A Second Sweaty Referendum

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:05 pm

And the suspicious part of me would also think that the Scots who want independance knew full well that a vote to leave would give them another chance.

I think someone did the maths and all the scots who voted wouldn't have changed the result, but the closer it got, the more uncertain the mandate that May has would be.

I certainly don't blame the Scots for the result put it that way, I stick that firmly on the door of Comrade Corbyn and his acolytes.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:08 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:The currency thing is what will blow up again, as they want to keep Sterling, but don't want it to be run by the Bank of England.

It did get very silly when the Scots claimed it as their currency, which it is at the moment, but it wouldn't be if they left.

Their best bet is the Euro (not economically I hasten to add!) as it gives them a viable currency backed by the some of the biggest economies in the world. I'm not sure that is going to be acceptable to enough Scots for them to risk it.

Hi Lancs, I've got my doubts about the euro from two perspectives: (1) it doesn't really work for the euro zone, it either needs Germany to step up and fund the economies that are struggling of which Greece is one, or it will eventually be abandoned (with no prior plan about how this can be done); and (2) Scotland is running a larger deficit than Greece - and this deficit is much too high for the Eurozone to even consider agreeing to Scotland joining the euro. Again, if Scotland were to join, this would be the crisis that brings it all down. And - if this isn't contradictory - if Scotland joined the austerity required by Scotland would be worse than the austerity that Greece has been required to follow - so, not a vote winner for SNP.

Agreed, Scotland's advantage over Greece is that the former have a good record at collecting taxes. But, if/when Scotland raise taxes won't we see a lot of people moving south into England (reference French moving to London/UK when their taxes were raised).

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:13 pm

So do we, like last time, negotiate terms before the vote or wait until independence is triggered before we negotiate ?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:13 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:It has been suggested that voter turn-out in the EU referendum was lower proportionately in Scotland than elsewhere, because - based on opinion polls - the pro-remain vote in Scotland was going to be a landslide. This may or may not be true. However: any Scot who failed to vote based on this was clearly failing to understand that it was a UK wide referendum and that every single vote counted - unlike in a general election.

Agree. Refer the thread on the consequences of charging an iPhone while in the bath.

Of course, the SNP case is that it wasn't a UK wide referendum.

Memo for future referendums: mix up the ballot boxes - get the votes counted separate from the constituencies. If nothing else it would avoid the divisions resulting from Burnley voted out, Scotland voted in etc etc.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:13 pm

I agree with all that Paul, but they are probably better linking to the Euro than to sterling.

Simply put, I'm not sure that the Bank of England will have the slightest interest in how its decisions affect Scotland if they become independant and stick to sterling.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:19 pm

Paul Waine wrote: Memo for future referendums: mix up the ballot boxes - get the votes counted separate from the constituencies. If nothing else it would avoid the divisions resulting from Burnley voted out, Scotland voted in etc etc.

Memo for future governments - avoid referenda at all costs. They create more problems and divisions than they resolve and are not really compatible with a Parliamentary democracy in which it is enshrined that Parliament is sovereign.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:24 pm

HatfieldClaret wrote:So do we, like last time, negotiate terms before the vote or wait until independence is triggered before we negotiate ?

Looked at dispassionately (is that possible?) it's a conundrum.

Post Jun-23 big fuss that people who voted Brexit didn't know what they were voting for. (Would it also have been argued if remain won that remain didn't know what they were voting for)? So, wait until Brexit deal is finalised with EU - enables all Scots to know what they will be seeking independence from....

But, will an independent Scotland be granted membership of EU?

Or, hold referendum before outcome of Brexit negotiations are known and while, technically UK, and therefore also Scotland, is still in EU. Outcome of negotiations unknown? Will EU allow Scotland to remain when rUK leaves? Will SNP judge that the uncertainty of terms for rUK leaving EU are sufficiently fearful for Scottish electorate that they will vote for independence or will they both losing the UK relationship and not being accepted by EU?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:27 pm

Post Jun-23 big fuss that people who voted Brexit didn't know what they were voting for. (Would it also have been argued if remain won that remain didn't know what they were voting for)

But that doesn't make sense, the status quo was what remain was voting for. You could argue that there might be some "reform of EU" idea in there, but the simple fact was that you knew you were voting for all the parts of our current agreement with the EU to remain as they were.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:29 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Memo for future governments - avoid referenda at all costs. They create more problems and divisions than they resolve and are not really compatible with a Parliamentary democracy in which it is enshrined that Parliament is sovereign.

Thing is, nil_d, I'd want better quality Parliament/MPs to give up on the (occasional) wisdom of the crowd.

But, it is a trade I would do, if I could redefine the "qualities" required to be eligible to be elected to parliament.

As an aside: I doubt more than 25% of MPs knew that Class 4 NIC existed before last week's budget. I reckon only 10% have an idea how corporation tax operates.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:40 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:But that doesn't make sense, the status quo was what remain was voting for. You could argue that there might be some "reform of EU" idea in there, but the simple fact was that you knew you were voting for all the parts of our current agreement with the EU to remain as they were.

Hi Lancs, I agree that we can assume remain = status quo. But, did the 16 million know what the status quo is? How many of us know our own MEPs? How many knew what Maastricht Treaty is? We all enjoy "freedom of movement" when we are travelling, but how many knew the EU rules on pay and benefits for EU migrants to a second EU country? (When was that debated in parliament)? How many understand the euro - and the stresses and strains that the euro is placing on EU? How many understand CAP or Common Fisheries Policy? We all seem to know (something) about EHIC, but I doubt many know that if you use EHIC in several EU countries you are required to pay something - just like the local population often pay towards their health care. How many know what the EU would do in the next year, next 10 years - or, based on 1976 being the previous ref, how many know what EU would become in the next 40 years?

Maybe it doesn't matter that most of us voted without knowing in any detail what we were voting for - either remain or leave. When it comes down to it, many of the things we don't know about, won't make much difference either way.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:46 pm

But you could find all that out, if you so wanted to.

I don't want to go over old ground, because its past and done now, but do you really think that the current policy of the govt would have won the referendum?

Pretty unlikely I think

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:24 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:But you could find all that out, if you so wanted to.

I don't want to go over old ground, because its past and done now, but do you really think that the current policy of the govt would have won the referendum?

Pretty unlikely I think

Hi Lancs, great question - and difficult to answer.

Referendum: Cameron (PM, of course) led the remain campaign (to the extent Cameron wasn't a liability to referendum....). Johnson, Gove and Farage (amongst others) led the leave campaign. (JC was conflicted...). Theresa May was on the remain side (quietly).
Leave wins - Cameron resigns: I think it would have been "more difficult" if BJ had become PM.
Theresa May is a great person to lead the government through Brexit. She is centre ground Tory. She is a woman - and, I believe women can be more unifying in difficult times, they don't carry the burden of adrenaline. (TM is not Margaret Thatcher, although the left may "throw" that at her. Think more of how Merkel leads Germany).
TM has a "difficult hand" to play. Remember Cameron tried to negotiate some "leeway" with the EU - and got very little. We need to start with a position where "we have nothing to lose" if the EU agrees to nothing. That's the best way of getting something better than nothing.

But, would TM's position have won the referendum - if it had been disclosed before the referendum? If it was all about "outside the EU" and "we will build something new and better" I'd like to believe that this "honest, transparent and realistic" approach would have won, but, it would have lost. It would have lost for the same reason as I argue above - people don't really understand what they are voting for - and it would have lost because UK style of politics isn't "honest, transparent and realistic" it's "slick" and "empty promises" and "slights of hand." It's all "denigrate and destroy" the reputations of those that oppose us (whether in opposing parties or in the same party, but with competing ambitions). And, we all go along with this - whether we know it or not. (A few examples on this board, possibly...- but more common everywhere).

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:49 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, got me on this one - I'm lost in which event has what numbers.

Can you create a table:

Scottish Ref 2014: turnout, votes;
UK Gen Election 2015: turnout, votes;
Scottish Election 2016: turnout, votes;
EU Ref: turnout, votes;

I'm sure you've got your facts right. But, great to have this sorted. Psephology can be a little dry.

The Wiki pages for each of the elections shows the turnouts.

IndyRef 2014 = 84.59% turnout. No won 55.3% to 44.7%
UK General Election 2015 = 66.4% turnout. Tory majority acheived with 36.9%
Scottish Election 2016 = 55.6& turnout. SNP majority acheived with 46.5%
EU Referendum 2016 - 72.21% turnout. Leave won 51.9 to 48.1 (Scotland only = 67.2% tournout. Remain won 62.0% to 38.0%)

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:50 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:But you could find all that out, if you so wanted to.

I don't want to go over old ground, because its past and done now, but do you really think that the current policy of the govt would have won the referendum?

Pretty unlikely I think

No chance.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:32 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The Wiki pages for each of the elections shows the turnouts.

IndyRef 2014 = 84.59% turnout. No won 55.3% to 44.7%
UK General Election 2015 = 66.4% turnout. Tory majority acheived with 36.9%
Scottish Election 2016 = 55.6& turnout. SNP majority acheived with 46.5%
EU Referendum 2016 - 72.21% turnout. Leave won 51.9 to 48.1 (Scotland only = 67.2% tournout. Remain won 62.0% to 38.0%)

Thanks.

Can we draw any conclusions from turnout? Does higher turnout suggest more "interest" in the outcome? Does higher turnout suggest more "concern" or "uncertainty" about the turnout?

Is it fair to say that the only area we can make any comparisons are between Scotland IndyRef and Scotland EU ref - as these are same electorate on two "yes/no" votes?

Parliamentary elections, UK and Scotland operate in different ways: FPTP and MMPR. I believe common judgement is that individual votes have more impact in PR systems, so higher turnout could be expected, all other things being equal. But, I'd also assume, as Scotland also elects MPs to UK parliament, that UK parliament is more important in both Scotland and rUK. Is this fair?

I've got to admit I don't know a lot about Scottish MMPR system.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:39 pm

Did I hear on BBC 10pm news that Sturgeon is backing off insisting on IndyRef2 before Brexit? (I can't see it reported on BBC News website).

Has there been a SNP re-think? Concern that SNP would lose if pre-Brexit, assuming TM agreed to that date? Or, acknowledgement that TM has the stronger hand and won't agree to pre-brexit?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:44 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Did I hear on BBC 10pm news that Sturgeon is backing off insisting on IndyRef2 before Brexit? (I can't see it reported on BBC News website).

Has there been a SNP re-think? Concern that SNP would lose if pre-Brexit, assuming TM agreed to that date? Or, acknowledgement that TM has the stronger hand and won't agree to pre-brexit?

If so then I think it'll be because she wants to show she's flexible in the face of May's inflexibility and stubborness. It's political posturing by both of them but one thing is for sure, the referendum has to happen otherwise the SNP are breaking their promise to their voters.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:47 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Thanks.

Can we draw any conclusions from turnout? Does higher turnout suggest more "interest" in the outcome? Does higher turnout suggest more "concern" or "uncertainty" about the turnout?

Is it fair to say that the only area we can make any comparisons are between Scotland IndyRef and Scotland EU ref - as these are same electorate on two "yes/no" votes?

Parliamentary elections, UK and Scotland operate in different ways: FPTP and MMPR. I believe common judgement is that individual votes have more impact in PR systems, so higher turnout could be expected, all other things being equal. But, I'd also assume, as Scotland also elects MPs to UK parliament, that UK parliament is more important in both Scotland and rUK. Is this fair?

I've got to admit I don't know a lot about Scottish MMPR system.

You can add to the list:

The 2010 general election. And.

The recent labour leadership campaign.

And some on here, were on the losing side each and every time!!

Consistent losers. Don't you just laugh at em!!

And that, just before I turn in for the night, gives me a fantastic sense of well-being.

Aah Deep joy.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:04 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:If so then I think it'll be because she wants to show she's flexible in the face of May's inflexibility and stubborness. It's political posturing by both of them but one thing is for sure, the referendum has to happen otherwise the SNP are breaking their promise to their voters.

Scotland FM and UK PM have different views. I don't see it as "inflexible" or "stubborn" to say "no, not before Brexit..."

Yes, SNP have a manifesto, but we know manifesto commitments can't always be fulfilled, especially if the commitment requires others to acquiesce. (LibDems and student fees is one example).

When is the next Scottish election due? If SNP continue to lead, maybe they will get chance for indyref2 then.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:08 am

Election due 2021. So it makes absolute sense for the referendum to be after that

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:15 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:You can add to the list:

The 2010 general election. And.

The recent labour leadership campaign.

And some on here, were on the losing side each and every time!!

Consistent losers. Don't you just laugh at em!!
.

A post that adds absolutely nothing to what has developed into a very interesting discussion (following some outrageous anti-Scottish nonsense on the first couple of pages).
Apart from anything else, it can't be true can it?
SNP voters presumably all voted leave in the independence ref, (lost) but presumably voted for the winning side in the Scottish election

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:18 am

Paul Waine wrote:Scotland FM and UK PM have different views. I don't see it as "inflexible" or "stubborn" to say "no, not before Brexit..."

Yes, SNP have a manifesto, but we know manifesto commitments can't always be fulfilled, especially if the commitment requires others to acquiesce. (LibDems and student fees is one example).

When is the next Scottish election due? If SNP continue to lead, maybe they will get chance for indyref2 then.

England can't stop Scotland having a referendum without giving the SNP exactly what they want and that is a legal challenge against Scotland having the vote without Westminster's permission.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:22 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:If so then I think it'll be because she wants to show she's flexible in the face of May's inflexibility and stubborness. It's political posturing by both of them but one thing is for sure, the referendum has to happen otherwise the SNP are breaking their promise to their voters.

Getting a bit blinkered there IT. Just because you are right %100 of the time

it doesn't mean that Nicola is.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:29 am

HatfieldClaret wrote:Getting a bit blinkered there IT. Just because you are right %100 of the time it doesn't mean that Nicola is.

I wasn't saying that she was being flexible in the face of Mays inflexibility and stubbornness, only that she wants to be seen that way. Maybe spend a little more time trying to understand what it is i'm saying before you yourself get blinkered (irony, eh) into assuming i'm saying one thing when i'm actually saying another.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:30 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:England can't stop Scotland having a referendum without giving the SNP exactly what they want and that is a legal challenge against Scotland having the vote without Westminster's permission.

I do not understand.

Are you arguing that SNP wants UK (not England) to block a 2nd ref (which they aren't doing, btw)?

Which courts do you see this legal challenge being heard in?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:38 am

nil_desperandum wrote:A post that adds absolutely nothing to what has developed into a very interesting discussion (following some outrageous anti-Scottish nonsense on the first couple of pages).
Apart from anything else, it can't be true can it?
SNP voters presumably all voted leave in the independence ref, (lost) but presumably voted for the winning side in the Scottish election

Got to agree with your logic, nil_d. SNP voters got their party into power in the 2016 Scottish election - and did very well in the constituencies they contested in the 2015 UK general election.

Agree that this is an interesting discussion. We will all be constitutional experts before we have finished.

I'm OK with posts that tests the limits of the debate - though I'm more an Angela Merkel than a Donald Trump, always ready to shake hands.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:45 am

Only thing I really disagree with the Scottish having another referendum is the timing.

You all know how much I dislike Brexit, but this lot in charge are just not capable of dealing with two major constitutional issues at once (plus whatever else might come up in the next few years).

I think Brexit will be a long running sore for years to come

I think the Scots will get their 2nd referendum

I think the Union is finished in its current state.

Do I think May is capable of dealing with all this and sorting it out?

Put it one way, there is more chance of Tony Mowbray leading Blackburn Rovers to promotion this season.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:54 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Only thing I really disagree with the Scottish having another referendum is the timing.

You all know how much I dislike Brexit, but this lot in charge are just not capable of dealing with two major constitutional issues at once (plus whatever else might come up in the next few years).

I think Brexit will be a long running sore for years to come

I think the Scots will get their 2nd referendum

I think the Union is finished in its current state.

Do I think May is capable of dealing with all this and sorting it out?

Put it one way, there is more chance of Tony Mowbray leading Blackburn Rovers to promotion this season.

Blimey Lancaster, you do have a lot of faith in Tony Mowbray....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:40 pm

If you'd like to highlight Mays achievements since being PM Hatfied I'm all ears!

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:44 pm

1. Sacked Osborne....
2. Royal assent for Brexit
3. um, get back to you......

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:55 pm

So the dwarf is still going for it -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39409513" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Despite May stating that another referendum would need to wait until after Brexit, Sturgeon seems to think that May and the UK government are ignoring her calls for one.
May hasn't said they can't have one, she just wants them to wait until after Brexit is sorted which is entirely reasonable.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:07 pm

And it's entirely reasonable for Scotland to refuse to wait for the UK to get its **** together since no one knows how long Brexit is actually going to take.

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And it's entirely reasonable for Scotland to refuse to wait for the UK to get its **** together since no one knows how long Brexit is actually going to take.

But it would have zero legitimacy.

Everyone knew what the vote count was going to be before it happened at holyrood today. But Sturgeon can't use this to try and drive a wedge between Westminster and holyrood as her minority govt have ignored at least 5 votes from holyrood themselves. Go figure.

Sturgeon is skating on thin ice with this one. She's fighting for her political career. Shame she couldn't be bothered about fighting for things which matter, like education, emergency services, transport, etc.

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:18 pm

Check the body language of her in this one. Says it all.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FN3XJ6UNEH4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:25 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And it's entirely reasonable for Scotland to refuse to wait for the UK to get its **** together since no one knows how long Brexit is actually going to take.

Scotland refusing or Sturgeon and the SNP?

I suspect half of Scotland are bored of hearing Sturgeon bang her drum and are happy enough to wait.
Even if the referendum was held before Brexit I'm sure the UK government can still delay the break up of the union until Brexit is done.

It could take years to separate Scotland from the union too, just as long as brexit would take, maybe longer.

Burnleyareback2 · Post by **Burnleyareback2** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:22 pm

Would be much more interesting if May gave the UK a vote about letting Scotland stay.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:15 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Scotland refusing or Sturgeon and the SNP?

Well, Scotland chose her to represent them and the voters knew her position on this subject.

I suspect half of Scotland are bored of hearing Sturgeon bang her drum and are happy enough to wait.

Then what's you're problem?

Even if the referendum was held before Brexit I'm sure the UK government can still delay the break up of the union until Brexit is done.

Again, so what's your problem?

It could take years to separate Scotland from the union too, just as long as brexit would take, maybe longer.

All the more reason to start it sooner.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:18 pm

Right_winger wrote:But it would have zero legitimacy.

A referendum result would have "zero legitimacy"? Perhaps if the entire Pro-Indy campaign was based on lies then yes, that'd be correct. Almost like a referendum won on the promise of continued EU membership in the UK would then have no legitimacy either if that turned out to be a lie/wrong too.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:46 pm

Why start it sooner?
The union and Scotland are so intertwined it could take a decent number of years to negotiate and split.

You're expecting the UK government to do that properly during Brexit?
Or are you hoping the government get turned over during a split if they've got Brexit to focus on too?

You're absolutely desperate to break away aren't you?
Is it to stay in the EU or to get rid of the English?

Out of interest what currency do you think Scotland would use?
Are they going to need the Bank of England to prop it up whilst it gets going?
Would you be happy adopting the Euro eventually?

NHS or will it need to be a more privatised medical system?
I'd guess no more free university places?
Elderly care would need to be revised at a guess too?

Would a Scottish economy be OK on it's own whilst it waits the decade or more for full EU membership?
I suppose we'd need a proper border too if it goes ahead.

Has the SNP addressed any of these basic questions yet?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:55 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Why start it sooner?
The union and Scotland are so intertwined it could take a decent number of years to negotiate and split.

?

On the "special QT" last night Alex Salmond spoke of how friendly and welcoming Scotland was to people from other countries. Did he mean this, or did he forget to say, "of course, this doesn't apply to the English?"

SNP need discussion of indyref2. They need UK to say "no, not yet." They need to make a fuss. But, I doubt it will change the outcome of a second indy ref. It will be the same as 2014.

Will SNP go the same was as UKIP when this has happened?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:03 pm

Sidney1st wrote:
You're expecting the UK government to do that properly during Brexit?

I think this question explains the problem you're having. You're only looking at it from England/UK point of view when if Scotland vote to leave the UK there's really no reason for Scotland to give a **** about what the UK negotiates with the EU.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:39 pm

Ah so looking at it from a purely Scottish point of view is better is it?

You want to leave the Union, but you don't want to play nicely with what will ultimately be your direct neighbour and in all likelihood be the country that helps you get started as an independent country.....
Makes real sense that does

I've asked you some genuine questions which you've ignored for reasons I can only guess at.

I know, let's rush the separation, let it all go wrong and watch Scotland flounder because the Scots want to flounce off now!!
That would keep you happy wouldn't it I suppose?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:48 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Ah so looking at it from a purely Scottish point of view is better is it?

Errm... yes. It's their independence. Do you think Kosovo or Slovakia had an obligation to consider the interests of the countries that they were breaking away from? If so, why should they?

I've asked you some genuine questions which you've ignored for reasons I can only guess at.

I've ignored them because the foundational premise on which the questions are built is utterly bogus. And those that aren't even related to the premise are irrelevent because they're not a factor in the decision to hold a referendum. They're only relevent to the question asked in the referendum: "Should Scotland become an independent country?" If you want to start that topic then go right ahead.

I know, let's rush the separation, let it all go wrong and watch Scotland flounder because the Scots want to flounce off now!!
That would keep you happy wouldn't it I suppose?

Don't be ******* retarded. Where have i said that independence should happen quickly?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:53 pm

So looking at it with a view that would be best for both sides is no good because it doesn't suit Scotland?

OK then, let them take their toys and go play on their own, with a bit of luck it will go horribly wrong because they aren't patient enough to sit down and do it in a sensible manner.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:54 pm

So you haven't got an answer for them then, that's all you had to say.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:55 pm

Who says waiting would be best for both sides? Why would Scotland being placed in limbo for potentially decades while England Wales and N.I. sort out Brexit be "best for both sides"?

You're making statements that cannot be supported by fact, or even logic.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:56 pm

Sidney1st wrote:So you haven't got an answer for them then, that's all you had to say.

If this is what's left in your arsenal then i'm afraid you're having a bad night.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:01 am

You don't even know Brexit could take decades but you're basing your opposition on it...

Nah its not all I've got, I'm just amusing myself between games on the PS4.

Breaking up the union will take longer then Brexit potentially, so if Brexit takes decades like you're stating could happen then you're not going to happy with the independence process.

At the rate Sturgeon is going the rest of the UK is going to want to vote for Scotland to shove off too so they don't have to listen to her little rants and feet stamping anymore.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:02 am

What if Brexit deals were better for Scotland if they remained as part of the Union?

Would that not be a possibility?

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:09 am

I have no understanding of any of this and don't care. Its worrying how basic a person I am..