When will indyref2 happen?

[BigDoddyKane]

I am opinion that own currency is way forward and the EU thing should be not part of debate in terms of expecting the EU to come out with any statements that would clarify anything.

The preperation for indy2 should be on presenting a plan thats speaks to everyone for a Scotland thats stands on its own 2 feet for the next 10 years and more outside uk and eu.

If EU give the clarity then its an added bonus but just expecting it to happen or worse relying on it could be dangerous

[BigDoddyKane]

6 minutes ago, Pato said:

& to be honest for most people there's still food in the shops and money in the bank so it's pretty difficult for opponents of independence to weaponise these largely abstract big numbers denting GDP etc ('imagine how bad breaking up another union will be!' - actually not that big a deal tbh). I'm aware there is a real human cost to these things but the majority of people don't feel it so it's very far back in their minds.

Yeah thats true, I wonder why during last indy vote the currency question wasnt chosen. I kinda assumed it might have been because they polled the numbers and none of the 3 options at the time were that popular so they decided to just kick the can down the road on that topic.

This time in my opinion its choose an option keep it simple and layout the plan

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, BigDoddyKane said:

Do you think the EU will come out with a statement before any Indy2 to confirm that or will they avoid getting involved till after any indy2 

Sadly not, the member states are pretty big on the principle that you don't get involved in the internal politics of other countries, because you don't want them involved in yours. On top of that they would be worried about harming their relationship with the UK.

 We've already seen hundreds of non-government politicians, academics, lawyers etc from around Europe showing their support and I think that would grow, and we might get some nudges and winks from the likes of Ireland, but I doubt we'd ever get the official statements that would make the difference.

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Glen Sannox said:

The usual sneering nonsense with a Daily Mail reference thrown in. All that’s missing is some of that hilarious gammon patter.

You're not refuting anything I'm saying though.

There's a classic example of what I'm talking about today. The Scottish justice minister has been trying to speak to any one of the eight ministers at the UK Home Office as a matter of urgency. Nobody will return his call. Is that a partnership of equals? Is that the kind of political union you want to live in? I absolutely guarantee you that if a Scottish minister needed to speak to someone at the EU urgently, they'd get the relevant Commissioner immediately and they'd be taken seriously - because the European Commission sits in the middle between all the member states and works for them all. On the other side, the UK government is our ultimate ruler, they know it and they have no problem acting like it.

[strichener]

10 hours ago, sophia said:

Sweden had a referendum in November 1994 and joined in January 1995.

I suggest their timeline will be comfortably bettered.

Sweden applied to the EU in 1991 and took 3 1/2 years to be accepted.  The current quickest accesion is Finland at 2 years and 9 months.  Both of these were already independent countries with all the aparatus of a sovereign state at the time they made their application.  How long will it take Scotland to be in a similar position?

  

3 hours ago, BigDoddyKane said:

what would be the reasons the EU wouldnt come out with a clear statement that Scotland could rejoin the EU zone quickly? 

 

If it did come out with a statement that Scotland could rejoin automatically after a referendum on joining could we skip creating our own currency and just go straight to the Euro, if the timescale is short enough.?

The EU can't make those promises, Scotland will only be able to join through an accession treaty that will have to be ratified by each EU member.  It isn't within the power of the EU to guarantee that Scotland could join the EU quickly.

Edited May 13, 2021 by strichener

[Bairnardo]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

Sweden applied to the EU in 1991 and took 3 1/2 years to be accepted.  This is currently the quickest accesion is Finland at 2 years and 9 months.  Both of these were already independent countries with all the aparatus of a sovereign state at the time they made their application.  How long will it take Scotland to be in a similar position?

 

This is a fair point. But could we expect a  slightly quicker halt to, for example... people being ripped from their homes in Scotland whilst people in charge of the Home Office refuse to take the calls of our elected representatives?

[jakedee]

Here's the argument from the other side, and it's very persuasive to a lot of No voters:
They simply list all the Scots who have been Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State, Chancellors and held other senior and junior ministerial positions within government. It's a very long and impressive list going back centuries. They'll then talk about how Holyrood has control over income tax, health, education, our legal system, big bits of welfare and a ream of other things and portray Westminster as being there for things where it is beneficial to everyone to work together such as defence, foreign affairs etc. It all sounds eminently reasonable and it's very difficult to break down why that isn't enough in a way which makes sense to the layperson.
What is required here are compelling stories about where the UK is failing us. Give specific examples of situations where the UK has failed people - such as Universal Credit etc.

It is now an impossibility for an MP from a non English constituency to be the Prime Minister.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

35 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Here's the argument from the other side, and it's very persuasive to a lot of No voters:

They simply list all the Scots who have been Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State, Chancellors and held other senior and junior ministerial positions within government. It's a very long and impressive list going back centuries. They'll then talk about how Holyrood has control over income tax, health, education, our legal system, big bits of welfare and a ream of other things and portray Westminster as being there for things where it is beneficial to everyone to work together such as defence, foreign affairs etc. It all sounds eminently reasonable and it's very difficult to break down why that isn't enough in a way which makes sense to the layperson.

What is required here are compelling stories about where the UK is failing us. Give specific examples of situations where the UK has failed people - such as Universal Credit etc.

It's simpler than that.  English Nationalism is now fuelling independent Scottish thinking, and fewer and fewer Scots wish to remain shackled to country which spends far too much time looking backwards, which has become utterly wedded to British/English exceptionalism and muscular militarism, which stubbornly chooses an absolute Ruritanian monarchy over a constitution fit for a modern state, and above all simply cannot accept it's status as a middle-raking nation in the post-Empire world.  Perceptive folk here really don't care a f**k about Andrew Bonar Law or Gordon Brown.  Especially Gordon Brown.

[HalfCutNinja]

24 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Which law prevents that?

EVEL

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

You're not refuting anything I'm saying though.

There's a classic example of what I'm talking about today. The Scottish justice minister has been trying to speak to any one of the eight ministers at the UK Home Office as a matter of urgency. Nobody will return his call. Is that a partnership of equals? Is that the kind of political union you want to live in? I absolutely guarantee you that if a Scottish minister needed to speak to someone at the EU urgently, they'd get the relevant Commissioner immediately and they'd be taken seriously - because the European Commission sits in the middle between all the member states and works for them all. On the other side, the UK government is our ultimate ruler, they know it and they have no problem acting like it.

You don’t know the full story.

If they were illegals, then the law must prevail otherwise you’ve got anarchy.

Id like to know more about this story.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

You don’t know the full story.
If they were illegals, then the law must prevail otherwise you’ve got anarchy.
Id like to know more about this story.

I’d also like to know more about this story.

But more importantly

I’d like the Scottish Justice minister to know more about this story

[GordonS]

[SANTAN]

1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

You don’t know the full story.

If they were illegals, then the law must prevail otherwise you’ve got anarchy.

Id like to know more about this story.

I like some of your posts but must say I hate terms like "illegals" when describing people. 

[oneteaminglasgow]

1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

otherwise you’ve got anarchy

Sounds fucking brilliant, to be honest with you. 

[sophia]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

Sweden applied to the EU in 1991 and took 3 1/2 years to be accepted.  The current quickest accesion is Finland at 2 years and 9 months.  Both of these were already independent countries with all the aparatus of a sovereign state at the time they made their application.  How long will it take Scotland to be in a similar position?

 

So there we have it, Sweden and Finland, with the aftermath of the cold war taken into account, only took several years to join.

I see no "apparatus" impediment that would see our accession taking longer.

 

[Glen Sannox]

1 hour ago, Stormzy said:

I like some of your posts but must say I hate terms like "illegals" when describing people. 

I’m not keen on that word either,  but these enforcement officers were only trying to do their job. Off the back of this, the SNP announced that they were eager to help the people that were being held, as opposed to the people that were trying to do their job. That tells you all you need to know.

[Moomintroll]

I am not fussed about Independence either way, but it tells me that the Party with most seats in the Parliament would like a say in who is allowed to be in their country. I would say that this is a good thing personally.

[SANTAN]

12 minutes ago, Glen Sannox said:

I’m not keen on that word either,  but these enforcement officers were only trying to do their job. Off the back of this, the SNP announced that they were eager to help the people that were being held, as opposed to the people that were trying to do their job. That tells you all you need to know.

And you can make that point without dehumanising language as you have done. It's something I see on a daily basis here mainly towards Conservative voters but I at least try and be consistent with criticism of it. 

[jakedee]

And that legislation contains a line which states that only an English-based MP can become Prime Minister?
I know the name and I know what it was designed for but I'm not aware of details like that.

It does not state that a non English constituency MP could become PM. But. A PM unable to vote on all Westminster business would not happen.

[madwullie]

27 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

And that legislation contains a line which states that only an English-based MP can become Prime Minister?

I know the name and I know what it was designed for but I'm not aware of details like that.

An MP of a Scottish constituency could not vote on laws that only apply to England, meaning that a fair bit of parliamentary business would be closed to a Scottish MP. 

I'm not entirely sure that they explicitly *can't* be PM, but it would be such a hamstringing as to make it extremely unlikely to happen. 

The same,goes for minister of health and various other high ranking government positions. 

Are they even allowed to debate this stuff? I don't think so

Edited May 13, 2021 by madwullie