When will indyref2 happen?

[dirty dingus]

23 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

I agree we need the freedom to trade with all of the countries in the EU and to trade with the rest of the world. Brexit is undoubtedly a step in the wrong direction that is already setting back the UK in terms of growth but I have more faith in the UKs ability to get those trade deals than I have in a Scottish Government winning a place back at the EU table in control of our own economy and fiscal levers. 

I also believe the last thing Scotlands economy needs right now is even more political uncertainty, a hard border with England, and lengthy divorce negotiations to get us out of the UK. 

 

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. So spare me your left wing drivel. 

FTFY

[Malky3]

Just now, BawWatchin said:

Well you'll be delighted that your party is here to turn the clock back to those wonderful patriotic times when kids were shoved up chimneys with broom brushes.

"My party"? I'm not a member of any party. I think I made it quite clear I don't trust any politicians and I'm not foolish enough to hand over my money to feckless liars no matter the colour of their rosette. 

[BawWatchin]

Just now, Malky3 said:

"My party"? I'm not a member of any party. I think I made it quite clear I don't trust any politicians and I'm not foolish enough to hand over my money to feckless liars no matter the colour of their rosette. 

So you're a tax dodger then.

Reported.

[Double Jack D]

38 minutes ago, renton said:

Darien was subsequently elevated by Unionists as a cause celebre for entering into the Union when in fact it wasn't. Of far greater significance were the various acts passed by the English and Scottish parliaments between 1701 and 1705 aimed at solving the thorny issue around the joint succession of the dynastic Union between the two countries. The English parliament's Act of Settlement sought to anoint a successor without consulting the Scottish parliament, the Scots subsequently passing the Act of Security that meant they would pick their own successor unless several political and religious conditions were met. 

The final English response was the Alien Act of 1705 that threatened to break off all trade between the two countries and significantly refuse Scotland access to the North American colonies (Scotland's own North American colony, Nova Scotia having been traded away by Charles I after involving us in another English war) as well as ban 'aliens' from owning land and property in England. This was deemed by the Scottish aristocracy to be a far greater threat to their economic security than the one off 'disaster' of Darien, the costs of which were largely absorbed by the time the Act of Union came. The English threat would only be rescinded on the basis of either a repeal of the Act of Security or as subsequently occurred, negotiations into the Act of Union were undertaken.

Far from graciously saving Scotland from penury as Unionist tried to claim afterwards, it was the threat of economic blockade in the face of Scottish intransigence over the succession that brought the Union about. England would not risk a separate, independent monarch to the North, free from all ties with England who could potentially ally with England's enemies.  

There were no immediate economic benefits of the Union. If the Enlightenment with it's significant cultural and economic benefits were in any degree the result of the Union, and this can be disputed, it was a very delayed gratification by a good half century or more. A further irony abounds that the American revolution removed the English gateway to the ex-colonies anyway, and had Scotland played a better hand in those first half dozen years of the 18th Century the Union might have never happened.

This is of course ancient history but worth mentioning in the context of any comments tinged by gratitude over the Union saviour of the Darien disaster. I would not dispute that this political Union subsequently offered many individuals access to great wealth and prosperity  but the idea that Scotland itself, robbed of all political autonomy was a great beneficiary is nonsense. I'd also dispute the title of 'most successful political Union' - long running, yes but it did already lose a huge chunk of itself in Ireland. The USA would surely be the overall winner in the political Union stakes, while the Union of the German states must be seen overall as a considerable success. 

A quite excellent post.

[Malky3]

5 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

My view is being removed from the worlds biggest trading block with virtually no political ability to change or even guide that process is the last thing our (or any) country needs. The biggest uncertainty we have is that we rely on another country, with clearly different political outlook, deciding our economic fate

I think Scottish membership to the EU post Independence is a shoe in and I'm fairly certain this will be demonstrated on day 1 of the Indyref2 campaign. UK trade deals however.... well we've seen what a mess we've made of the attempt doing one with the EU. I'm not convinced we'll fare any better with any other part of the world. 

See, I would argue that our political outlook is far more closely aligned to the Welsh, English and Northern Irish than it is to say Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Greece and even France, Spain and Italy. 

I'd also argue that having argued for years that Westminster doesn't listen to Scotland, despite the number of recent top jobs held in the UK Government by Scots, I think the SNP would find it far harder to get Scottish interests listened to in the European Parliament. 

Like I've said my measure is what the status quo provides us with versus a step into the unknown. I'd need to be convinced by the quality of politician I was entrusting to make change successful. I don't see compitence anywhere in the SNP. Certainly not enough to give me the faith to put my kids future in their hands

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, Malky3 said:

I think the SNP would find it far harder to get Scottish interests listened to in the European Parliament.

Not really an issue though is it? Seeing as 99.9% of Scottish interests will be taken up in the Scottish Parliament. As opposed to the 40% or so right now in the UK.

[Malky3]

11 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

It's always weird when folk look at the UK and Scottish governments and then go hmm yes the UK ones are clearly more competent

Really? I think its weird that people would look at Sturgeon, Salmond, Swinney, Cunningham, Blackford, Black, McGarry etc and think the SNP is competent in picking its own candidates never mind running a country. Each to their own I guess

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, Malky3 said:

Really? I think its weird that people would look at Sturgeon, Salmond, Swinney, Cunningham, Blackford, Black, McGarry etc and think the SNP is competent in picking its own candidates never mind running a country. Each to their own I guess

Well considering those candidates have all but wiped out the relevance of any other party in Scotland. I'd say they've done alright.

[ayrmad]

3 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

See, I would argue that our political outlook is far more closely aligned to the Welsh, English and Northern Irish than it is to say Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Greece and even France, Spain and Italy. 

I'd also argue that having argued for years that Westminster doesn't listen to Scotland, despite the number of recent top jobs held in the UK Government by Scots, I think the SNP would find it far harder to get Scottish interests listened to in the European Parliament. 

Like I've said my measure is what the status quo provides us with versus a step into the unknown. I'd need to be convinced by the quality of politician I was entrusting to make change successful. I don't see compitence anywhere in the SNP. Certainly not enough to give me the faith to put my kids future in their hands

Well I'm not a SNP voter by choice but my f**k, it's like night and day between them and anything happening at Westminster, a chimp with a pin couldn't do much worse in many areas of governance over the last 10 years than that bunch of shite that call themselves the UK Government.

[Antlion]

13 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

See, I would argue that our political outlook is far more closely aligned to the Welsh, English and Northern Irish than it is to say Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Greece and even France, Spain and Italy. 

I'd also argue that having argued for years that Westminster doesn't listen to Scotland, despite the number of recent top jobs held in the UK Government by Scots, I think the SNP would find it far harder to get Scottish interests listened to in the European Parliament. 

Like I've said my measure is what the status quo provides us with versus a step into the unknown. I'd need to be convinced by the quality of politician I was entrusting to make change successful. I don't see compitence anywhere in the SNP. Certainly not enough to give me the faith to put my kids future in their hands

Why is only BritNats who espouse this kind of ethnic nationalism? History illustrates that being born somewhere hardly ensures that you promote its interests. Did Maggie Thatcher being born in Grantham mean that Grantham got its interests inordinately promoted in the UK? Is the fact of Boris Johnson being born in New York the reason to worry that the US will get its interests promoted in the UK? At the risk of invoking Godwin, did Hitler being Austrian ensure that Austria’s interests were promoted in the Third Reich? It’s a nonsense argument.

As for not hoping for a leap into the unknown, you lost the right to use that argument in 2016. The fact that you trust the competence of the Tories to safeguard your kids’ future is worrying. Change is coming to Scotland. It can either be change enforced on us and managed by Boris and his Tories (for as long as the larger English electorate want them) or change chosen by us and managed by Sturgeon and the SNP (for as long as the Scottish electorate want them). 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Antlion

[renton]

1 minute ago, Malky3 said:

See, I would argue that our political outlook is far more closely aligned to the Welsh, English and Northern Irish than it is to say Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Greece and even France, Spain and Italy. 

I'd also argue that having argued for years that Westminster doesn't listen to Scotland, despite the number of recent top jobs held in the UK Government by Scots, I think the SNP would find it far harder to get Scottish interests listened to in the European Parliament. 

Like I've said my measure is what the status quo provides us with versus a step into the unknown. I'd need to be convinced by the quality of politician I was entrusting to make change successful. I don't see compitence anywhere in the SNP. Certainly not enough to give me the faith to put my kids future in their hands

Our political outlooks are aligned because they are hardwired together through the UK government. Yet already in the two decades since devolution we've seen significant divergence from that viewpoint by successive Scottish governments.

On the second argument, there are two points to make here the first is the implied falsehood of the argument that Scotland struggles for representation because Gordon Brown was prime Minister (or indeed any of the other Scots in UK government posts) but the crux of that is that it's not the individual here that matters, but the systems in place that matter. Having Jim Murphy or Michael Gove buzzing around the lower reaches of cabinet don't alter the parliamentary arithmetic where Scotland has 59 out of 650 MPs. That system isn't unfair per se , as the representation is based on population. It still doesn't mean it's a good deal for Scotland, nor does the mechanics of the incorporating union that we're in automatically offer up a means for Scotland to alter those circumstances easily.  

The second point is that smaller nations have fared fine in the past in terms of getting their way in Europe, often by forming like minded coalitions as bulwarks against the bigger nations. Of course, the best possible response to your point is to look at how Westminster has treated the Scottish Government over Brexit and how the EU have consistently put Ireland (a very similar nation to Scotland) front and centre in it's deliberations over Brexit. There is no doubt that the EU has it's faults, but as a federal Union it protective of it's members needs and rights far more than the UK is.

On your last point, this isn't about the SNP. It's not all about individuals. It's about systems as well. The hoped for end point is a democratic apparatus that provides good representation for all and sufficient checks and balances to individual power (and individual incompetence). Successful change comes from all of us, not just the politicians.

[Malky3]

31 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Not really an issue though is it? Seeing as 99.9% of Scottish interests will be taken up in the Scottish Parliament. As opposed to the 40% or so right now in the UK.

Nonsense. All your ecomic and fiscal levers would be controlled from Brussels. 

[Malky3]

28 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Well considering those candidates have all but wiped out the relevance of any other party in Scotland. I'd say they've done alright.

Aye McGarry has done really well for herself......

[renton]

1 minute ago, Malky3 said:

Nonsense. All your ecomic and fiscal levers would be controlled from Brussels. 

You voted remain, right? So surely you have no problem with what you see as all our economic and fiscal levers being controlled from Brussels.

[Malky3]

7 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Sure. My measure is what the status quo offers us versus common sense improvements on that. With their limited powers the Scottish government does so much better and more sensibly, and in closer alignment with continental European thinking, than does the UK government. I want more of the former and less of the latter as a result.

Fair enough. I'd debate what you class as common sense if you wish but I suspect it might be futile

[Malky3]

Just now, renton said:

You voted remain, right? So surely you have no problem with what you see as all our economic and fiscal levers being controlled from Brussels.

The UK retained a veto and kept our own fiscal levers. This allowed us to escape the worst effects of the 2008 banking crisis in a way that Iceland and Ireland couldn't. We were even able to help bail out the Irish economy by borrowing cheaply and lending to Ireland at a profit. 

[renton]

9 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

The UK retained a veto and kept our own fiscal levers. This allowed us to escape the worst effects of the 2008 banking crisis in a way that Iceland and Ireland couldn't. We were even able to help bail out the Irish economy by borrowing cheaply and lending to Ireland at a profit. 

Right, actually we bailed out those parts of the failing Icelandic and Irish banks that operated in the UK in order to protect those savings and investments that were UK based, as much as the US bailed out by the far the largest part of the failing RBS in order to protect it's own citizens.

That's besides your point though, the UK didn't join the Euro right enough, then again no one has to. Certainly it's de jure that all new signatories say they will once they reach convergence, de facto they just make sure that they never quite get there. Scotland can promise to join the Euro but never actually do so. This would not count against it in terms of joining up.

Thus Scotland could retain full control of it's fiscal levers as well as it's broader tax based economic levers, but even if it did decide to go full in and join the Euro, how would that be any different to maintaining the current arrangement where the BoE sets interest rates in order to benefit the City of London and the South East of England alone and where Scotland has literally no influence. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by renton

[Antlion]

21 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

Aye McGarry has done really well for herself......

By this measure, Patel, Raab, Grayling, Fox, and if we go back further, any number of sleazy UK government MPs (whether Labour, Tory, or Lib Dem) prove that the UK cannot and should not be a sovereign state. Using individuals to try and suggest that a country should not govern itself will not see UK coming out well. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Antlion

[BawWatchin]

27 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

Nonsense. All your ecomic and fiscal levers would be controlled from Brussels. 

All of our economic and fiscal levers are currently controlled by and for London m8.

It's interesting that you say "your" though. As that suggests that you don't even live in Scotland. Think the mask may have just slipped there.