Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[williemillersmoustache]

22 minutes ago, sophia said:

Can't be a memory NATO?

We'd be at the back of the queue. Clearly. Because that's how NATO works. 

Also you can't have Vanguard at either Devonport or Portsmouth, too close to a large civilian population* and there are operational issue about having the CASD sortieing into the busiest shipping lane in the world. 

*obviously next to the jocks and their national park is fine. 

[williemillersmoustache]

Some questions, without the use of a nail gun, a lump hammer and a room ominously lined with bin bags and duct tape, how do I get folk to understand that accession to the European Union is not a queue based system and that the conditions for the ERM2 mechanism are different to those for EU membership?

Edited October 12, 2022 by williemillersmoustache

[renton]

31 minutes ago, Jedi said:

stuff

 

So at least in part, previous papers have posited a transition period of up to 5 years. If Independence is a process, not an event then the plan from the last set of papers (and I believe another is due soon) would be to keep Sterling in the short term while building up a viable central bank apparatus during that time. I would expect that with monetary policy tied to England during that time and with the all powerful market's poised to crush Scotland at the first sign of deviation that a lot of other policies would end up in a very centrist, small c conservative feel - rather than the large scale innovation and revolution in public policy many (myslef included) might like. That feels like something of a necessary pain.

On the EU, there is no 'queue'. There is the confluence of economic and political factors that make a country acceptable. The 3% debt criteria you are talking about is, I assume related to the Euro convergance criteria. Well, while all nations who join the EU must oblige themselves to the journey of joining the Euro, it doesn't mean they have to finish that journey. Even in happier times, Brown and Blair both commited the UK to eventually reaching the convergence criteria to join the Euro while never bothering to try. Same with Denmark. SO Scotland could happily build its own currency up while definitely agreeing to join the Euro while never actually getting round to it. Meanwhile, politically there would be a lot to gain out of 'salvaging' something out of Brexit which I imagine would attract strong backing in existing EU states (the French in particular would love it). Most of our institutions are still compliant with EU standards. Having said that EFTA might still be a shorter route into that free market, albeit without power inside the EU to change anything. So, personally I'd back EU entry but in a two stage process with joining EFTA first.

For defence, I don't see removing the Trident base as contradictory with the alliance's polcies on nuclear basing. There is a political difference between permanent and temporary basing, and a lot of objections from the US (the only other alliance member who needs to care about that) could be parsed by the idea that temporary basing in times of strife or exercise would be permissable. That's a long way away from housing a strategic asset like Trident permanently and near a large population base. Add in also that within a North Atlantic alliance (and allowing for how broken Russia is likely to be for a generation) that Scotland is geographically too important to remain outside. The GIUK gap is in reality the Greenland-Iceland-Scotland gap. NATO allows for countries to build mutual defences and to train forces to a higher standard.

Having said that, I could see some kind of lease plan being put forward as a way of allowing the UK to maintain Trident in the short term without the vast expense of moving the entire logistics and basing of the thing elsewhere in exchange for a better deal on levels of liabilities we take on.

For oil, I can't see much changing in the short term. There won't be an oil fund now. There is no doubt that hydrocarbon extraction will continue to be an important asset in terms of revenue. Even as we attempt to stop using hydrocarbons for fuel, no one has found a decent substitute for all the plastic we need. Again though, Renewables, green fuel production should be the centre piece of our future economy and energy security, alongside other future industries.

[TheScarf]

Ah the good old 'EU queue' stuff again.  How many times does it have to be explained to folk on here?

[BFTD]

47 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Ah the good old 'EU queue' stuff again.  How many times does it have to be explained to folk on here?

Never mind that, whit aboot ma penshun?

[Detournement]

16 hours ago, renton said:

That they would claim a mandate to seek negotiation with the incoming UK government regarding making Scotland an independent state.

Which is pretty much exactly the same thing as you'd get from an IndyRef. 

No one is talking about storming Pacific Quay and proclaiming a new Republic  during the weather segment.

So they would just ask Truss or Starmer if we are allowed to be independent?

Sturgeon is even more of a charlatan than I thought.

[renton]

Just now, Detournement said:

So they would just ask Truss or Starmer if we are allowed to be independent?

Sturgeon is even more of a charlatan than I thought.

Yes, that would be the outcome of an Independence referendum as well.

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, renton said:

Yes, that would be the outcome of an Independence referendum as well.

You think that Independence could win a referendum and the SNP would settle for remaining in the Union?

I had never considered that as a possibility but it sounds about right. 

[renton]

2 minutes ago, Detournement said:

You think that Independence could win a referendum and the SNP would settle for remaining in the Union?

I had never considered that as a possibility but it sounds about right. 

What I'm saying is that the best you can do, by some means or another, is to demonstrate a majority appetite for independence and hope that the UK government concedes the fact. There is no actual hard, legal mechanism that could be used to compel the UK government to accede to that result. Everything relies on the UK government having the good will to realise the gig is up.

Even in '14, while Cameron agreed in the Edinburgh agreement to 'accept' the result he could quite easily have done what he did two years later: Quit and make way for some other leader who could take a hardline on not accepting a majority Yes for whatever spurious reason, or by attempting to drag it out for years into the long grass.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

So they would just ask Truss or Starmer if we are allowed to be independent?
Sturgeon is even more of a charlatan than I thought.

In what way?

Declaring UDI rarely works out - the route she has chosen is about the only viable one available. Even her political adversaries like Cherry agree.

The issue here is that there may be no legitimate way to exit the UK even if 100% were in favour. Exposing that democratic deficit is one of the few options on the table without resorting to violent means. The other would be to have a strategy of complete non-cooperation with the UK government - make the administration of Scotland difficult or nigh on impossible.

[Guest Jedi]

Of course the Supreme Court may yet decide to rule in favour of a Referendum next year.

What is the target for Plan B though? 

Over 50% of the vote, (with 'peak' SNP having achieved 49% in 2015), or a 'majority' of seats, (not matter the % of SNP vote which achieves that)? You could ostensibly have a 40% SNP leading to a majority of seats and 60% voting for parties who wish to stay in the Union...but yet that 'triggers' negotiations on NS's part.

We know the Tories if they win the next GE will continue to say No, under pretty much any circumstances. Labour is still unknown...(ruling out a coalition govt with the SNP is not the same as saying No to negotiations in the event of a 50 odd % SNP win).

In either case, Westminster can still dismiss it as 'it was a General Election, not a Referendum'.

As said, I assume Plan C then moves to the next Holyrood Election, and asks for a Ref again based on a majority of seats there. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Jedi

[williemillersmoustache]

10 minutes ago, Jedi said:

Of course the Supreme Court may yet decide to rule in favour of a Referendum next year.

What is the target for Plan B though? 

Over 50% of the vote, (with 'peak' SNP having achieved 49% in 2015), or a 'majority' of seats, (not matter the % of SNP vote which achieves that)? You could ostensibly have a 40% SNP leading to a majority of seats and 60% voting for parties who wish to stay in the Union...but yet that 'triggers' negotiations on NS's part.

We know the Tories if they win the next GE will continue to say No, under pretty much any circumstances. Labour is still unknown...(ruling out a coalition govt with the SNP is not the same as saying No to negotiations in the event of a 50 odd % SNP win).

In either case, Westminster can still dismiss it as 'it was a General Election, not a Referendum'.

As said, I assume Plan C then moves to the next Holyrood Election, and asks for a Ref again based on a majority of seats there. 

Can I just politely check, now that you've moved on to a whole new raft of overly verbose and error strewn questions, are you are now satisfied that:

A) Being a non nuclear armed state doesn't preclude you from NATO

B) There is no queuing system to join the EU but a process

C) An iScotland would easily complete this process

D) That using the rUK £ for the interim period between seccession and establishment of the Smackerooni won't make the sky fall on our heads or result in us being devoured by giant bees.

Thanks awfully. 

Anytime you want to talk about  Labour and immigration too but, first things first. 

 

[sophia]

23 minutes ago, Jedi said:

I'm just going to ignore the answers to my genuine questions

I'm paraphrasing you but I have to say that you are way into the troll territory 

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

In what way?

Declaring UDI rarely works out - the route she has chosen is about the only viable one available. Even her political adversaries like Cherry agree.

 

Apart from all the countries who declared UDI and are still independent today. Ireland, Norway, Finland, Belgium, the USA, Mexico, Algeria etc 

If Sturgeon and her ministers aren't prepared to take action which will break the law it's all hot air (spoiler: it's hot air).

 

 

[J_Stewart]

42 minutes ago, Jedi said:

Of course the Supreme Court may yet decide to rule in favour of a Referendum next year.

What is the target for Plan B though? 

Over 50% of the vote, (with 'peak' SNP having achieved 49% in 2015), or a 'majority' of seats, (not matter the % of SNP vote which achieves that)? You could ostensibly have a 40% SNP leading to a majority of seats and 60% voting for parties who wish to stay in the Union...but yet that 'triggers' negotiations on NS's part.

We know the Tories if they win the next GE will continue to say No, under pretty much any circumstances. Labour is still unknown...(ruling out a coalition govt with the SNP is not the same as saying No to negotiations in the event of a 50 odd % SNP win).

In either case, Westminster can still dismiss it as 'it was a General Election, not a Referendum'.

As said, I assume Plan C then moves to the next Holyrood Election, and asks for a Ref again based on a majority of seats there. 

The part in bold, I noticed you try this "coalition government" softening of Starmer's stance a lot recently, and it's simply not true. Starmer has said, unequivocally, that he won't work with the SNP, there'll be no coalition, no cooperation agreement, not even the odd quid pro quo. His exact words two weeks ago were: "we can't work with them, we won't work with them, no deal under any circumstances".

If you do want to discuss Labour positions in good faith, then that's great, but consistently qualifying what he's said as "we won't form government with them" rather than the reality which is a blanket "we'll ignore them and if we can't form a government then we'll blame them" is a complete misrepresentation of what he's said and what the Labour position is.

[Guest Jedi]

So any questions posed about Independence are automatically trolling, as I toil behind @williemillersmoustache who of course, has a brain roughly the size of Canada.

And presumably anyone, in any audience whether on TV, or in a hall situated in Scotland, during a Referendum campaign is also trolling (as well as being thick) unless they are lined up to say 'Im voting Yes'.

With the country pretty much divided down the middle on the question of Independence, and that, being unlikely to change any time soon, it seems clear that any Referendum would result in a very narrow win for either side, and it is far from certain which that side would be at present. 

Is it therefore the best strategy to simply lob abuse at anyone asking questions during the course of a campaign, or to try and answer them?

[Detournement]

4 hours ago, renton said:

So at least in part, previous papers have posited a transition period of up to 5 years. If Independence is a process, not an event then the plan from the last set of papers (and I believe another is due soon) would be to keep Sterling in the short term while building up a viable central bank apparatus during that time. I would expect that with monetary policy tied to England during that time and with the all powerful market's poised to crush Scotland at the first sign of deviation that a lot of other policies would end up in a very centrist, small c conservative feel - rather than the large scale innovation and revolution in public policy many (myslef included) might like. That feels like something of a necessary pain.

 

It's funny how it always ends up like that!

Andrew Wilson's Growth Plan is no less idiotic than Liz Truss's. 5 years of Sterlingisation would destroy the Scottish economy to the extent that launching an independent currency would be impossible under the fair conditions of the 2010s. In the 2020s it would be utterly insane to do it during a global economic crisis and major political instability in England. 

The SNP don't have any serious proposals about the economic aspect of independence because they have no intention of achieving independence. Sturgeon's project is Quebecisation and she will be well rewarded for it when she steps down. 

 

[williemillersmoustache]

[Antlion]

10 minutes ago, Jedi said:

So any questions posed about Independence are automatically trolling, as I toil behind @williemillersmoustache who of course, has a brain roughly the size of Canada.

And presumably anyone, in any audience whether on TV, or in a hall situated in Scotland, during a Referendum campaign is also trolling (as well as being thick) unless they are lined up to say 'Im voting Yes'.

With the country pretty much divided down the middle on the question of Independence, and that, being unlikely to change any time soon, it seems clear that any Referendum would result in a very narrow win for either side, and it is far from certain which that side would be at present. 

Is it therefore the best strategy to simply lob abuse at anyone asking questions during the course of a campaign, or to try and answer them?

It’s odd how you don’t seem to have any questions at all about what exactly dependence means. But as we’re just asking questions in the course of a campaign, allow me to return the favour.

When will the UK be rejoining the EU (as you claimed Labour might commit to doing, despite their commitment to not doing so)? Will it be at the front or the back of the “queue”?

What will the UK do to human rights in the future?

What will the UK’s future data protection laws look like?

How much will the pound be worth in a year? Two? Five?

Which future decisions will the Bank of England make and how exactly will they affect a dependent Scotland?

Which future wars will the UK be involved in, please?

What will the UK’s immigration policy be and how will it cater to Scotland’s needs?

If these can’t be answered, naturally no one could vote in good faith for dependence.

[Detournement]

2 hours ago, BFTD said:

Never mind that, whit aboot ma penshun?

How dare people ask how the Scottish government would pay for a state pension in a foreign currency? Are they that attached to eating and heating?