Cantalunya Independence Vote

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:09 pm

And to think that I sometimes get accuse of playing the man and not the ball

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:14 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And to think that I sometimes get accuse of playing the man and not the ball

What you get up to in your own time is none of our business.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:42 pm

King Felipe has (unsurprisingly since he can't do anything including making a speech without sign-off from the Madrid government) has given not the slightest crumb of compromise to the independence movement. He has, if I understand him correctly, pretty much laid the ground for Madrid to take Catalonia over in full by whatever means it sees fit.

gandhisflipflop · Post by **gandhisflipflop** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:00 pm

Not kept up with this thread but I've heard from friends that are Barca members that there are strong rumours that Catalonia will declare their independence on Friday. The 6th October is a historic date in Catalan history where they attempted to claim their independence which left 87 dead and the Catalan government detained. It doesn't sound good.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:21 pm

The turn-out for the vote was only 42%. Even with 90% in favour, it's not exactly a mandate for anything at all.

conyoviejo · Post by **conyoviejo** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:25 pm

Pstotto wrote:The turn-out for the vote was only 42%. Even with 90% in favour, it's not exactly a mandate for anything at all.

Of course it is.. The turn out was low because of the police brutality.. If they had all been allowed to vote would have been good enough for a mandate

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:43 pm

It's not a great mandate. What the Catalans need to do now is negotiate from their position of strength before agreeing another referendum which the police won't get involved with. If they try to press ahead with independence on a 42% turnout and Spain retaliates, they'll struggle to get international support, even though the low turnout was heavily 'influenced' by Spain. But Spain could validly argue that the pro-Spain voters didn't need to turn out because the vote was not approved. (Or illegal, if you like.)

If the Catalans can get a free vote, and a decent turnout, and still get a decent majority, they'll be in a much stronger position. And Spain's reaction to the last vote has certainly helped the pro-independence side to get their majority.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:48 pm

Chicken/egg, conjoviejo.

conyoviejo · Post by **conyoviejo** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:22 pm

Pstotto wrote:Chicken/egg, conjoviejo.

Jam/Marmalade..Ptotto

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:30 pm

Not much of an answer, that. The point I was making was which came first? If somebody is running at you, then you might have to thump them.

conyoviejo · Post by **conyoviejo** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:46 pm

Well,I didn' see anybody running at the Policia.I saw the Policia hitting old men and women and youngsters then turning on the bomberos who no doubt would return to work and save their lives if need be..

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:55 pm

That's a better answer.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:55 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Never mind all that.

How much will it cost for English people to have two weeks half board in Lloret de Mar?

That made me laugh out loud

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:09 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Well you've played that card early, although not unsurprising I suppose.

No point discussing it any further if you're going to resort to that one.

Hi Sid I can see why you thought the way you did, but I'm not sure it was how it was meant - If I want to call a meeting to vote for a statue of Sadam Hussain in Burnley town centre... I might get lynched but I'm still entitled to get feedback.... it doesn't mean I'm going to or be allowed to do whatever it is I'm voting about. They were seeing if there was any majority interested in looking into Independence NOT trying to declare it.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:17 pm

Out of interest did Scotland hold a pre- independence vote to see if there was enough support for a vote for independence?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:43 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Out of interest did Scotland hold a pre- independence vote to see if there was enough support for a vote for independence?

They voted overwhelmingly for the SNP in the Scottish parliamentary elections. I think that counts.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:44 pm

So no then, they didn't and the fact the actual independence result was to remain then that sort of blows that one out the water.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:03 am

Sidney1st wrote:So no then, they didn't and the fact the actual independence result was to remain then that sort of blows that one out the water.

I'm not sure what (if anything) your point is.

In 2011 the SNP manifesto pledged to hold a referendum if elected. They got an overall majority. Hence, their manifesto pledge became their commitment to seek the referendum. The UK government acceded to this.

Are you complaining that some process that no-one had imagined would apply to Scotland (except you three years after the fact) wasn't followed? If so, you have them bang to rights.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:10 am

Sidney1st wrote:So no then, they didn't and the fact the actual independence result was to remain then that sort of blows that one out the water.

Does it not bother you that the referendum result was influenced by promises which have been broken? Is it OK to break promises to get a referendum result you like?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:16 am

Pstotto wrote:The turn-out for the vote was only 42%. Even with 90% in favour, it's not exactly a mandate for anything at all.

Particularly given that it wasn't recognized officially.

But the way the Spanish authorities have handled has given the separatists a kind of legitimacy.

This has been brewing for a little while. It's being driven by the younger generation who have been raised on identity politics and EU-inspired mass unemployment for young Spanish people.

Independence won't help them much.

A lot is being made that Catalonia is the "richest" part of Spain and contributes more to the exchequer than other parts of the country. That's true but it's all relative. Catalonia would still be a poor European country.

From the outside it looks an almighty mess. No easy answers for a resolution here.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:18 am

Does this help? : https://youtu.be/6rV7K8hQPo4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rowls, sounds like the Northern Powerhouse you're describing...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:26 am

Rowls wrote:Particularly given that it wasn't recognized officially.

But the way the Spanish authorities have handled has given the separatists a kind of legitimacy.

This has been brewing for a little while. It's being driven by the younger generation who have been raised on identity politics and EU-inspired mass unemployment for young Spanish people.

Independence won't help them much.

A lot is being made that Catalonia is the "richest" part of Spain and contributes more to the exchequer than other parts of the country. That's true but it's all relative. Catalonia would still be a poor European country.

From the outside it looks an almighty mess. No easy answers for a resolution here.

By what measure would Catalonia be a poor European country?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:29 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:By what measure would Catalonia be a poor European country?

Lower GDP than rich ones.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:36 am

Rowls wrote:Lower GDP than rich ones.

I assume you mean GDP per capita.

Spain's GDP per capita is 26,608 USD. Catalonia's is 33,580 USD. So they'd be richer than the country they are seperating from.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:44 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I assume you mean GDP per capita.

Spain's GDP per capita is 26,608 USD. Catalonia's is 33,580 USD. So they'd be richer than the country they are seperating from.

Thank you for this marvellous insight and pedantry.

Yes, GDP per capita. I thought it all belonged to the King or something.

And thanks for pointing out that Catalonia is relatively richer than Spain. If only I'd not already said that (in the bit where I said that) then that would be yet another excellent point.

Well done and thank you.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:47 am

Rowls wrote:Thank you for this marvellous insight and pedantry.

Yes, GDP per capita. I thought it all belonged to the King or something.

And thanks for pointing out that Catalonia is relatively richer than Spain. If only I'd not already said that (in the bit where I said that) then that would be yet another excellent point.

Well done and thank you.

So you don't mean GDP per capita? Then you must mean raw GDP. Which means any group of people seeking "independence" from another group of people would inevitably become much poorer than they already are. Like, say, independence from the EU.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:55 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:So you don't mean GDP per capita? Then you must mean raw GDP. Which means any group of people seeking "independence" from another group of people would inevitably become much poorer than they already are. Like, say, independence from the EU.

Jeez. You're making less sense than you usually do.

A LOT less sense.

Which is saying something.

Sleep it off, perhaps?

Good night.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:01 am

Rowls wrote:Jeez. You're making less sense than you usually do.

A LOT less sense.

Which is saying something.

Sleep it off, perhaps?

Good night.

A lot less sense to you, maybe.

You said Catalonia would be just a poor european country despite them having a higher GDP per capita than at least one G8 country. You then seemingly rejected GDP per capita as a measure of wealth so taking your comment literally and assuming you mean raw GDP then you're saying that lower raw GDP = poorer. The UK las a lower raw GDP than the EU therefore using your logic the UK leaving the EU would mean we would be poorer than the EU.

Maybe you need to make up your mind about what measure you're using to call Catalonia justa poor European country if it seccedes. Or maybe you just have to be consistent and stop arguing against Catalonia independence on the grounds that it will make it poorer because their GDP will be lower than Spain's while claiming that the UK will be richer outside the EU despite the much lower GDP.

In short, make your ******* mind up.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:09 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Or maybe you just have to be consistent and stop arguing against Catalonia independence on the grounds that...

You're such a dufus aren't you.

What I'd really need to do in order to "stop arguing against Catalonia independence" would be to actually argue against it in the first place.

You really, really, really ought to stop basing your arguments on what you *think* I *might* believe.

Otherwise it might be like that "argument" we had about transgender people when you only thought to ask my opinions on something like page 3 or 4. And then when it turned out I had the "correct" opinion all you could do was say that I was "pretending" to have the correct opinion.

OK, so I admit I do often mock you for your lack of comprehension but let's nip it in the bud this time, eh?

Go back and read what I've said.

Go back and read it until you understand it.

Then when you've realised I haven't argued either for or against Catalan independence perhaps head off to beddie-byes?

Night night.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:16 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Does it not bother you that the referendum result was influenced by promises which have been broken? Is it OK to break promises to get a referendum result you like?

Are we talking about Brexit or Scottish independence?

I didn't vote in either.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:20 am

thatdberight wrote:I'm not sure what (if anything) your point is.

In 2011 the SNP manifesto pledged to hold a referendum if elected. They got an overall majority. Hence, their manifesto pledge became their commitment to seek the referendum. The UK government acceded to this.

Are you complaining that some process that no-one had imagined would apply to Scotland (except you three years after the fact) wasn't followed? If so, you have them bang to rights.

Sigh.

Someone stated that this vote in Catalonia was merely a precursor to an actual independence referendum.
Testing the water so to speak, despite being told it was illegal.

I just asked if Scotland did something similar and you tried to tell me they did by voting in the SNP, which wasn't even close to the same as what's happened in Catalonia.
I made a passing reference to the SNP not getting what they wanted and you started waffling in about the process etc.

I'm not holding anybody bang to rights about anything.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:22 am

Rowls wrote:You're such a dufus aren't you.

What I'd really need to do in order to "stop arguing against Catalonia independence" would be to actually argue against it in the first place.

Well, you said "independence won't help them much" and made arguments against the supporting arguments for their independence. So you were arguing against it.

You really, really, really ought to stop basing your arguments on what you *think* I *might* believe.

Well i did ask you and then demonstrated why the answer you gave made no sense at all. I then, charitable, made an assumption based on what you might have meant in an attempt to make what you said make sense, and even then it didn't make sense. So really you've yet to offer any sensible explanation as to what measure you're using to claim that Catalonia would be just a poor European country.

Otherwise it might be like that "argument" we had about transgender people when you only thought to ask my opinions on something like page 3 or 4. And then when it turned out I had the "correct" opinion all you could do was say that I was "pretending" to have the correct opinion.

Lol, what?

OK, so I admit I do often mock you for your lack of comprehension but let's nip it in the bud this time, eh?

Go back and read what I've said.

Go back and read it until you understand it.

I read it. I understood it. But when i applied what you said to reality it made no kind of logical sense. So i tried to do you a favour and assumed you meant something slightly different. But then that didn't make sense either when compared to reality.

Answer the question. By what measure will Catalonia be just a poor European country? Because the answer you've given demonstrates that they would be more wealthy than the country they are a part of. So if they would be just a poor European country they'd be less poor than the one they're apart of now.

Then when you've realised I haven't argued either for or against Catalan independence perhaps head off to beddie-byes?

Night night.

You literally said "Independence won't help them much" and followed that up by arguing (ineffectually) against one of the pillars of the pro-independence movement. You can deny reality all you like but that doesn't change reality.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:23 am

Sidney1st wrote:Are we talking about Brexit or Scottish independence?

I didn't vote in either.

It applies to both, but i was specifically talking about the Scottish referendum.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:25 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Well, you said "independence won't help them much" and made arguments against the supporting arguments for their independence. So you were arguing against it.

Well i did ask you and then demonstrated why the answer you gave made no sense at all. I then, charitable, made an assumption based on what you might have meant in an attempt to make what you said make sense, and even then it didn't make sense. So really you've yet to offer any sensible explanation as to what measure you're using to claim that Catalonia would be just a poor European country.

Lol, what?

I read it. I understood it. But when i applied what you said to reality it made no kind of logical sense. So i tried to do you a favour and assumed you meant something slightly different. But then that didn't make sense either when compared to reality.

Answer the question. By what measure will Catalonia be just a poor European country? Because the answer you've given demonstrates that they would be more wealthy than the country they are a part of. So if they would be just a poor European country they'd be less poor than the one they're apart of now.

You literally said "Independence won't help them much" and followed that up by arguing (ineffectually) against one of the pillars of the pro-independence movement. You can deny reality all you like but that doesn't change reality.

Rowls wrote:Jeez. You're making less sense than you usually do.
A LOT less sense.
Which is saying something.
Sleep it off, perhaps?
Good night.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:27 am

In the long term it might help them, but there will be short term pain.

Seat for example could well move its factory back into Spanish territory, that takes a load of jobs out.
Then they'd need a currency to set up, assuming they havent got something already?

In fact they'd face similar issues to Scotland breaking away from the UK.

Entering the EU would naturally be blocked by Spain, they'd have to operate by WTO trade rules/tariffs etc.
I'd assume the Spanish could also cancel things like Passports etc just to get really arsey.

If independence is announced in the next week or so I'd expect there to be major problems in the short term.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:29 am

ImbibingTurtle,

Please, for your own sake, I hope you read this in the morning with a clear head. Or even the afternoon if necessary.

Here are my views and opinions on Catalonia's possible independence:

Is it feasible or possible? Yes.
Is it desirable? I don't know.
Are the Catalan people an oppressed minority? No.
Should Spain & Catalonia be a common country because they share a great deal of common culture? Possibly
Is Catalonia distinct enough to warrant being a separate country? Possibly

All rather dull opinions, of course. In fact, they're rather better described as an absence of opinions.

But if you don't have the sense to go to bed then argue "against" me all you like and attribute me whatever fanciful opinions you like.

But I still advise going to bed instead.

Good luck in making your decision!

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:31 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:It applies to both, but i was specifically talking about the Scottish referendum.

There are broken promises in General Elections, happens every single time without fail that I'm aware of.

I'd be more surprised if there aren't broken promises from the Scottish referendum.
It doesn't mean it's OK that promises are broken, its just what people should expect going from experiences.
The referendum itself was meant to be a once in a lifetime thing if I remember rightly and there's going to be another after Brexit.
If that doesn't go SNP's way then there will probably be another in about a decade depending on the affects of Brexit, they will want to see how that goes first.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:37 am

Sidney1st wrote:There are broken promises in General Elections, happens every single time without fail that I'm aware of.

Which isn't OK but the damage of broken promises is mitigated by the knowledge that there will be another general election.

I'd be more surprised if there aren't broken promises from the Scottish referendum.
It doesn't mean it's OK that promises are broken, its just what people should expect going from experiences.
The referendum itself was meant to be a once in a lifetime thing if I remember rightly and there's going to be another after Brexit.
If that doesn't go SNP's way then there will probably be another in about a decade depending on the affects of Brexit, they will want to see how that goes first.

**** off. I'm sick to death of this bullshit argument that the only reason for a second referendum is because the first result was undesired. I'm also sick to death of demonstrating to you how ******* moronic the argument is.
The UK made promises to secure a vote they liked. The UK has broken those promises. Therefore there's a mandate for a second referendum.
The SNP campaigned on having a second referendum in the event the UK pulls Scotland out of the EU against Scotland's will (which, btw, is one of the promises the UK has broken). The SNP won that election, the UK is pulling Scotland out of the EU against its will. Therefore there is a mandate for a second referendum. So shut the **** up with this dumb-as-**** argument that it is all some kind of contrived way to subvert the first result.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:43 am

Rowls wrote:ImbibingTurtle,

Please, for your own sake, I hope you read this in the morning with a clear head. Or even the afternoon if necessary.

Here are my views and opinions on Catalonia's possible independence:

Is it feasible or possible? Yes.
Is it desirable? I don't know.
Are the Catalan people an oppressed minority? No.
Should Spain & Catalonia be a common country because they share a great deal of common culture? Possibly
Is Catalonia distinct enough to warrant being a separate country? Possibly

All rather dull opinions, of course. In fact, they're rather better described as an absence of opinions.

But if you don't have the sense to go to bed then argue "against" me all you like and attribute me whatever fanciful opinions you like.

But I still advise going to bed instead.

Good luck in making your decision!

You think they aren't an oppressed minority? Did you not see what Spain did to them when they tried to hold a peaceful vote on their own future?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:57 am

Sidney1st wrote:Sigh.

Sidney1st wrote:Someone stated that this vote in Catalonia was merely a precursor to an actual independence referendum.

Well then someone's statement was wrong.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:09 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:... the UK pulls Scotland out of the EU against Scotland's will (which, btw, is one of the promises the UK has broken).

Can you point to this 'promise' so I can understand it? I mean, as a promise or commitment. Not as an arguable extrapolation of the then current status and the various discussions or pronouncements of UK, EU and other European leaders (accepting of course that some may read such a complex position differently). Not that. As a commitment that, "the UK will not pull Scotland out of the EU against its will".

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:18 am

Its looking like the UK is going to pull Scotland and NI out of the EU against the "will of the people" in those countries.

My problem with the whole "will of the people" stuff is that it can be used for absolutely everything, and I fully expect (might be wrong, but I doubt it sadly) is that leaving the EU without a deal will result in Scottish Independance and a return to the troubles in NI.

Nothing, absolutely nothing is worth that.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:46 am

thatdberight wrote:Can you point to this 'promise' so I can understand it? I mean, as a promise or commitment. Not as an arguable extrapolation of the then current status and the various discussions or pronouncements of UK, EU and other European leaders (accepting of course that some may read such a complex position differently). Not that. As a commitment that, "the UK will not pull Scotland out of the EU against its will".

3. EU membership not secure! David Cameron claimed that the only way to protect Scotland’s EU membership was to reject independence. No campaign spokespeople parroted the phrase “EU membership only guaranteed with a No vote”. Now we have polls in England showing that the EU referendum is too close to call while 60 per cent of Scots plan to vote Stay. ...

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/148 ... _indyref2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was made quite clear in the run up to the original referendum that leaving the United Kingdom would mean being outside the EU and that the only way to protect Scotland's position would be to remain a part of the UK. It's a significant part of the reason why I supported the No campaign then, and the fact that Brexit is happening against the will of Scotland anyway is why i'll most likely support independence in a second referendum.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:11 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:3. EU membership not secure! David Cameron claimed that the only way to protect Scotland’s EU membership was to reject independence. No campaign spokespeople parroted the phrase “EU membership only guaranteed with a No vote”. Now we have polls in England showing that the EU referendum is too close to call while 60 per cent of Scots plan to vote Stay. ...

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/148 ... _indyref2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was made quite clear in the run up to the original referendum that leaving the United Kingdom would mean being outside the EU and that the only way to protect Scotland's position would be to remain a part of the UK. It's a significant part of the reason why I supported the No campaign then, and the fact that Brexit is happening against the will of Scotland anyway is why i'll most likely support independence in a second referendum.

So not a promise then. An extrapolation of the then position of the UK as a member of the EU and a reading of some of the statements of EU and other European politicians. I didn't think such a promise existed.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:13 am

Imploding Turtle wrote: It was made quite clear in the run up to the original referendum that leaving the United Kingdom would mean being outside the EU and that the only way to protect Scotland's position would be to remain a part of the UK. It's a significant part of the reason why I supported the No campaign then, and the fact that Brexit is happening against the will of Scotland anyway is why i'll most likely support independence in a second referendum.

Leaving the UK certainly would have meant leaving the EU. That's not in doubt. But then circumstances changed by the EU referendum, so they'd be leaving the EU either way; which is why I would agree Sturgeon is right to want a second referendum, which can be held as soon as the exit terms are more or less finalised.

But this isn't a broken promise. At the time of the referendum, voting to remain in the UK was the way to stay in the EU.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:14 am

thatdberight wrote:So not a promise then. An extrapolation of the then position of the UK as a member of the EU and a reading of some of the statements of EU and other European politicians. I didn't think such a promise existed.

A campaign promise doesn't have to include the term "promise". Surely you aren't going to be as literalist as to claim it does. The promise was to protect Scotland's position within the EU. Westminster has failed to keep that promise.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:20 am

Remember when Vote Leave were saying "lets spend that money on the NHS instead", referring to the fake figure we send to the EU each week. Was that not a promise either?

Politicians are, typically speaking, liars. They will avoid using "promise" or "pledge" where ever they can so that they can claim to have not made a certain promise when they fail to meet that promise. If you want to provide cover for them as they do this when they go back on their word then by all means go ahead, but you'll not get much support from the rest of us who won't let them dance around their campaign promises that way.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:25 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:A campaign promise doesn't have to include the term "promise". Surely you aren't going to be as literalist as to claim it does. The promise was to protect Scotland's position within the EU. Westminster has failed to keep that promise.

No. I'm just trying to understand whether it was a statement made within the context of what existed then (UK's membership of the EU) and backed up by (as you say) it having been made clear by supposedly disinterested parties (EU politicians / legal experts / civil servants, other European politicians) that EU membership for Scotland was not guaranteed / a lot of work.

That's not a promise because no-one who gave the promise is in a position to control all the factors. It looked and still looks like a reasonable statement given what was known at the time. It wasn't. It was wrong.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:31 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Remember when Vote Leave were saying "lets spend that money on the NHS instead", referring to the fake figure we send to the EU each week. Was that not a promise either?

Definitely not a promise. The Brexit referendum didn't feature a governing party on either side so no-one was in a position to make a promise of any kind. It was demonstrably false. I agree that politicians are liars. They have to be. They wouldn't get the votes unless they were. So whether it's Theresa May feigning one thing or Jeremy Corbyn pretending another, they're probably lying or at least dissembling.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:41 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:A campaign promise doesn't have to include the term "promise". Surely you aren't going to be as literalist as to claim it does. The promise was to protect Scotland's position within the EU. Westminster has failed to keep that promise.

I remember the Brexit referendum, after which you were in agreement that MPs should be able to vote it down because the referendum wasn't "legally binding". Even though the government had madea specific promise that the result would be honoured, you would have been happy for them to break that promise. Isn't that a bit inconsistent? (Or to use trendy-speak, cognitively dissonant?

)