of the report may be found here: http://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i301/growth_commission_response... and if anyone wants a copy of my spreadsheet they can email me.

Now I hear many arguments for independence, some such as long term political differences have some validity others along the lines of "we're just brilliant" are a bit barking and the "they're getting more than us" is just wrong. However many people do believe in them and that's the reality of it. It's understandable that on a forum like this one where the demographic is young to middle aged, healthy and employed we will hear many of these arguments used as a reason for separating from the rest of the UK. For me though, after some reflection 6 years ago I realised that having well funded public services and a functioning welfare state trump just about everything else. When your mother is diagnosed with cancer you want the best for her, you want your kids to have well provisioned schools to attend and you want to be able to travel on well maintained roads you aren't honestly that bothered who is talking bollocks in what parliament.

No one was lied to about Brexit in 2014, it's a made up accusation by those who want separation and will throw any mud that comes to hand at the "Westmonster" bogey man. The truth is no one really thought about it that much, yes there were rumbles in the background but no one thought that even if there was a referendum we would be daft enough to leave.

While it is understandable that many now will wonder again whether it is best to remain in the UK and will feel real anger at a chancer of PM who risked all to keep his party together, voting Leave would be compounding one horrible mistake with a second.

The link you've included with the "fake news" numbers is to a slightly sinister looking unionist website plastered in Union Jack's. No doubt the source of it's funding and political affiliations will be as opaque as that of the  Conservative Party in Scotland.

The issue of Scottish independence is about promoting more democracy in Scotland and endeavouring to make sure that Scottish voters have a say in how their country is shaped. Something that most countries take for granted.

But it's also about protecting and investing in the things you mention.... healthcare, high quality education for all, welfare provision and ultimately prosperity. Ask the hundreds of thousands of Scottish kids that still Iive in poverty whether or not the UK works for them.

I'm afraid staying in an increasingly insular, right wing and nationalistic "British" union is a one way ticket to going backwards.  

If we want a progressive and socially democratic country in Scotland that values fairness and equality we'll only get it as an independent country. Not when we're tied to a bigger neighbour that quite simply doesn't have our interests at heart or the political will to change things for the better. 

That's why a significant majority of Scottish voters under 55 support independence. It's only a matter of time. And just like all of the other countries that have insisted on their independence from the paternal affections of "Great Britain" we'll never look back.

I often feel a bit random and odd myself. I've dabbled a bit myself in spiritual matters in the past, but in the end I didn't believe. But as you say, there's still value to be found in the dabbling. Although TBH I've forgotten why I thought you being a Buddhist had any bearing on your thread topic. Sorry for the thread hijack, I'll shut up now...

Is it competent enough to reverse the course of action? By now the low-resistance track for parliament and UK gov is to sign EU proposals (whether this happens before or after a no deal scenario). Reversing brexit takes significant political effort.

4. The Scots and Irish are viewed by countries across Europe as good Europeans and the English as a massive political pain in the 4rse. Whose version of the future do you think the 27 will support?

The Scots are nice and seem to get Europe. But NI is a problem. A country where votes divide neatly between Sinn Fein and DUP and those parties refuse to work together is not good. We have to be patient....

The recent and election and the showing of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn suggest that analysis might not be correct  

We are part of Great Britain all those other countries insisted on their independence from us. Whether or not we become independent let's not try and hide from our past. 

I totally get where you're coming from there. The thing is, I simply don't see the UK being like that in the medium term (or possibly even the fairly short term). The direction of travel is the other way.

If you're arguing that the UK would be better placed to do that if it chose to, then you may well be correct. But that would require it to choose to, and there's the rub.

I'm not claiming to have known the UK would leave, and I accept that it's likely (but not certain) that Scotland would have had to 'rejoin' post-independence, but I did believe it more likely that we'd be outside the EU in the medium term if we stayed in the UK. In fact, I said that on here more than once, e.g.:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/what_will_happen_to_europeans_i...

People will know themselves how big an issue this was to them; it will have been a bigger issue for some than for others. And feelings will have shifted in many since then, too.

I bet the water authority could pin it down to the nearest 20k

jk

This may seem at a bit random, but who cares, Germans don't ...

I saw on TV the other day that your wonderful German city of Stuttgart is one of the most polluted cities in Europe, London, in comparison, was several orders of magnitude less, which I was amazed at.

Don't lecture us about how marvelous you think you Europeans are, because you're not.

You need to have a good look in the mirror.

Fossil fueled electricity generation???

No wonder you were amazed: one order of magnitude is 10x, two orders of magnitude 100x so 'several orders of magnitude' is a very big claim.

What what I see Stuttgart is about 2x the EU limit on NO2 pollution and sites in central london vary from 2.8x to 5x the EU limit.

https://www.politico.eu/article/stuttgart-car-clash-driving-ban-air-polluti...

https://www.ft.com/content/9c2b9d92-a45b-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b

All sectors. Automotive, medical  manufactoring, printing, food, drink and raw materials (couple of quarries). I'm not reading it on twitter though, myself and my lads are out there every day installing new compressors and vacuum pumps to both replace old worn out gear or due to new expansion.

Obviously I have been talking with my suppliers and a lot of them are gearing up for Brexit in the same way that I am. A pipe and fittings supplier that I deal with is putting in an extra 2 million pounds worth of stock, there are only a Limited number of people who do quality compressed air pipe as big players and a couple of them are looking to retract away from the UK market so my guy is looking to capitalise on that by having a massive stock that will ride out and potential customs delays. I have been doing the same thing with my machine stock. Every 3 that I sell I buy a 4th for stock. Been doing this for over a year now so if there are custom delays I can still react fast and win the order. Of course it may all go tits up and no one might buy my stock but if that happens I'm screwed anyway with or without the extra stock. 

That’s an interesting mix of information Dax - do you know why those compressed air pipe companies who are looking to pull back are doing so in the face of a growing market?

I agree. When I said the lies were fed on one side, I meant, the leave side.

Its quite amazing actually when you think about it that politicians can get away with such bullshit. I can't think of anything the leave campaign has said that wasn't a gross , obvious lie, and yet, it works.

Germany indeed has plenty of problems.

For example, the influence of the car industry on the politics, slow decision making on things like Eurozone reform, the state of the army, the disaster of the Energiewende, lack of appetite to take the lead in geopolitical issues, the AfD, some leaders of the CSU, etc.

The pollution in Stuttgart is very location dependent. The city is spread out over hills and a large part is in a narrow valley. Pollution levels are high in the valley when there is little wind. The solution would be a motorway around the city so that half of the traffic does not need to go through the center anymore. It is being blocked by the politics of the villages around who don't want a motorway in their area. 

In part, decisions like independence and brexit come down to whether one thinks it's worth the hassle to fix the issues.

I always thought there were serious issues with the union but at the time of the referendum I didn't think it was worth the bother that independence would bring (initially at least) to fix that. In light of the path the UK is currently taking I now think it would be worth it.

As for brexit, other than a vague feeling that the EU is slightly top heavy with bureaucrats and perhaps not as well run as it could be I really didn't see any negatives!

Electricity production from oil, gas and coal sources

UK 53% 

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/eg.elc.fosl.zs?year_high_desc=true

I am not doing anything in haste in my manufacturing business. 

I would rather have cash in the bank than overstock on parts which may or may not be needed .

Better to stay nimble with cash  .

If you are two or three steps away from the end-customer and everyone between you and the end market has built up inventory it gets ugly when end-demand falls.  Stockpiling in advance of Brexit followed by a slowdown after Brexit could be really nasty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect

It's getting close to the time where people will need to start taking action to protect themselves from Brexit.  Maybe another month for May to play out her hand and then even small businesses are going to start making their moves.  

Stockpiling just uses your cash.golden rule in business. Cash is king. 

You have your strategy and I have mine. Hopefully we will both end up okay and the rest of the business in the UK.

Also don't be thinking because I am increasing my stock I'm flattening my cash flow  I'm sitting on 2 years of operating money. I know people say you should pull all your cash out etc and money in the bank is worth nothing but it certainly helped me expand and capitalise on the fall of some of my competition during the last resession and I am doing everything I can to be in a strong position come Brexit.

To whoever asked about the other pipe companies pulling out and why. My guess would be fear and uncertainty but also a bit of arrogance that if things work out okay they will be able to swan back in to the market and re take their old positions. In my game though once you lose a customer it tends to be gone for good hence my guys gearing up to swoop in and capture more of the market. They might be making the wrong move, I might be making the wrong move, you might be making the wrong move Neilh. Only time will tell. 

Yes, the worse kind of Brexit the UK gets, the more reason for independence, but that independence will also be worse....... It's a lose, lose situation; we are, as you say, screwed.

You are in the service sector , different strategy.

Would an Independant Scotland meet the financial criteria for EU membership?

 As the EU is a rules based organisation ( as they have said in relation to Brexit ) then if Scotland does not meet thir criteria, then they would not be allowed to join. 

And George O.

So, here is a potential lie. Or at least a misattribution and a serious distortion  ( though this is difficult to confirm given the poster did not show link or context).  However here is what I think is the reference in the OBR report, which is really a literature search alongside their own findings. https://bit.ly/2NHL6v1

I quote:

"The Centre for European Reform found that cumulative UK growth was lower by 2.5 percentage points between the second quarter of 2016 and the second quarter of 2018 than the comparator.1 Born et al (2018) found that the shortfall in GDP growth was 2.0 percentage points over the same period.2 It is noteworthy that the estimates are broadly similar, despite the composition of the doppelgangers differing significantly.

So it was not the OBR that found this. First lie. Put that on the side of your remainer bus. Second lie. If you take time to read the document the CER is looking at current growth and measuring it against a hypothetical, or what they call a ‘synthetic’ or ‘doppleganger’  growth figure -- ie an estimate of what might have been had their been no leave vote. Note the words comparator and estimates. So the GO statement, so eagerly regurgitated by the Leave-Hater-Rom, is a lie if this is the document he drew it from....Here is what he said --we've taken a 2-2.5% GDP hit since the referendum....

Here is the Financial Times a few days ago:

"Britain’s growth rate bounced back in the second quarter to a 0.4 per cent rate, from 0.1 per cent at the start of the year, when activity across the UK was hit by snowstorms and a prolonged cold snap. With a hot summer encouraging spending, the rolling quarterly rate further increased to 0.7 per cent in the three months to August."

The same report also mentions the CER report, and notes that the FT's  own estimates are between 1 and 1.5 per cent drops. I am not saying there has been no adverse impact of the Leave vote - but what I am saying is that if this is your source you guys are either idiots - unlikely -- or manipulative liars...distorting a complex economic methodology with cheap slogans. Not better than the NHS figures on the bus. Shame on you.

You might also want to quote this from FT, but it doesn't fit your agenda does it.

"With the unemployment rate down to 4 per cent between March and May, its lowest rate since the mid 1970s, the labour market has strengthened significantly since the EU referendum..."

Whoever it is that is offended by the use of bold, I hope you can put your displeasure to one side.....

The other utterly idiotic comment, repeated here ad nauseaum is that we 'haven't even left yet'. This argument is used in two contradictory (but self serving) ways by the remainers. First if there is good economic data, they say ah but we have't left yet. And second, if there is bad economic data they say 'ah imagine how bad it will be when we actually leave'. Ugh.

Most economists business people will tell you that the thing they fear most is uncertainty......that is what we are going through now. How long it will last I have no idea. But uncertainty is probably behind the lack of investment. Companies stock pile cash. Once there is a more certain economic future - good or bad -- just more predictable business behaviour will adapt ( I am not saying growth will go up, just that behaviour will change. 

And just for reference here is the stand first for the CER:

The Centre for European Reform is an award winning independent think-tank devoted to making the EU work better, and strengthening its role in the world. We are pro-European but not uncritical.

It is not, in other words, the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Never was, never will be. 

If Georgie boy can find the quote where OBR say the growth rate has fallen by between 2 and 2.5 per cent I stand corrected. But if not, Rom my friend you should suck up your words and apologise...

Its quite amazing actually when you think about it that politicians can get away with such bullshit. I can't think of anything the leave campaign has said that wasn't a gross , obvious lie, and yet, it works.

So here we have what could well be a gross and obvious lie - claiming a report by the CER is in fact the OBR when it is not. And also that there is a fall in growth, when what it is measuring is fall against an estimate of what growth might have been. You might call the Rom George approach the spreading of bullshit.

 I know you guys struggle with anything more than binary thinking (all leavers are liars, thick as pig shit, or gullible dupes of the daily mail -- now edited by an ardent remainer) but my point all along is that you are equally economical with the actualite.

Growth rate? Well there's a political football. Be advised that the UK growth numbers that appear in treasury statements, think tank research and newspaper articles never seem to turn up in the numbers that the World Bank publish. In relation to comparable neighbouring countries, the UK has a low GDP per capita and it has been that way since our position started slipping in the early 1960s. Out of 11 neighbour and near-neighbour NW European countries, the UK has been 10th or 11th across most of that time. Yet of those 11 countries, we have the most natural resources and other factors that should boost our economic performance. Our dreadful tribal politics and inept constitutional arrangements continue to drag down our political and economic development.

Baffled. Not only has this nothing to do with post, but World Bank figures show GDP per capita growth at 0.472 in 1962 and the latest figure 1.129 in 2017. The picture is not one of steady decline but peaks and troughs. Even if you take slightly earlier data there is little difference between numbers at start and end dates. These figures, of course, are not really relevant to the earlier post. 

This for reference

https://bit.ly/2EmUZz8

I think Niall Ferguson has some good stuff to say on the degraded institutions that you seem to be alluding to. What is clear from the stats is that productivity has flat lined since the crash in 2008 but this might, in some large part, be explained by the very high levels of employment -- astonishing even given what is happening elsewhere in the EU. 

Yes, these things rise and fall. The point is that in the context of NW Europe, as other comparable nations recovered their economic strength after WW2, our per capita GDP did not grow at the same rate and we were overtaken, remaining at or near the bottom of that league during all of the last 50+ years. The UK is not a successful nation state. 

Meanwhile, other NW European nations, many of them very similar to Scotland, are consistently the richest substantial mixed economies in the world. Other small nations in central and eastern Europe who have participated fully in the European project have seen amazing growth across the last 20 years and are likely to overtake the UK on per capita GDP in the foreseeable future.  Watch out. The Czechs will soon be coming here for a cheap stag do. 

It's easier to see the trend when you look at the cumulative data and normalise it to US $.   It doesn't mean much if GDP in pounds increases if the pound is falling and % growth year to year isn't as helpful as cumulative growth.  2% increase on a small number could be less in absolute terms than 1% on a large one.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?end=2017&locations=...

UK vs Germany vs Ireland.   Germany consistently ahead on GDP per capita except at the peak of the debt fuelled craziness in the run up to the 2008 crash.  Shows pretty clearly how the UK economy depends on finance.

Also just look at wee Ireland.  That's what Scotland could be doing if we went for Independence and the Euro instead of letting London ruin our economy.

Have you worked in Czech?Have you travelled around there?

You're going to tell me that it's not all like the cities? Certainly that's how it pans out in Slovakia and Carpathian Poland. Kent coast's not like Knightsbridge either.

Well everyone tends to say that but in a recent radio programme that was examined and it sounded more like finance was a significant but small slice. Small slice of loud w4nkers telling us they are important.

Yes, the Tiger is off and running again. Much talk about the massive growth being eaten by growing inequality but based on OECD numbers it will be a long long time before Irish inequality reaches British levels. Surprise!!

UK and Ireland have practically the same income inequality level

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172r...

That GDP growth in Ireland really is spectacular  - the UK and Germany basically have maintained the same growth pattern since the 1970's - when German GDP was 1.09 time the UK compared to 1.1 now.

whats been driving it for the last few years? seems out of step with other small northern EU countries

edit to add

https://www.ft.com/content/6c7a0c9a-1913-30a2-a317-24d2623e1865

interesting - Tom is low corporation tax your model for Scotland?

All the above comments interesting but not one addresses the charge that the Gordon and Rom distorted, or lied about the stats in the OBR report. As for comparing England economy and Ireland utterly risible. It’s for these reasons I wish the Scots had the balls to vote for independence. My hunch is they would continue to whinge, as the tiresome jocks on this site do, about their economic woes being the fault of London. Painful to the ears. 

Look at Ireland. Growth like that is not sustainable and based on the mismatch between an economy booming on low tax IT and fin tech global companies distorting the economy. Read this Tom before you get too intoxicated. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/is-irela...

the  last boom turned  to a spectacular bust, and remember what happened when the Nats cheered Fred the Shred to the rafters. Be careful what you wish for Tom.

Czechs come here to work not for a stag party so I am not sure your attempt at an  analogy stacks up.So do Poles and Slovaks.Just reminds me why alot of Scots move south.All 4 great places.All 4 are reminders as to why the UK is a great and successful place in the round, otherwise Scots, Poles, Czech and Slovakians would not have come here/moved south..

They may do now. If growth levels stay as they are now, things will turn around.

It wasn’t so long ago that the stereotypical migrant tradesman was from the UK and working in West Germany. Anyone remember Auf Wiedersehen Pet? 

First series was ok, then it lost it way - and it led to Crocodile Shoes, best forgotten.

But then again, not as bad as Soldier Soldier and Robson & Jerome.