Freedom 2.0? - Sturgeon announces second Independence Referendum bill consultation

Nemesiscorporation

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
13,878


Alphonse

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
986
Last edited:

midlander12

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
6,453
If Scotland does have a referendum on independence / remaining in the EU, then in effect would that not be a referendum on this "reverse Greenland" idea. i.e. Part of a member state leaving, but part remaining.

But NI also voted to remain. So by the same logic, should there not also be a referendum in the North, not on a United Ireland, but on the option of remaining in the EU with Scotland?

As unionist cultural affinities are to Scotland rather than England, that vote would be interesting (though would probably not pass). If it did pass it would solve this islands hard border problem, but might move it to Berwick
I agree - referendums in both, and if the pro-EU side loses (as I suspect they will in both) then they just have to accept the overall UK decision on Brexit.

I suspect if May offered referendums in the morning, both SF and the SNP would not be half as enthusiastic about the idea as their current public postures suggest. There would be sheepish mutterings about the need for a lengthy debate, process of persuasion etc.
 

Adam Battersby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2016
Messages
997
Freedom 2.0?
The SNP don't want freedom for Scotland. They just want to swap rule from London for rule from Brussels.

In fact, the daft SNP want to take Scotland out of a Union and put it back into a Union which is only a quarter as important for Scottish trade as the one it would be leaving.

Just 17 per cent of Scottish exports go to the EU, whereas 66 per cent of them go to the UK.

The Nationalists complain about oppression and neglect from England, yet they want to put Scotland under the yoke of an unelected, unaccountable regime in Brussels.

Bonkers or what?
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
92,259
When they voted to stay in the UK they accepted the principal that the UK as a whole would decide on the EU issue. The
constituent countries don't have a veto.
You can't infer anything from the vote except that a majority of voters didn't want to leave at that point in time.

Brexit marks a significant enough change to justify asking them to vote again. Hopefully this time they will choose to leave.
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
92,259
The SNP don't want freedom for Scotland. They just want to swap rule from London for rule from Brussels.

In fact, the daft SNP want to take Scotland out of a Union and put it back into a Union which is only a quarter as important for Scottish trade as the one it would be leaving.

Just 17 per cent of Scottish exports go to the EU, whereas 66 per cent of them go to the UK.

The Nationalists complain about oppression and neglect from England, yet they want to put Scotland under the yoke of an unelected, unaccountable regime in Brussels.

Bonkers or what?
It's almost as though they don't regard the two regimes as having equal status with regard to their ability to infringe upon Scotlands's autonomy...
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
Freedom 2.0 eh?

So was the first referendum Freedom 1.0?

Does that mean if a majority in a free and fair democratic vote voted to decide to stay in a union then the people who freely made that decision are not in fact "free"?

What is it with people who cannot accept that if the majority WANT their country to be part of a wider union then their country is be definition free?

So many seem quite happy with EU membership but not UK membership.
blokesbloke the stakes are COMPLETELY different in 2016 compared to 2014. Britain is moving towards isolationist policies, and has exited the EU, nobody could've guessed that in 2014. And nobody could have guessed that the UK government would retract it's referendum promises to Scotland the day after the referendum. These circumstances warrant a second ref. It's not like Ireland's Lisbon 2.0 ref, in which time the only thing that had changed was that the then French president made some anti-Irish comments.
 

Cai

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
8,253
The SNP don't want freedom for Scotland. They just want to swap rule from London for rule from Brussels.

In fact, the daft SNP want to take Scotland out of a Union and put it back into a Union which is only a quarter as important for Scottish trade as the one it would be leaving.

Just 17 per cent of Scottish exports go to the EU, whereas 66 per cent of them go to the UK.

The Nationalists complain about oppression and neglect from England, yet they want to put Scotland under the yoke of an unelected, unaccountable regime in Brussels.

Bonkers or what?
You seem confused.

The powers reserved by Westminster and not devolved to Scotland are far, far greater than the powers seceded to the EU by the UK government.

In addition to that, any member country can trigger Article 50 & withdraw from the EU - regardless of the EU's views on that. The ability to withdraw at will from the EU demonstrates that soverignty ultimatel lies in Westminster. The same cannot be said of Scotland under present arrangements. A binding referendum can only be called with Westminster's permission.
 

Cai

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
8,253
You can't infer anything from the vote except that a majority of voters didn't want to leave at that point in time.

Brexit marks a significant enough change to justify asking them to vote again. Hopefully this time they will choose to leave.
In addition to that it was made clear by the SNP in the lead up to this year's Holyrood elections that a significant & material change could trigger a referendum. They were elected on that basis. It's called democracy.
 

Jacobite

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
1,079
It seems pretty obvious that Nicola Sturgeon is playing a difficult hand here but she is doing quite well. On the one part she cant ignore that Yes lost the 'once in a lifetime' 2014 referendum, but at the same time Scotland being removed from the EU against its clear democratic will, also cannot be ignored.

The publishing of a draft referendum bill is mainly designed to buy the SNP more time. It will for now placate the 'Indyref 2' section of the SNP who are itching to get out for another go at an independence referendum. The other aim is to pressurise the Tory government into allowing Scotland into having some say into how the UK exits the EU. If the Tories don't allow for some special arrangement for the Scots then Sturgeon has the perfect excuse to call Indyref 2. She can quite rightly say look we didn't call another Indyref straight away because the people made their call in 2014 however as we are now being put out of the EU against our will then the only democratic way to resolve the matter is to hold another Indyref vote and to let the people decide what they want.

It gives the SNP time to see how the Brexit deal is going to pan out. If it starts looking bad for the UK then there is the potential for a rise of support for independence. It also allows the Scottish government time to redraft another independence white paper to sort out the weaknesses of the last occasion - i.e. the currency question and now also possibly the reduced price of oil.

In the interim you can also bet that the SNP are working behind the scenes in Europe to see if they can get a guarantee of automatic entry as the successor state to the UK should they become independent.

As always, interesting times.
 

Roberto Jordan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
2,059
The Scottish experience of the UK is completely different to the Irish, they believed themselves to be part of a union which benefited them and they took full part in ruling the British empire. They looked at their current situation and voted according to what they saw as their interests, I doubt they'll change their minds just so that they can apply to join the EU.
I agree but disagree in that the ultimate nub of the relationship is that the Lairds who lorded/ lord over the common scot didnt seek to differentiate themselves in nationality from the crofter and were also , generally, of the same religion.
Therefore it was easy for the ordinary porridge eating scot to "drink the kool aid" and wave a little union jack as his sons marched off to war.

On the other hand there was a clear religious and , in many cases, relatively recent difference in heritage between the rulers and ruled. For many this was/ s not an issue but at all times in history the majority saw the rulers & the state as "the other".

Let others decide who was right. "maturity" would say the scots but my counter point is that over 50% of scotland is owned by less than 500 people.....
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
26,779
I agree but disagree in that the ultimate nub of the relationship is that the Lairds who lorded/ lord over the common scot didnt seek to differentiate themselves in nationality from the crofter and were also , generally, of the same religion.
Therefore it was easy for the ordinary porridge eating scot to "drink the kool aid" and wave a little union jack as his sons marched off to war.

On the other hand there was a clear religious and , in many cases, relatively recent difference in heritage between the rulers and ruled. For many this was/ s not an issue but at all times in history the majority saw the rulers & the state as "the other".

Let others decide who was right. "maturity" would say the scots but my counter point is that over 50% of scotland is owned by less than 500 people.....
Isn't that the case in every country?
 


New Threads

Top Bottom