When will indyref2 happen?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Even if there were complete cooperation between rUK and an iScotland the process will still be a long transition to full independence.

I know some use the breakup of Czechoslovakia as an example of a swift move to independence but that is actually a complete myth.

While progression from the decision in June 1992 to end the federation to amending the constitution in November was swift, it was the culmination of two years of negotiations over the division of powers between the two constituent republics (each with its own legislature and government) and the federal centre. Through agreements in 1990, Slovakia had already achieved ‘devo-max’, allowing it to set up its own Ministry of Foreign Relations. On 22 May 1991 the Czech Republic’s legislature discussed in closed session preparations for the break-up of the federation. Furthermore, much remained to be tidied up after January 1993, including the exact delineation of the border (1996), arrangements for citizens of one republic to attend university in the other (1998) and to acquire dual citizenship (July 1999), and final settlement of the federal central bank’s assets (November 1999).

Considered as a whole, the division of Czechoslovakia took nine years rather than a few months.

That's not an argument against independence but putting realistic timescales on full independence being established.

[BigDoddyKane]

3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Even if there were complete cooperation between rUK and an iScotland the process will still be a long transition to full independence.

I know some use the breakup of Czechoslovakia as an example of a swift move to independence but that is actually a complete myth.

While progression from the decision in June 1992 to end the federation to amending the constitution in November was swift, it was the culmination of two years of negotiations over the division of powers between the two constituent republics (each with its own legislature and government) and the federal centre. Through agreements in 1990, Slovakia had already achieved ‘devo-max’, allowing it to set up its own Ministry of Foreign Relations. On 22 May 1991 the Czech Republic’s legislature discussed in closed session preparations for the break-up of the federation. Furthermore, much remained to be tidied up after January 1993, including the exact delineation of the border (1996), arrangements for citizens of one republic to attend university in the other (1998) and to acquire dual citizenship (July 1999), and final settlement of the federal central bank’s assets (November 1999).

Considered as a whole, the division of Czechoslovakia took nine years rather than a few months.

That's not an argument against independence but putting realistic timescales on full independence being established.

Reality is needed on both sides of the debate, its good to discuss these points. Then if/when Yes vote wins. That reality helps ensure a smoother transition.

Edited October 21, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[williemillersmoustache]

5 minutes ago, Aufc said:

True. I would need to look it up but how does the age of these countries compare to Scotland? We have an ageing population so means our welfare costs are only going to go up and will need to be serviced by a smaller pool. What’s the plan for this?

There is no doubt Scotland could be independent but what kind of country are we going to be? We keep talking about Scandinavian countries as examples. Our GDP per capita lags significantly behind all the Scandinavian countries which, as I have said previously, indicates there is a massive productivity issue which needs addressed.

You mentioned Sweden. They have to pay for their healthcare. Their welfare system is also designed to keep people in work (both of these policies are similar to tories I would say?). It is also a very high tax environment.

Nicola sturgeon talks about using the oil money to create a fund like Norway. However, it’s a declining resource and if she is using that money to create a fund, how is she filling the gap to meet existing commitments (considering we are already apparently operating at a large deficit).

It’s all well and good naming other independent countries but there are a lot of factors to consider

What about trident? She has said absolutely that she doesn’t want this in Scotland. I don’t think it will be as simple as her saying that as it will cost the UK billions and take years to find an alternative location for it. I doubt very much she is going to get away with not paying anything and simply discarding it. Is she happy to continue with having the nuclear deterrent in the Uk (especially in the current climate) but not wanting to contribute to it?

The trident thing is interesting. I view this the other way around. Vanguard and a proportion of the 2 Successors under construction (as well as the rest of the UK armed forces infrastructure) are assets, as is Faslane which we have a % ownership of. We won't discard this, we'll lease our share back to the UK (at significant cost) until they find a replacement protected deep water port at which point we'll find a reasonable settlement to sell off the remainder of the deterrent. This will form part of the overall assets/liabilities settlement and in fairness a mutual defence agreement to include things like basing rights for conventional forces and the ability for Scots to still enlist in the UK Armed forces and the development of the nascent Scottish Defence Force. 

It will be interesting, it will take ages of negotiation but we won't be giving anyone anything or paying for rUK to park their deterrent in our national park.  

[Aufc]

The trident thing is interesting. I view this the other way around. Vanguard and a proportion of the 2 Successors under construction (as well as the rest of the UK armed forces infrastructure) are assets, as is Faslane which we have a % ownership of. We won't discard this, we'll lease our share back to the UK (at significant cost) until they find a replacement protected deep water port at which point we'll find a reasonable settlement to sell off the remainder of the deterrent. This will form part of the overall assets/liabilities settlement and in fairness a mutual defence agreement to include things like basing rights for conventional forces and the ability for Scots to still enlist in the UK Armed forces and the development of the nascent Scottish Defence Force. 
It will be interesting, it will take ages of negotiation but we won't be giving anyone anything or paying for rUK to park their deterrent in our national park.  

I think the issue is that a lot of yes voters seem confident that Scotland will be able to get independence without conceding anything to the rest of the UK (sounds a bit like brexit?!). They are going to be our biggest trade partners so clearly there will need to be concessions on both sides to ensure a trade deal is agreed otherwise it will be brexit mark 2 which we obviously don’t want as we will be a new country trying to find our way.

With everything that is ongoing with Russia, it feels like having a nuclear deterrent close by is a good thing (assume it also helps support the local economy in the area but not sure). So seems like she wants to maintain the benefit of it but not have to pay for it or store it. Unless she wants completely rid of it and we fend for ourselves should anything happen. Not entirely sure of the strategy here

[williemillersmoustache]

1 minute ago, Aufc said:

I think the issue is that a lot of yes voters seem confident that Scotland will be able to get independence without conceding anything to the rest of the UK (sounds a bit like brexit?!). They are going to be our biggest trade partners so clearly there will need to be concessions on both sides to ensure a trade deal is agreed otherwise it will be brexit mark 2 which we obviously don’t want as we will be a new country trying to find our way.

With everything that is ongoing with Russia, it feels like having a nuclear deterrent close by is a good thing (assume it also helps support the local economy in the area but not sure). So seems like she wants to maintain the benefit of it but not have to pay for it or store it. Unless she wants completely rid of it and we fend for ourselves should anything happen. Not entirely sure of the strategy here

I don't see that tbh. Perhaps a bit of swing of the pendulum or reaction from the 2014 "you won't be able to watch Eastenders/keep the pound/use English" pish. But I think most sensible folk on both sides of the argument accept that there are both assets and liabilities to be negotiated.

As for defence I can see us contributing via NATO and the EU ans other agreements. Plenty of non nuclear nations out there that aren't cowering under the threat of Russia, or China or the UK. I'd like Scotland to be one of them. 

[BigDoddyKane]

I think your right to some extent, some Yes voters are overly optimistic about how easy the negotiations are going to be. In a way it would be easier to have gone independent in 2014 when we were in the EU.  For me the Independence path has always made more sense to me for Scotland and in the long term will be more suited and more accountable for us. Thats why we should do it. In saying that some realistic debate and discussion now about how it will happen and whats required are needed, managing expectations is important especially in the short term after a Yes vote. Getting a Yes in an indy 2 is the easy bit, the hard work starts after that. Thats something we should all be aware of and also be invested in as a nation. Its something we will all do together whether we voted Yes of No.

[renton]

44 minutes ago, Aufc said:

I think the issue is that a lot of yes voters seem confident that Scotland will be able to get independence without conceding anything to the rest of the UK (sounds a bit like brexit?!). They are going to be our biggest trade partners so clearly there will need to be concessions on both sides to ensure a trade deal is agreed otherwise it will be brexit mark 2 which we obviously don’t want as we will be a new country trying to find our way.

With everything that is ongoing with Russia, it feels like having a nuclear deterrent close by is a good thing (assume it also helps support the local economy in the area but not sure). So seems like she wants to maintain the benefit of it but not have to pay for it or store it. Unless she wants completely rid of it and we fend for ourselves should anything happen. Not entirely sure of the strategy here

How come? It's been fairly clearly spelt out. Join NATO. Its not fending for yourself and it's not having to permanently base another nation's strategic nuclear assett.

[Clown Job]

10 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

I’ve been to Iceland (the country, not the freezer shop) and it works.  I’ve been to Sweden and it works.  Belgium too.

I’ve been to a number of other countries too and they all work, but some people think that Scotland might not work for reasons that they cannot explain.

They also seem to think Scotland would be unwelcome by the international community for reasons they can’t explain either 

[Dawson Park Boy]

11 hours ago, 101 said:

We haven't even got all the import controls on yet so how can you comment on Brexity being good bad or indifferent yet it's not done yet maybe you can comment when it's done.

All I’m saying is that, at the moment, it hasn’t made any difference.

[Richie]

I'm not even sure what "Fend for ourselves should anything happen" means or entails anyway.
If we're talking independent, out of NATO and no deterrent/nuke cache, no longer integrated with UK infrastructure etc we become a far less strategically relevant/valuable target for any air strike.
A land incursion would pretty much unviable by any country, with the exception of England.
If we're in NATO, but dont have a domestically based deterrent/cache, we are still protected by the NATO accords.

All we need is a small defence force and probably the ability to nominally participate in any international joint-efforts.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

13 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

There's nothing to stop the adults seeking UK citizenship, but that's inconsequential with regard to the children, because they would still not be UK citizens. This is exactly why my German friends, both of whom had lived, worked, paid taxes, got married, and had children in the UK ended up going back to Germany. Under the terms of 'right to remain', because neither of them were UK citizens prior to the UK leaving the EU, their children are not considered UK citizens no matter what the adults do.

You might think it's of no consequence, but then my American sister-in-law also thought that living, being educated, working, paying tax, getting married to a Scot, having children in the UK, and having been resident for 10 years would mean that the UK government would be happy to leave her to continue. Nope, Home Office did their level best to deport her, totally ignoring the fact that she'd recently given birth to a UK citizen.

Would I stay in the UK and be perfectly comfortable with the fact my children were not regarded as UK citizens despite being born here? Not a fucking chance. Not with the Tories in control of the Home Office.

UK immigration policy is set up to favour the needs of the south east and not Scotland which needs immigration.

1 hour ago, BigDoddyKane said:

I think your right to some extent, some Yes voters are overly optimistic about how easy the negotiations are going to be. In a way it would be easier to have gone independent in 2014 when we were in the EU.  For me the Independence path has always made more sense to me for Scotland and in the long term will be more suited and more accountable for us. Thats why we should do it. In saying that some realistic debate and discussion now about how it will happen and whats required are needed, managing expectations is important especially in the short term after a Yes vote. Getting a Yes in an indy 2 is the easy bit, the hard work starts after that. Thats something we should all be aware of and also be invested in as a nation. Its something we will all do together whether we voted Yes of No.

You can look at it from a perspective of over optimistic or you can look at it from a perspective that the no side is pushing so hard on the negativity because they no that when it actually comes down to a negotiation table a) brexit has shown the UK government to be completely incompetent at negotiations and b) Scotland has the valuable resources and negotiates from a position of strength. 

[Dan Steele]

49 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

All I’m saying is that, at the moment, it hasn’t made any difference.

Do you want to qualify that with "hasn't made any difference to you " otherwise you're in danger of posting the most ridiculous statement ever concerning Brexit. Do you not see any connection at all between the events of the past few weeks and Brexit? 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

Do you want to qualify that with "hasn't made any difference to you " otherwise you're in danger of posting the most ridiculous statement ever concerning Brexit. Do you not see any connection at all between the events of the past few weeks and Brexit? 

Of course it has made a difference to him. He's talking absolute shite. Every single one of us, including himself, has been fucked over by the fact that he and his ilk crashed the pound that day and it has never recovered. Think about it, that's paying more to fill your car with petrol every single time you've done it in the last 6 years. But it hasn't affected him, no siree.

[SweeperDee]

Starting to think a written constitution wouldn’t be a bad idea after independence

“Voted in party spearheaded by a leader cannot perpetually reappoint a leader if said figurehead is horsehockey”.

[Aufc]

40 minutes ago, Richie said:

I'm not even sure what "Fend for ourselves should anything happen" means or entails anyway.
If we're talking independent, out of NATO and no deterrent/nuke cache, no longer integrated with UK infrastructure etc we become a far less strategically relevant/valuable target for any air strike.
A land incursion would pretty much unviable by any country, with the exception of England.
If we're in NATO, but dont have a domestically based deterrent/cache, we are still protected by the NATO accords.

All we need is a small defence force and probably the ability to nominally participate in any international joint-efforts.

Aye someone mentioned NATO which i had kinda forgotten about. So that makes sense. Still dont think the trident discussions will be as easy as saying "we dont want this in Scotland". 

 

[BigDoddyKane]

I d be interested to know what the high level plan is for after a Yes vote. Are decisions on currency, EU, Nato and some other fundamental topics for a New Scotland going to a referendum vote asap after a Yes vote, are they going to be decided by the first elected Scottish government who will campaign on their choice, whats been said by the SNP on that?

[Dawson Park Boy]

44 minutes ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

Do you want to qualify that with "hasn't made any difference to you " otherwise you're in danger of posting the most ridiculous statement ever concerning Brexit. Do you not see any connection at all between the events of the past few weeks and Brexit? 

My whole post was about my personal experience.

In all honesty, I don’t see Brexit as having much to do with the events of the past few weeks.

[Dawson Park Boy]

36 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Of course it has made a difference to him. He's talking absolute shite. Every single one of us, including himself, has been fucked over by the fact that he and his ilk crashed the pound that day and it has never recovered. Think about it, that's paying more to fill your car with petrol every single time you've done it in the last 6 years. But it hasn't affected him, no siree.

The pound and the euro are both quite low against the dollar due to the FED aggressively raging interest rates in the US.

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

15 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

I d be interested to know what the high level plan is for after a Yes vote. Are decisions on currency, EU, Nato and some other fundamental topics for a New Scotland going to a referendum vote asap after a Yes vote, are they going to be decided by the first elected Scottish government who will campaign on their choice, whats been said by the SNP on that?

EU membership or at the least common market are essential post indy, its for me one the basis of legitimacy to have a second ref based on the fact Scotland and its electorate overwhelmingly support EU membership. 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

4 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

The pound and the euro are both quite low against the dollar due to the FED aggressively raging interest rates in the US.

 

The Pound was 20% down on USD and EUR on the 24th June 2016 compared to the day before.