Cat Among the Pigeons

Written By: - Date published: 9:56 am, March 14th, 2017 - 94 comments
Categories: International, Nicola Sturgeon, Politics, referendum, uk politics - Tags: , ,

Full length video of announcement.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYB_ysgN_Y

94 comments on “Cat Among the Pigeons ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sabine 1
    14 March 2017 at 10:15 am

    Go Scotland.

    🙂

  2. WILD KATIPO 2
    14 March 2017 at 10:23 am

    Wow… she’s a gutsy , to the point speaker on the issue, … seems like it divides into two basic issues, one being that there’s no way one country can determine the political and economic outcome by association / implication for another… that just wouldn’t be right , fair or democratic. And that’s going to force the next issue , which logically is one of independence. Very turbulent times for Scotland ahead.

  3. Ad 3
    14 March 2017 at 10:59 am

    Westeros lives!

  4. tc 4
    14 March 2017 at 11:23 am

    England were on the verge of scottish financial independance when the GFC came along and they had to bail out RBS.

    Scotland benefits from westminster derived education, welfare the NHS etc and england were on the positive side had scotland gone its own way at that point.

    A complex and emotive issue in the hands of tories and the mess cameron/johnsons arrogance caused …..interesting times folks.

  5. McFlock 5
    14 March 2017 at 11:53 am

    heh. Nice.

  6. Liminal 6
    14 March 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Not sure that the person responsible for the image of the UK countries and the flag has quite got it. If Scotland and Wales have their own flags shown (by the way, Wales voted, overall, for ‘leave’ in the Brexit vote along with England) why has England been represented by the Union Flag, not the St George’s Cross.

    I await the torrent of Anglophobia that will probably be a response to this article on Scotland’s potential 2nd Independence referendum.

    • dukeofurl 6.1
      14 March 2017 at 1:01 pm

      Wont be a second independence referendum – not without Westminister approval

      This came up for the first referendum, the Scottish law lords, all said it would illegal with out House of Commons approval as it wasnt covered by devolution.

      Every strategy she proposes , she loses and yet a referendum is another losing one. It wasnt even close last time like the Brexit vote was.

      No way will Scotland vote for the euro, the limit on budget deficits etc that the EU demands.

      • Bill 6.1.1
        14 March 2017 at 2:56 pm

        Hello there DoF. Fancy seeing you pop up on this thread!

        Did you watch the link or even read the text from the front page? You’re first two points are covered and are in no way controversial. It’s kind of why authority is being sought to enter into dialogue with Westminster.

        Sturgeons strategy in the last UK General Election panned out really quite well, don’t you think?

        The Euro. No decision has been made on currency options. That’ll be a fraught set of discussions, but yes, if the only option is to adopt the Euro upon independence then…Schauble or Hammond? Not a decision I’d like to be making.

        • dukeofurl 6.1.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 6:38 pm

          She says ” Seek an outcome where Scotland remains within the single market”

          She wants everything but what is possible. The EU has ruled out that out and only a clown could even think it would ever be on the table.
          In the single market, but out of the Euro zone, and so it goes one.

          As well one thing that I think could be a good idea , independent Scotland out of nato ( as Ireland is ), she wants to remain there as well. keep the monarchy when the SNP was founded as a republican group.
          SNP is very cunning in appearing as limited change with independence, but of course they want more. Their model is the Irish Republic.

          The Tories have got over their fascination with referendums, so they wont get another one.
          of course the timing and details of the vote would be for Scotland, as it was last time.
          Without Westminister action the SNP can kiss a binding referendum goodbye.

          A Scottish Parliament bill to organise an independence referendum without the approval of Westminster would not be legal, the advocate general has warned.
          Lord Wallace of Tankerness, a former deputy first minister, said such a vote could be challenged successfully in the courts.
          He told BBC Scotland Holyrood does not have the power to create legislation which relates to the constitution.
          http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-1663874

          I get it, that She and SNP want another referendum. They have wanted that since they lost the last one. That was even before Brexit.
          Scotland is not going to vote for the Euro, a hard border with England, and restrictions on movement to the UK.

          To me an re-united Ireland will happen, and should happen, long before Scotland gets independence.

          • Bill 6.1.1.1.1
            14 March 2017 at 6:51 pm

            So I’m going to by-pass a lot of your unlinked smash and just point out this one thing.

            The referendum isn’t about the SNP or Nicola Sturgeon and what they may want won’t necessarily be adopted by the campaign they will be but a part of. Just saying.

          • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.1.1.2
            14 March 2017 at 7:56 pm

            You’re an idiot.

            So, as an English citizen of the UK, who arguably benefits if Scotland stays in the union, I support them becoming independent if that’s genuinely what the Scottish people want.

            The First Minister wants to go through the correct channels for a second referendum, (ie. she is asking for a vote in Holyrood to negotiate with Westminster for another referendum, so your objection that Holyrood can’t do this unilaterally is irrelevant, because that’s not what she’s trying to do) and Westminster will find it very hard to fight the argument that she has attempted to engage them constructively and that a second referendum is warranted due to the change in circumstances and bevy of broken promises that have happened since the first one. Scots were promised a system that was essentially federalist in nature, and got slightly less confiscation of their taxes instead, along with the UK government literally going to court to ensure they didn’t need Scotland’s (or Northern Ireland’s, nor even Wales’, which actually supported Brexit) agreement on their Brexit deal, despite the law saying they did need to do that, and the EU membership being integral to the No campaign’s successful argument in the first referendum. In short, the UK’s promises to Scotland have shown to not be worth the paper they were written on, they’ve had no regard to the principles on which the pro-union campaign won the first referendum, and Scotland has a highly persuasive argument to the public in favour of another referendum, which will hurt the UK government if they ignore it.

            Scotland saying they wanted to remain in the single market would have been feasible with a “soft Brexit” strategy. That is, Nicola isn’t actually insisting on staying in the EU, but she is insisting on staying in the single market, which the UK government has now ruled out. She is saying there were acceptable methods to Brexit that Scotland would have not required a referendum, but that English politicians have ridden roughshod over that discussion and necessitated that Holyrood now needs to ask permission to get a referendum to leave, again. Good luck to Theresa May if she tries to Thatcher up and deny it, I look forward to the SNP basically owning every single Scottish constituency after that, which will make it increasingly hard for Westminster governments to succeed without making concessions to Scotland. (Besides, while a loss of face, Scottish independence basically guarantees Tory government forever in the remaining UK countries, given that Scots are the bulk of progressive constituencies in the UK)

            • weka 6.1.1.1.2.1
              14 March 2017 at 8:03 pm

              Thanks for that.

              What’s the difference between the EU and the single market?

              Do you think that following Scottish independence, that NI and/or Wales would try and follow suit esp given the Tory nature of England? Or is that Tory nature spread across all the other countries evenly?

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                14 March 2017 at 9:03 pm

                Essentially, it’s down to the obligation to follow EU mandates on issues other than free trade and immigration. The Single Market is the part of the EU that relates specifically to free trade. What people need to understand about the EU is that it’s not actually one thing with clear in-out boundaries, rather it’s a collection of treaties of which the UK is part of some and not others, and it can leave some of them without leaving all of them, so long as the other EU nations agree. (which is going to be tough, there is a very real mood among the EU to punish the UK for its Brexit vote to set an example to other countries considering following its example, such as France) New nations entering (which presumably includes Scotland) will need to agree to many MORE of the treaties than the UK had.

                The United Kingdom could “soft Brexit” by remaining in the EU treaties relating to immigration (except Schengen, which the UK is already exempted from) and free trade, but exiting the EU proper and thus not having to follow most EU law, (they would presumably still be obliged to follow some parts of it to guarantee free trade, but nowhere near as much) and no longer being subject to decisions from EU courts. (which is actually rather horrifying, as they’ve been a critical stopgap in the UK acting like an authoritarian state in a number of different arenas, such as spying on their citizens)

                That’s what Scotland wants to make Brexit work, and it’s what most experts were assuming Brexit would mean before the vote actually happened and before May became Prime Minister, because there was no real precedent for leaving a free trade deal once one was passed. Opting for “hard Brexit,” where the anti-immigration rhetoric of Leave campaigners is taken as the primary reason for the Brexit vote and thus leaving the EU treaties around freedom of movement is necessary, has been very controversial, especially given that it’s rather disputed that the anti-immigration rhetoric was why the Brexit vote succeeded. A lot of the remain criticism of the very idea of Brexit was that it was a choice between backing down on controlling immigration and acknowledging the reality that the only sensible Brexit was a soft Brexit, or plunging Britain into a recession as financial services leave for the EU proper as Britain loses the advantage of being a pro-corporate pro-America English-speaking gateway into the EU.

                Wales is unlikely to split over Brexit itself, given that Wales actually voted Leave. It arguably might split if Irish re-unification and Scottish independence both succeed simply due to the perception that the Union is no longer viable and the age-old tension between Wales and England, (seriously, go there, and wait to tell them you’re a kiwi. Your reception will be significantly warmer once it’s revealed you’re not English, lol) but despite being very clear about Not Liking England, Wales actually does agree with England a lot more than Northern Ireland and Scotland do, and of the three, it has arguably benefitted the most from Union, and been bullied the least. I think it’s far more likely that May has set the UK down a path where it may end up the United Kingdom of England and Wales than that a Welsh split would succeed, but we should wait and see whether Indyref2 actually eventuates, and if it does whether it succeeds, (although odds look more likely now, it’s still not consistently polling as a winner yet, despite how badly the UK government has treated the Scottish one after Indyref1) and whether the Irish Republic calls for a border poll if it does. (the Irish Republic’s government has said Sinn Fein’s calls for one are premature, but that’s par for the course as basically whenever someone sneezes at Sinn Fein, they call for a border poll. A Republican call for a referendum is far more likely than a Northern Irish one- if there’s a Northern Irish referendum campaign that actually bumps the odds of success up a lot closer to Scottish independence) I don’t rate the possibility of Wales leaving as siginificant unless both Scotland and NI leave in a highly successful fashion, and even then I don’t know if it’s still a likelihood.

                While Scottish independence is still no guarantee despite the UK immediately going back to ignoring its promises to Scotland in the wake of the first Indyref, it’s actually still more of a sure bet than Irish re-unification. There’s huge barriers to be crossed in terms of that happening, even though the UK’s mishandling of the EU situation has arguably opened the doors. Were I asked to bet at this point, I’d bet on independent Scotland post-brexit, but that Irish re-unification would fail at some point. Unlike Scottish independence, there is a legitimate risk of violence from either camp, too, as there are incredibly high feelings on both sides of the issue of Ireland’s relationship to the UK, and peace is still a relatively new phenomenon that could be disturbed by the prospect of re-unification on the unionist (pro-UK) side, or even be broken by hard feelings if moves toward re-unification fall through from catholic minorities in Northern Ireland, or United Irish nationalists.

                I think Irish re-unification is only really on the menu if Scotland succeeds in independence, but I could be being a bit conservative there. I would bet on it failing even if IndyRef2 is pulled off without a hitch and Scotland is fast-tracked into the EU just because it’s not as straightforward a process, but the fact that people are seriously considering it should seriously worry politicians in England. If they were smart, they would be giving real concessions to both Scotland and Northern Ireland to preserve the union, perhaps even debating real federalisation of the UK government, (right now it acts like a country of countries that can tell its vassals what to do, instead of a country of states where there are clearly delineated local and federal authorities) and establishing a seperate English parliament to match the devolved administrations.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  14 March 2017 at 11:39 pm

                  Well, technically it’s one treaty now, but for anyone who joined prior to it being one treaty, it functions like it’s several. 😉

                • SpaceMonkey …
                  15 March 2017 at 1:01 pm

                  Interesting. FWIW… I was over in Ireland and England just after the Brexit vote and I met and had a very good conversation on Irish reunification with a member of the Fianna Fail party. It was his view that the possibility of Irish reunification is very real now that the subsidies that Westminster used to provide Northern Ireland have reduced significantly enough that Ireland can now afford to bring in the Northern Irish counties. Obviously there’s a great deal of “it depends” but it would’ve been unthinkable 20-30 years ago… amonng other things, Ireland literally couldn’t afford it.

                  An example he used of how Ireland and Northern Ireland are slowly aligning was the fact that anyone born in Northern Ireland (I believe since 2005) is now entitled to an Irish passport as a birthright.

                  That said, there are a still a significant number of people in Northern Ireland who are quite happy to remain part of the United Kingdom.

                  Similarly, many of the English people I spoke with while over there were more than comfortable with the prospect of Scottish independence and Northern Irish independence/reunification with Ireland. The overwhelming attitude was “if that’s what they want… then they should go for it”.

                  I realise my sample size was small… 🙂 …but I know that the people I spoke with were both Conservative and Labour supporters… not one (in England) had been in favour of staying in the EU – all voted for Brexit. Primarily it was about self-determination and border control, the currency was a non-issue (of course) as the UK never joined the Euro.

  7. Enough is Enough 7
    14 March 2017 at 12:45 pm

    Northern Ireland is going to be very interesting as well.

    One of the fundamental parts of the Good Friday Peace Agreement is the right of “the people of Northern Ireland” to “identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both” (as well as their right to hold either or both British and/or Irish citizenship) was recognised.

    How that will play out with the need for a hard border between the UK and the EU is a concern considering the very fragile peace that exists in Northern Ireland.

    Any restriction placed on Republicans will in my view facture the peace.

    • WILD KATIPO 7.1
      14 March 2017 at 1:03 pm

      Can of worms opening indeed!

    • Phil 7.2
      14 March 2017 at 1:04 pm

      There appears to be a narrow majority in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Island in favour of reunification. If Scotland successfully leaves the UK, i’d say it’s certain that within a decade the work required to undertake Irish unity will be in progress.

      • Enough is Enough 7.2.1
        14 March 2017 at 3:11 pm

        And given the terms of the Good Friday Peace Agreement how do you think Unionists would react to Northern Ireland becoming part of the Republic?

        The majority of the past 50 years they have fought a civil war to ensure they stay part of the UK. Don’t you think they would resort to armed resistance rather than be subjected to Dublin rule?

        • Matthew Whitehead 7.2.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 8:00 pm

          Nobody knows, which is why it’s incredibly stupid that Theresa May is pushing ahead with a hard Brexit when there’s no indication that that’s even what the public wanted. There are ways to handle the negotiations with the EU that wouldn’t have resulted in fueling the northern independence movements within the UK, but May hasn’t chosen any of them.

          It’s possible that Irish reunification could result. It’s likely that talks to do so would fail, but not impossible for them to succeed. And yes, it would violate the terms of the good friday agreement, and unionists who are newly in the minority right now would be upset. That’s degenerated to violence before, but we honestly don’t know if it would again. I hope someone’s doing some good reporting to look into that possibility.

    • Peroxide Blonde 7.3
      14 March 2017 at 4:04 pm

      Game on.

      There will probably be a General Election the Republic of Ireland soon that will bring Sinn Fein into government with Fianna Fail, both committed to an early Plebiscite.
      A Border Plebiscite would require the consent of the Dublin and London governments.

      http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/sinn-fein-demands-border-poll-in-wake-of-sturgeons-call-for-second-scottish-independence-referendum-35526368.html

      • dukeofurl 7.3.1
        14 March 2017 at 6:52 pm

        Please, thats complete nonsense. A Sinn Fein – Fianna Fail government?

        Currently they have a Fine Gail Coalition with ‘reverse’ support from Fianna Fail- – total enemies for the last 80 years, to keep Sinn Fein out of government. ( 3rd largest party)

        Fianna Fail has committed to abstain on confidence and supply- a very Irish solution.

        The politics dont work. Fianna fail and Fine Gail are broadly centre Right parties, Sinn Fein is definitely left wing
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Irish_government_formation

        • Peroxide Blonde 7.3.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 8:06 pm

          Dearest Duke of Url
          Enda Kenny is going to retire next week after he comes back from St Patrick’s day in The White House etc. There will be a party vote for a new Fine Gael leader.

          Fianna Fail are doing very well in opinion polls. Sinn Fein are almost non-toxic after their success in Stormont last week.

          It is highly likely Fianna Fail will not support the new Fine Gael leader for Taoiseach. That will lead to an election.
          Fianna Fail will won’t be able to form a govt with Fine Gael as the election campaign will be about the failure of their “reverse” support for Fine Gael.
          Labour are @#$%ed.

          Hence: Fianna Fail will form a Govt with Sinn Fein. (there is a chance that Sinn Fein will be bigger than Fine Gael!)

          QED.

          • Matthew Whitehead 7.3.1.1.1
            14 March 2017 at 9:20 pm

            Not supporting Fine Gael is insufficient. They also need to not abstain. Is there any positive indication that they have changed their position on abstaining to negate the influence of Sinn Fein?

            • Bill Drees 7.3.1.1.1.1
              14 March 2017 at 11:56 pm

              Fianna FĂĄil the Republican Party. That is their name and core identity.
              The polls have
              Fianna FĂĄil on 29%, Micheal Martin on 37%
              Fine Gael on 28%, Enda Kenny on 31%
              Sinn Fein on 21% , Gerry Adams on 29%
              Labour on 4%,
              Good stuff here.
              http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

              Irish politics are based on the division of the 1922/23 Civil War. The difference between Fianna FĂĄil and Fine Gael is based on approaches to the existance of Norther Ireland. Left v right doesn’t come into it. Duke of URL knows nothing.
              Fianna FĂĄil are the Natural Party of Power in Ireland. They will sell their mother to regain power. They had a very very painful loss of power after the GFC. The voters, correctly, blamed them for overspending and poor regulation prior to the GFC and for miss handling the banking collapse. They lost every seat in Dublin, bar one held by a guy dying of cancer!

              Sinn Fein are now close to both of these Civil War parties in voter support and could easily overtake them. The success of Sinn Fein in the Stormont elections last week will give the a huge boost in the polls in the Republic. Arlene Foster, the arrogant DUP First Minister, not only made Sinn Fein voters come out in Northern Ireland. She would have reminded voters in the south why a Sinn Fein was needed.

              Sinn Feins public faces in Dublin, Mart Lou McDonald and in Belfast, Michelle O’Neill, are not directly associated with the “Troubles” and don’t have the whiff of Semtex or gunpowder about them. They are pulling middle class vote. However their main strength are among the youth where they out-poll the other parties. The IRA cease fire is now 20 years old: that is ancient history to anyone under 35.

              Back to your question.

              Fianna FĂĄil would do a pact with the devil to get power without having to share with the sanctimonious Fine Gael. While they would prefer to be on their own they will have no problem with Sinn Fein. Neither would non-Fine Gael voters.
              Sinn Fein Government ministers will be negotiating Brexit with Tory ministers very soon. Love it!!!!

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                15 March 2017 at 1:23 am

                I agree with the background you’ve provided, not that I closely follow Irish politics.

                While I’d be very interested to see what a Sinn Fein coalition government would be like, I’m not sure I agree with your analysis that Fianna Fail is ready to share power with them. If they are, it could be a very interesting development and would make the case for Irish re-unification a lot stronger with a strong (but not outright majority) pro-reunification bloc in both Irelands.

        • SpaceMonkey 7.3.1.2
          15 March 2017 at 1:08 pm

          Fianna Fail see themselves more as centre-left, to Fine Gael’s centre-right.

  8. Wayne 8
    14 March 2017 at 1:17 pm

    Phil,

    From what I have read there is still a strong majority in Northern Ireland for staying in the UK. On this issue only the people of Northern Ireland get a say. What the citizens of the Republic think does not matter, and never has.

  9. james 9
    14 March 2017 at 2:03 pm

    So a “Once in a generation referendum” is held.

    They knew there was a brexit vote coming, and that leaving was a possibility.

    Yet they still voted to remain part of the UK.

    Then Brexit vote happened and they dont like the result.

    Rerun the “Once in a generation referendum” again looking for a different result.

    Yet in polling since the brexit vote – the majority of scots still vote that they should not be a seperate country. (http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-held-tomorrow-how-would-you-vote-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum#line)

    I doubt she will get an opportunity – and shes just another pain in the &&& trying to stop brexit against the will of the people.

    Even if she does get it – data points to it providing the same answer.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      14 March 2017 at 2:14 pm

      I doubt she will get an opportunity – and shes just another pain in the &&& trying to stop brexit against the will of the people.

      Scotland voted to stay in the Euro. Leaving is against their will.

      • james 9.1.1
        14 March 2017 at 2:25 pm

        Sorry Draco – did they not vote in the same referendum as everybody else?

        The winner was leave. And that was the will of the people.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 2:32 pm

          But if Scotland leaves the UK then are they not allowed to then make their own decisions on being in the EU?

          • dukeofurl 9.1.1.1.1
            14 March 2017 at 6:55 pm

            London voted to remain too . Should they break away to stay within EU ?

            After all they have the region wide Mayor of London and London Assembly.

            • weka 9.1.1.1.1.1
              14 March 2017 at 7:04 pm

              Would be kind of hard, given they’re not an actual country. But not impossible. But London didn’t vote to Remain, 60% London did, so that would be tricky.

              Cut the cable I say! There are advantages to decentralising.

              • SpaceMonkey …
                15 March 2017 at 1:12 pm

                I don’t know… City of London seems to act as though they’re a law unto themselves…

          • James 9.1.1.1.2
            14 March 2017 at 6:59 pm

            In that case they should have voted for that before the brexit vote. As it is the majority want to stay one country.

            Usual thing a group of sore losers.

        • weka 9.1.1.2
          14 March 2017 at 3:14 pm

          “Sorry Draco – did they not vote in the same referendum as everybody else?”

          yeah they did but they’re actually another country and a minority vote. Imagine if Māori were allowed their own vote for the things that matter to them. I’m sure you would be against that too, but it’s not hard to see why it’s attractive to the people that it affects.

    • Bill 9.2
      14 March 2017 at 3:03 pm

      Who said it was “a once in a generation” referendum?

      Who knew BREXIT was coming?

      And does the will of the Scottish electorate (68% – 32% in favour of ‘Remain’) not count when judging ‘the will of the people’ that Sturgeon is apparently ignoring?

      Data – before any campaigning the split is about 50/50. That means the previous levels of support for independence are solid and have grown. (Remember how so many supposedly knowledgeable commentators opined that peeps would just go home after the referendum and forget all about independence?) I do. 😉

      • dukeofurl 9.2.1
        14 March 2017 at 7:03 pm

        Please 50:50 isnt what it says. Thats just a losing number.

        “There was an expectation that the polls would begin to show a shift towards independence after Brexit, but data from the polling website What Scotland Thinks shows that this hasn’t taken place.
        The latest polling on Scottish independence suggests that the country would still vote in favour of remaining in the UK, with 52 per cent of Scots backing the union.
        It implies that, if a referendum were today, the result wouldn’t be very different from the last vote in 2014, when 55.3 per cent voted against independence. Polling has consistently reflected this outcome across the last year.”

        Polling before the vote underestimated the independence vote. but 10% difference in reality,

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/scottish-independence-polls-say-nicola-sturgeons-bid-second/

        • Matthew Whitehead 9.2.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 8:09 pm

          Actually it was 51/49 after a 55/45 split.

          That may suggest a trend towards a more positive view for Scottish independence, and like last time, actual political debate did move the vote closer together, it was only saved by a bunch of now-broken promises. I wouldn’t discount the possibility of Indyref2 succeeding.

        • Bill 9.2.1.2
          14 March 2017 at 8:22 pm

          Polling data link from “What Scotland Thinks”at 10.1.2 below. 50/50 split.

    • Peroxide Blonde 9.3
      14 March 2017 at 4:16 pm

      “They knew there was a brexit vote coming, and that leaving was a possibility.”
      nonsense James.
      ALL parties thought that Remain would win.
      A major plank of “Better Together” campaign was that too leave the UK meant leaving the EU. That was repeated ad-nauseum by Labour and by the Tories.

      Me thinks you are being a bit disingenuous.

      • James 9.3.1
        14 March 2017 at 7:01 pm

        Are you seriously saying that they had no idea that remain was not a possibility?

        I call bullshit on your nonsense claim.

        • Matthew Whitehead 9.3.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 8:12 pm

          You mean leave, presumably, not remain.

          And no, nobody seriously thought at the time of the independence referendum that Leave was a likelihood. Even the Leave campaigns were surprised that they won, hence Boris’ disastrous bid to be PM.

  10. Draco T Bastard 10
    14 March 2017 at 2:13 pm

    It would be good if Scotland did leave the UK.

    • james 10.1
      14 March 2017 at 2:25 pm

      well – the majority of Scottish do not seem to think so – but I guess you know better.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1
        14 March 2017 at 2:36 pm

        It wasn’t that much of a majority and many may have changed their minds since the Brexit vote.

        Surely their will should be taken into account now?

        That’s the thing about laws and democracy – they’re not static the way you RWNJs think they should be which really is the most basic reason as to why you RWNJs are always the worst in government. You always try to put things back the way they were despite the failure that lead to the change in the first place.

        • weka 10.1.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 2:41 pm

          A national referendum was held in Scotland on 18 September 2014. Voters were asked to answer either “Yes” or “No” to the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”55.3% of voters answered “No” and 44.7% answered “Yes”, with a voter turnout of 84.5%.

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

          A second referendum seems appropriate given Brexit.

          One of the things I liked about Sturgeon’s stance (have only seen the Q and A afterwards) is that she’s placing a lot of emphasis on it being an informed debate, so people need to be given all the information about the issues.

          • Wayne 10.1.1.1.1
            14 March 2017 at 3:43 pm

            I reckon Sturgeon would lose a second referendum. It won’t be held at the time she wants it, which is next year. It will be held after Brexit is complete, or at least when it is fully negotiated. That way people will know the implications of their vote.

            So why will she lose?

            1. Most of Scotland’s trade is with England, as are the easy employment opportunities.
            2. The oil has almost run out.
            3. Joining the EU will take time.
            4. It means having the Euro.
            5. An independent Scotland without oil means big tax increases (or fewer govt services).
            6. Several thousand naval ship building jobs go (the UK is about to start a 20 frigate build programme in Glasgow, but they will go south if there is an independent Scotland).

            So all in all independence will come with a high cost. The Scots might go for it, but I reckon they won’t. It actually looks economically a lot riskier than in the last referendum.

            • Ovid 10.1.1.1.1.1
              14 March 2017 at 3:51 pm

              Scotland’s GDP is US$233 billion, compared to New Zealand’s US$173 billion and their population is only about half a million more than us. They’ll be fine.

            • Bill 10.1.1.1.1.2
              14 March 2017 at 4:14 pm

              Well, trade with England would continue and there’s the possibility that companies would re-locate north of the border to get market access.

              Oil is not a part of the equation.

              Scotland is already a part of the EU and may not need to leave and re-join.

              It may or may not mean adopting the Euro.

              Oil was only ever something like 15% of GDP or whatever. A ‘nice to have’ but not crucial.

              English government pulling contracts is purely speculative (as is a joint defence force)

              But sure. I expect Project Fear to rise up and stumble forth…it’s worked so well on its previous outings afterall 😉

            • weka 10.1.1.1.1.3
              14 March 2017 at 7:06 pm

              “1. Most of Scotland’s trade is with England, as are the easy employment opportunities.”

              Why do you think an independent Scotland wouldn’t be able to trade with the UK or England?

            • Matthew Whitehead 10.1.1.1.1.4
              14 March 2017 at 8:27 pm

              1) England would still trade with Scotland if they leave the Union and re-enter the EU.

              2) And they’ll be dealing with that problem either way. At least if they exit, they’ll get the remainder of the oil revenue.

              3) Yes, although there is definite EU support not only for Scottish re-entry, but also for fast-tracking the process given Scotland was previously a member. I’m surprised you didn’t also mention that Scotland would likely need to adopt the Schengen treaty to re-enter as well, which in my mind may be the bigger obstacle to an Independent Scotland in the EU.

              4) Yes, it likely will, although compared to a Scottish pound that might actually be a better option. There are advantages and disadvantages to being part of the Euro, most of which are that it implies guaranteeing the debt of other EU countries, or suffering EU-wide recessions.

              5) Scotland currently is likely a net recipient of funds from the overall UK, (nobody actually knows for sure) but it’s also subject to the fiscal decisions of far more conservative UK governments, ie. they’re likely to have a more sound economic policy if they leave. Most of the arguments that Scotland would be badly off rely on the assumptions that UK subsidy of Scottish spending would put them in an untenable position, but nobody even knows if such subsidy would continue post-Brexit, which is looking increasingly likely to crash the UK economy.

              6) Sure, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be new opportunities. It’s a matter of whether Scotland feel they want to back themselves or continue on in the Union. There are fiscal challenges to leaving, but they may be offset by the ability to actually control Scotland’s own policy a lot more than before.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1.1.5
              14 March 2017 at 8:32 pm

              I reckon the last time you confidently predicted the outcome of a poll you reckoned Hillary Clinton would win the US election. No, wait, I don’t reckon that: it’s a fact.

              And then there’s the fact that just the other day you had no clue how Kiwisaver savings can be accessed.

              I reckon you swallowed too many lies.

        • greywarshark 10.1.2.1
          14 March 2017 at 4:21 pm

          It’s interesting to see how the whatscotlandthinks polls seem to reflect indecision before Christmas, going into January and then change again. And the movements will be as much as 5 per cent which when it is so close is important.

          And every quarter? they take 3 polls in the one month perhaps to test the strength of the results. Haven’t seen that before.

      • SpaceMonkey 10.1.3
        15 March 2017 at 1:17 pm

        If I recall correctly, there was a marked difference across generational lines with older Scots more in favour of staying in the UK as opposed to younger Scots more in favour of independence.

  11. weka 11
    14 March 2017 at 2:36 pm

    Never mind Sanders and Corbyn, where’s our Sturgeon?

    • Bill 11.1
      14 March 2017 at 3:16 pm

      Or Roza Salih

      Or Mhairi Black

      Or, I suspect, any number of others.

      • Peroxide Blonde 11.1.1
        14 March 2017 at 5:32 pm

        The SNP is blessed with a lot of excellent talent.
        Angus Robertson , their leader in the house of Commons, is the only effective Opposition Leader in the house of Commons.
        https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/841357081420664832

        Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband, is the CEO of the SNP, one of the most successful political parties around.

        John Swinney, the Education minister, and previously the Finance Minister has a brilliant Strategic mind and is part of the “Kitchen Cabinet”.

        Alex Salmond, former leader and the Foreign affairs spokesperson has been compared by Bill Cash MP, to Charles Stuart Parnell, the greatest ever orator in the House of Commons.

        Tommy Sheppard is also excellent Commons speaker and an interesting charachter. Heere is his maiden speech.

        Their line up in both Holyrood and in Westminster is deep. These above are older than the average. They have talent for generations to come.

      • dukeofurl 11.1.2
        14 March 2017 at 7:09 pm

        Mhairi Black ?

        Shes totally disillusioned with parliamentary politics and wants to leave ( I dont blame her)
        Are you sure she is your torch bearer ? being part of the SNP lobby fodder wouldnt be fun. As she seems to get along well with ‘old time labour Mps’

        • Peroxide Blonde 11.1.2.1
          14 March 2017 at 9:17 pm

          All, each and every SNP MP wants to leave Westminster.

          SNP stands for Scottish National Party: i.e they want to be a sovereign state that does not send MPs to Westminster.

          Mhairi Black said she was disillusioned with Westminster. She wants to be in Holyrood or Strasbourg parliaments.

    • Matthew Whitehead 11.2
      14 March 2017 at 8:31 pm

      In terms of nationalism, or republicanism?

      Because we have Winston in terms of successful nationalists, it’s simply that he’s a pro-Britain nationalist, rather than a pro-independence one.

      The republicans are spread out in the liberal wings of various political parties in New Zealand, and the only one that pays them any serious attention is the Greens. Labour and National both say it’s “not yet time to have that debate,” because they don’t want to split their own parties over it.

  12. Skeptic 12
    14 March 2017 at 3:54 pm

    As someone who did Hons papers in Pols specialising in EU politics, I can see there’s a lot of misinformation being peddled here. Scotland can, under its EU treaty obligations become fully independent of UK if, following a clear referendum and Scottish Parliamentary vote, there is mandate to do so. Similar provisions exist for Wales, Northern Ireland and England. As the Scottish vote on Brexit was unequivocally to stay in EU, Westminster cannot stop any independence vote. The 1701 Union was not a Parliamentary or Populous vote, but an imposed Union decided on under quite different circumstances, before the UN was conceived. Under Article 51 of UN any part of any country can, provided certain conditions are fulfilled, become independent and no-one can stop them. This time round I think an independent Scotland is a distinct probability. Also look for a re-union of Northern Ireland with Eire with that whole country staying in EU. That’ll leave just England and Wales exiting EU.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1
      14 March 2017 at 4:04 pm

      Under Article 51 of UN any part of any country can, provided certain conditions are fulfilled, become independent and no-one can stop them.

      I think you’ll find that the Kurds disagree with that statement and people have certainly been implying that the Crimea couldn’t become an independent nation from the Ukraine.

      • Skeptic 12.1.1
        14 March 2017 at 5:26 pm

        What part of “provided certain conditions are fulfilled” didn’t you understand?

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 5:58 pm

          Yes, it appears that a nation is only allowed to become ‘independent’ if the US allows it.

          So, Palestine isn’t allowed to be recognised as an independent nation. Neither are the Kurds.

          Crimea wasn’t allowed to because it was Russia rather than the US that accepted their independence.

          • dukeofurl 12.1.1.1.1
            15 March 2017 at 8:46 am

            Add to those South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. Trans Nistria from Moldova

    • Peroxide Blonde 12.2
      14 March 2017 at 4:49 pm

      Dear Skeptic
      Ask you for your degree money back: there are some basic error in your post.
      Dear o’dear!
      Much as I’m a very strong supporter of Scottish independence and Irish Unity I can’t let you away with such inaccuracies.

      I suggest you update yourself at these links.

      http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/
      http://www.newsletter.co.uk/
      http://www.irishtimes.com/
      http://sluggerotoole.com/
      http://www.heraldscotland.com/
      http://www.thenational.scot/

      • Skeptic 12.2.1
        14 March 2017 at 5:31 pm

        No errors. Facts are facts are facts!!!! History is history is history!!! Don’t put up silly innocuous newspaper opinions without facts. First rule of varsity research – go to prime sources and ignore the shit. All my statements are prime source facts – UN Charter Article 51 – EU conventions and law from Brussels – 1701 Act of Union. Disprove any of it and I might give your comment credence – no proof or evidence – you’re full of shit.

        • Phil 12.2.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 5:50 pm

          History is history is history!!!

          I totally agree with the overall thesis of your post, but the pedant in me can’t let this slide. Our interpretation of history is always evolving and changing. It is not ever truly fixed or certain.

        • Peroxide Blonde 12.2.1.2
          14 March 2017 at 5:58 pm

          oh don’t be like that. Be nice, you will live longer.

          “The Acts of Union were two Acts of Parliament: the Union with Scotland Act 1706 passed by the Parliament of England, and the Union with England Act passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland. They put into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union that had been agreed on 22 July 1706, following negotiation between commissioners representing the parliaments of the two countries. By the two Acts, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland—which at the time were separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch—were, in the words of the Treaty, “United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain”

          That is its legal status. In reality a useless and greedy Scottish ruling class,(a parcel of rogues as Robbie Burns called them) were cornered by the English and voted against the will of their people to get off the hook of a financial wreck called the Darien Scheme.
          read about it here.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

          • Peroxide Blonde 12.2.1.2.1
            14 March 2017 at 6:06 pm

            btw. The Irish Act of Unions in 1801 was a similarly corrupt affair. George Osborne’s ancestor, Lord somebodyorother, was one who was not corrupted and voted against the Union!

        • DS 12.2.1.3
          15 March 2017 at 2:48 pm

          Which 1701 Act of Union? Oh, you mean the 1707 Acts of Union.

    • Wayne 12.3
      14 March 2017 at 5:58 pm

      Article 51 is the self defence provision of the UN Charter. Perhaps you mean the de-colonisation provisions. These would not apply to Scotland (or Catalonia or Quebec for that matter).

      Basically there are no UN provisions for the breakup of countries as such.

      Of course it does happen. Sometimes by war (Bangla Desh, South Sudan and I guess Timor Leste, even if there is also a vote). Also by vote, (Czech Republic). Sometimes in a chaotic breakup (Yugoslavia).

      The obvious analogy is the Czech Republic or Quebec. These were the obvious models used by the UK, and I guess will continue to be used.

      So I imagine Nicola Sturgeon will get her second vote, agreed to by the UK Parliament, but only after Brexit. Sturgeon will reluctantly agree with that. So either late 2019 or early 2020.

      Who will win? Well Bill and may have our views, but so what. They are just our views

      I imagine it will be quite close, but I reckon it will be on less favourable grounds for the Scottish independents than last time. However, it is really difficult to assess how much emotion will rule the day .

      Obviously Scotland can be independent. After all Scotland should be able to do as well as we do, and I reckon we do pretty well.

      But apart from distance we probably have more going for us. Distance matters less than it used to. International shipping is now incredibly cheap, and will be so indefinitely. Airfares are low and are still going lower.

      • Draco T Bastard 12.3.1
        14 March 2017 at 6:58 pm

        Basically there are no UN provisions for the breakup of countries as such.

        Wrong – it’s guaranteed in the UN Charter Document that people have the right to self-determination and to choose their own government. So major a principle in fact that it’s the first one.

        Does seem to get forgotten all the time though.

        Of course it does happen. Sometimes by war (Bangla Desh, South Sudan and I guess Timor Leste, even if there is also a vote). Also by vote, (Czech Republic). Sometimes in a chaotic breakup (Yugoslavia).

        And sometimes, when the UN forgets its founding document, and goes round giving land that belongs to one people to another for the sake of a wrong committed by yet a third.

        • Matthew Whitehead 12.3.1.1
          14 March 2017 at 10:05 pm

          Right, but “self-determination” is a pretty broad term, especially given the UN doesn’t actually take issue with regimes like China. It’s very difficult to argue that “self-determination” guarantees a right to unilateral secession, in fact, New Zealand has taken the position that Independence movements should always try a multilateral approach to get their independence first in relation to situations like Kosovo.

          I’d actually be looking at 73b in Chapter XI rather than 51 for pro-democracy language, “to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.” But even that doesn’t really guarantee secession movements the right to unilateral independence.

          There’s also the fact that a lot of states believe in something called “territorial integrity,” which is an actual principle under international law, and basically means that you’re not allowed to leave an existing country without their permission. If you believe in unilateral secession, technically Western Australia is de jure already independent, because they passed a law saying so. Never mind that the UK denied it.

        • DS 12.3.1.2
          15 March 2017 at 2:43 pm

          We have case law that is quite explicit:

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

          International Law does not allow for unilateral secession. Self-determination must take place within the framework of existing states.

          Scotland is not a colony, which means it too does not have a right to secession, and must negotiate with Westminster,

          • Draco T Bastard 12.3.1.2.1
            15 March 2017 at 3:36 pm

            Scotland is not a colony

            Correct – it’s its own country and always has been which means that if it leaves the UK it won’t be seceding.

            International Law does not allow for unilateral secession. Self-determination must take place within the framework of existing states.

            Then international law is wrong and needs to be changed. You can’t force nations together who do not want to be together.

            • DS 12.3.1.2.1.1
              15 March 2017 at 5:01 pm

              Scotland united politically with England in 1707 (and with Ireland in 1801). Political power in Scotland remains vested in the Westminster Parliament, which has devolved powers to Holyrood – the Holyrood government gets its authority from London (Westminster could, legally, abolish the Scottish Parliament any time it likes). Which means Scotland leaving the UK is certainly secession.

              As for International Law, there’s such a thing as territorial integrity. Random provinces can’t just go splitting off at the drop of a hat because they dislike the central government. The Law isn’t forcing people to stay together, it just means that any secession has to be the result of bilateral negotiation, rather than one group of people declaring that they’re out.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 March 2017 at 6:28 pm

                Random provinces can’t just go splitting off at the drop of a hat because they dislike the central government.

                I don’t think that the Kurdish people would call themselves either random province or simply breaking off because they don’t like the central government. For them, the borders were enforced upon them by the European powers against their will.

                The Law isn’t forcing people to stay together

                Yes it is because it’s telling them that they have to either accept that which they don’t want to accept or to move from their homes of several centuries which they also don’t want to do.

                Which means that they are being forced against their will and against the UN Charter of Self-determination.

                As for International Law, there’s such a thing as territorial integrity.

                But that’s just it – it’s not a question of is there such a thing but should there be such a thing?

                And the answer to that latter question seems to me to be No there shouldn’t as it’s obviously not working.

                Why should the rest of the world force Tibet to stay in China? Same goes for Taiwan.
                Should Crimea be forced to stay as part of the Ukraine against their will especially considering that it was a political decision by the USSR BigWigs back in the 1950s and in which the Crimeans didn’t get a say?

                Territorial integrity is fine against an invader but even that gets overlooked in the case of Palestine their Jewish invaders. But, again, that was the European countries forcing a policy against the wishes of the Palestinians.

                Basically, we have all these injustices and we’re using the law that produced the injustices to defend those ongoing injustices.

                It’s the law that needs to change so that those injustices can be addressed.

                • DS …
                  16 March 2017 at 12:33 am

                  Not respecting territorial integrity is a recipe for anarchy. The Mongrel Mob could declare their HQ an independent republic.

                  You can have secession. That’s fine. The point is that it must be subject to *bilateral* agreement.

                  (Curiously, the biggest advocates of unilateral independence don’t tend to be Scottish, they tend to be American neo-Confederates out to demonise Lincoln).

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    16 March 2017 at 10:57 am

                    Not respecting territorial integrity is a recipe for anarchy. The Mongrel Mob could declare their HQ an independent republic.

                    They could and within hours they’d be surrendering due to lack of water, food, waste disposal etcetera.

                    The Kurds, on the other hand, have a viable amount of land to support themselves.

                    You can have secession. That’s fine. The point is that it must be subject to *bilateral* agreement.

                    It should be but it should also start with the realisation that that populace and that area of land are going to break away. It shouldn’t be a unilateral stop to people who wish to break away from the country that they are now a part of.

    • dukeofurl 12.4
      14 March 2017 at 7:15 pm

      Trouble is the Law Lords in Scotland dont agree. Perhaps you should ask for a remark of your Hons papers in european politics.
      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16638746

      A Scottish Parliament bill to organise an independence referendum without the approval of Westminster would not be legal, the advocate general has warned.
      Lord Wallace of Tankerness, a former deputy first minister, said such a vote could be challenged successfully in the courts.
      He told BBC Scotland Holyrood does not have the power to create legislation which relates to the constitution.

      Just so others can get an idea of your other claims
      This is Art 51 UN Charter

      ‘Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’

    • Matthew Whitehead 12.5
      14 March 2017 at 8:39 pm

      Article 51 (in chapter VII) of the UN charter relates to self-defense, not independence. Do you have the number wrong, or am I missing some detail in Arcticle 51 that relates to territorial integrity or something?

  13. mosa 13
    17 March 2017 at 12:53 am

    So Scotland wants independence because it does not agree with the BREXIT vote and cant see that the people who voted for BREXIT wanted the same independence from Europe.

    Its a paradox.