"Independent" Scotland joke!

by BoogerMan 55 Replies latest social current

• 

  Journeyman

  I see the SNP's wunderkind Mhairi Black is abandoning the sinking ship too now.

  She claims it's because of the "toxic environment" of politics at Westminster, but it's just as likely that after the departure of the old guard of the SNP (Sturgeon, Blackford, etc) she sees the writing on the wall and doesn't want to stick around to face the music from the electorate.

  To be honest, if I were in her shoes I wouldn't want to stay with Yousaf in charge. I find him a pretty uninspiring party leader (along with all the rest too, these days!)

  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/04/mhairi-black-snp-mp-to-step-down-next-general-election
  
• 

  Anony Mous

  @Journeyman, per your previous question, the raw question of whether to stay or leave is pretty dumb. Most surveys don’t frame it under any conditions, arrangements or plans. It’s like the million dollar question I demonstrated, it depends on what you mean by that.

  Is it remaining within an economic union with the UK, is it with the goal of rejoining the EU as SNP proposes, those are very big differences and people that truly want to be independent mag still agree with an economic union.

  The UK had a plan when it left the EU, people voted accordingly, the plan didn’t go perfect but went better than what remainers had hoped and is paying dividends already (imagine a COVID disaster or the current financial recession in the EU where the UK continued to pay for the entire EU, or the current unrest in France due to ongoing forced immigration happening in London).

  SNP is talking about a split with the UK only to join the EU, that isn’t the independence the Scottish people want, hence currently people don’t want to split from UK by like 60/40 to 70/30. Give people a pathway to freedom (as I said before, split from the UK, lower taxes and abolish government disasters like the NHS) and people would happily vote for it I think.
• 

  Simon

  If the Scotts don't like the power and control that the UK parliament, based in London, has, wait till they find out just how little the EU parliament cares about their little kingdom.

  They'll be earmarked as the dumping ground for the next batch of violent scrounging "refugees".
• 

  SydBarrett

  Anyone from the UK care to explain what the scottish independent people are upset about and how they feel separating will improve their life?
  
  I know how one has to be careful of slippery slope arguments, but i'm gonna make one, or ask one anyways.
  
  Lets say that in the US Civil War, the south won and successfully became an independent nation with a capital in Richmond. Then 30 years later, Georgia felt they were getting a bad deal and themselves left and became a former state, now a small nation.
  
  Then 30 years later, the people of Savannah get upset at how the government at the capital in Atlanta is running things, so they leave and now there is east and west georgia. Then the people in college park in Atlanta get upset at the Mayor for seemingly favoring Buckhead and the city of Atlanta is split in 2. Then the people on the North end of Buckhead feel like they are being shafted by the South end. Then a few years later, the people on arden road feel they need to be a separate nation from those snobs over on dover road.
  
  Then the Johnsons at 11 dover road get all upset at how the Clarks across the street at 14 are doing things...
• 

  Journeyman

  I know how one has to be careful of slippery slope arguments, but i'm gonna make one

  That's my concern about the obsession with devolution too.

  Here in the UK, for example, we've already had hints in that direction with some in Cornwall, London and even Yorkshire suggesting that their respective regions could or should become 'independent' of the UK in some form or other. I think it's madness.

  Cornish nationalism (Mebyon Kernow) does at least have some basis in ancient cultural and territorial differences, but in general I still think these secessionist movements are unhelpful at best.
• 

  SydBarrett

  "That's my concern about the obsession with devolution too."
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Anyone from the UK care to explain what the scottish independent people are upset about and how they feel separating will improve their life? - it's mostly ancient grievances and rivalries against the English.

  A lot of it is just banter, but there is anti-English bigotry as well, all whipped up by the SNP.

  Strange thing is, thanks to The Barnet Formula, more money per capita is spent on Scottish people than people south of the border. Scots also get 'free' uni education (paid for by English taxpayers), and free eye tests (again, paid for by ...). They may also get free dentist stuff, although I'm not sure about this. But, anyway, what this means is that the English taxpayer pretty much does everything for Scots except wipe their backsides. And some still hate us. There's just no fixing stupid, is there.

  The Scots already had a referendum on UK membership in 2014. The then-SNP leader, Alex Salmond, called it a once-in-a-generation event, probably in the hopes that it would help his cause. It didn't - the unionists won.

  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  The then-SNP leader, Alex Salmond, called it a once-in-a-generation event, probably in the hopes that it would help his cause.

  No he didn’t. Have you got a source for that? I’ll give you a clue, it was someone else who said it, not Alex Salmond. Besides no one politician can bind the hands of Scottish democracy for decades, democracy doesn’t work like that. If Scotland wants to vote again that’s the choice of the people to make.

  Anyone from the UK care to explain what the scottish independent people are upset about and how they feel separating will improve their life?

  We might feel a bit aggrieved that Westminster plundered trillions of pounds from North Sea oil and gas that could have benefitted the people of Scotland and wasted it instead on Thatcherite privatisation and essentially giving money away to the rich. By contrast Norway saved their revenue from North Sea oil and gas and now have trillions of pounds in savings. In order to accomplish this Westminster governments deliberately lied about North Sea oil for years and have disguised the amount of wealth that was wasted. Thatcherism was basically paid for by North Sea revenue, otherwise it simply could not have been afforded. Labour paved the way by purpose lying to Scotland about the extent of the wealth in the 1970s. Read some of the story here:

  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2013/may/29/scottish-independence-oil-healey

  But independence is about taking responsibility for our own future and having good relations with England. Our complaint is against Westminster governments that have not served Scotland well, not with the English people.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  No he didn’t - ok. But the IndyRef was framed as a once-in-a-generation event. That was the point I was making.

  no one politician can bind the hands of Scottish democracy for decades - is that how you view the referendum result?

  If Scotland were to have a second IndyRef, and the result was the same as the first one, would you accept that result, or would you press for a third referendum?
  
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  If Scotland were to have a second IndyRef, and the result was the same as the first one, would you accept that result, or would you press for a third referendum?

  Scotland should be able to have another referendum if it chooses, in principle, now or any time in the future. In reality a second referendum might be the last. That’s a recognition of the political reality, not some sort of promise. It’s a basic democratic principle that current voters can’t tie the hands of future voters, or prevent them from changing their mind on any issue.

  But I don’t think many people appreciate what a high bar has been reached to get a referendum the first time and to get another one, if it happens. Basically it requires the majority in a parliament that was specifically designed not to produce a majority. The SNP defied the odds and got an overall majority in 2011 because their support was so high at the time. It had never happened before and it wasn’t expected to happen. That’s why we got the first referendum in the first place, it wasn’t some sort of gift from David Cameron, it was a recognition of the overwhelming democratic case for one.

  Getting a majority in the Scottish parliament is very difficult to achieve because it is a proportional system. So if a majority in the parliament supports a second referendum then that is because the electorate has voted for parties on that basis in huge numbers (far higher percentages than elects the typical UK government for example) and that democratic vote should be respected. The idea that Scotland can keep voting for another referendum and Westminster keep saying you can’t have another one is likely to create significant ill feeling the longer it goes on. It’s a huge sign of weakness too that Westminster feels it would lose a referendum at this point and needs to resort to holding Scotland against its will. Surely nobody thinks that’s a good idea.

  But then you get people saying “you can’t have referendums all the time”. Well I would agree that would be impractical. But a second referendum after 10 years is hardly “all the time”, even by LE’s definition of “regular basis”. Secondly, there have been huge breaches in the promises of the No campaign made during the first referendum, such as staying in the EU as part of the UK, and not meddling in devolved governance.

  Quebec had two referendums and are done for the time being. The political reality is that a second referendum in Scotland would likely be conclusive for an even longer period of time, not because of some preset rule, but just because of the political reality of the situation.