ChatterBank0 min ago
Why Doesn't Jimmyk Accept The Will Of Her People?
53 Answers
http://
Will enough people have changed their minds since 2014? Even if they have it's not independence they are after anyway, more like subjugation in the EU.
Will enough people have changed their minds since 2014? Even if they have it's not independence they are after anyway, more like subjugation in the EU.
Answers
quiz..we have a lot of say via Holyrood already..but we RELY on the Bank of England and its reserves..we have NO central bank..NO reserves..NO manufacturin
07:47 Sun 04th Sep 2016
Call me a cynic but I think her thinking is thus:
Independence will leave Scotland relatively impoverished. An independent Scotland would be a net beneficiary of the EU, unlike the UK. It would be in the interests of the EU to grant Scotland membership as it would then create a pincer movement with Eire and Scotland against England, Wales and NI.
Independence will leave Scotland relatively impoverished. An independent Scotland would be a net beneficiary of the EU, unlike the UK. It would be in the interests of the EU to grant Scotland membership as it would then create a pincer movement with Eire and Scotland against England, Wales and NI.
it's difficult to understand the basis on which a scottish state would today finance its currency - the country has no gold reserves and although negotiation with the rump UK might realise some, that's by no means certain.
a currency backed by oil? unlikely with the oil industry squarely sat on its bottom, and no medium term likelihood of change as the US and Russia attempt to starve each other out.
they could of course just elect to adopt the Euro (Scotland's independant membership of the EU would require its use), but that would leave the Scots no say or influence on the currency's exchange mechanism.
a currency backed by oil? unlikely with the oil industry squarely sat on its bottom, and no medium term likelihood of change as the US and Russia attempt to starve each other out.
they could of course just elect to adopt the Euro (Scotland's independant membership of the EU would require its use), but that would leave the Scots no say or influence on the currency's exchange mechanism.
QM: "TTT, you seem to believe that the will of a people is fixed and permanent." - not at all but less than 2 years ago they voted to stay in the UK. I think the view of the public does change as the EU referendum recently demonstrated but I tend to think it's a generational thing so I'd not expect repeat votes on the same subject within 25 years. How frequent do you think the Scots should vote on "independence" then? Annually? Monthly? every Friday?
I must say I'm ith 3Ts on this (however immature that may seem).
“People are perfectly capable of changing their minds about independence in exactly the same way, surely?”
So how often do you ask them then? Once a year? Every six months? Things change almost weekly. That’s surely not a reason to ask people if they subscribe to independence. The Scots voted quite convincingly to remain part of the UK (and everything - including the ongoing changes - that goes with it) just a couple of years ago. The Brexit vote is smoke and mirrors. Firstly a considerable number of Scots voted to remain. Secondly, the notion that they would somehow be afforded EU membership in their own right is fanciful in the extreme. The Scots have to accept that they are just a small part (about 8% by population) of the UK. They have no more right to independence than does Cornwall or London (in fact far less so than the latter since they have less than half the population). Nonetheless, more so than either of those, they were allowed to have their say. Their views are, unsurprisingly, symptoms of the delusions of grandeur brought about by Mr Blair’s ludicrous devolution arrangements.
Finally, I do wish people would not get hung up on Ms Sturgeon being referred to by a nickname. She cannot help bearing a striking resemblance to “Jimmy Krankie” (aka Janette Tough) or (more closely in my opinion) “Wee Burney” Nesbitt (played by the late Eric Cullen). Nor, of course, can they help resembling her. But politicians are often referred to by nicknames; I cannot recall anybody objecting so vociferously when Neil Kinnnock was referred to as “Pillock” or “Kinnochio”; then there is Tony Bliar; Dennis Skinner – the Beast of Bolsover; Paddy Pantsdown; “Gideon” Osborne (yes I know that’s his real name but nobody knew him as such). Politicians and other people in public life often have nicknames. What makes Ms Sturgeon immune from such ridicule?
“People are perfectly capable of changing their minds about independence in exactly the same way, surely?”
So how often do you ask them then? Once a year? Every six months? Things change almost weekly. That’s surely not a reason to ask people if they subscribe to independence. The Scots voted quite convincingly to remain part of the UK (and everything - including the ongoing changes - that goes with it) just a couple of years ago. The Brexit vote is smoke and mirrors. Firstly a considerable number of Scots voted to remain. Secondly, the notion that they would somehow be afforded EU membership in their own right is fanciful in the extreme. The Scots have to accept that they are just a small part (about 8% by population) of the UK. They have no more right to independence than does Cornwall or London (in fact far less so than the latter since they have less than half the population). Nonetheless, more so than either of those, they were allowed to have their say. Their views are, unsurprisingly, symptoms of the delusions of grandeur brought about by Mr Blair’s ludicrous devolution arrangements.
Finally, I do wish people would not get hung up on Ms Sturgeon being referred to by a nickname. She cannot help bearing a striking resemblance to “Jimmy Krankie” (aka Janette Tough) or (more closely in my opinion) “Wee Burney” Nesbitt (played by the late Eric Cullen). Nor, of course, can they help resembling her. But politicians are often referred to by nicknames; I cannot recall anybody objecting so vociferously when Neil Kinnnock was referred to as “Pillock” or “Kinnochio”; then there is Tony Bliar; Dennis Skinner – the Beast of Bolsover; Paddy Pantsdown; “Gideon” Osborne (yes I know that’s his real name but nobody knew him as such). Politicians and other people in public life often have nicknames. What makes Ms Sturgeon immune from such ridicule?
The First Minister made it perfectly plain, when Cameron decided to have a referendum on exiting the EU, that - if the result of that referendum was to remove Scotland from the EU against its will - a further independence referendum would at least have to be "on the cards".
The Scottish electorate voted overwhelmingly against Brexit, so what I outlined in the paragraph above has come to pass; they...and the Welsh and Northern Irish...are being removed, in effect, by "force".
Hence, it is not a question of Ms Sturgeon having a weekly referendum or any other such silliness, but a question of her keeping her promise to the Scots that she would do precisely what she has done; namely, raise once again the subject of independence.
The Scottish electorate voted overwhelmingly against Brexit, so what I outlined in the paragraph above has come to pass; they...and the Welsh and Northern Irish...are being removed, in effect, by "force".
Hence, it is not a question of Ms Sturgeon having a weekly referendum or any other such silliness, but a question of her keeping her promise to the Scots that she would do precisely what she has done; namely, raise once again the subject of independence.
1rovert, I'm a Scot who would like to see an independent Scotland.
The Scots who share that view wish mainly to be independent of England for the simple reason that - because England's population is vastly larger than the rest of the UK combined - the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish constantly have to just "put up with" whatever the English want.
For exmple, I don't believe that any of these three elements have in recent times voted for a Tory government, but they keep getting the wretched things! That would simply not happen as members of the EU; Scotland would be just as "free" as France, Italy or any other EU nation to run its own affairs.
Of course, as members of a "club"...any club...you have to accept some rules but that does not mean you are some sort of slave.
The Scots who share that view wish mainly to be independent of England for the simple reason that - because England's population is vastly larger than the rest of the UK combined - the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish constantly have to just "put up with" whatever the English want.
For exmple, I don't believe that any of these three elements have in recent times voted for a Tory government, but they keep getting the wretched things! That would simply not happen as members of the EU; Scotland would be just as "free" as France, Italy or any other EU nation to run its own affairs.
Of course, as members of a "club"...any club...you have to accept some rules but that does not mean you are some sort of slave.
QM: " ....because England's population is vastly larger than the rest of the UK combined - the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish constantly have to just "put up with" whatever the English want. " - well the EU's population is vastly larger still, are you happier to "put up" with what the Germans want? Do you think You'll fair better subjugated in the EU?
You miss the point, TTT. Clearly the population of the EU is vastly larger than that of Scotland, but - given independence - Scotland would be in a position to elect its OWN government of choice.
Perhaps that would be SNP for a while, perhaps Labour, as it would probably have been until relatively recently...maybe even Tory, as it frequently was in the past!
Yes, as I've already explained, there would be European Union rules to be followed, but these are not the be-all and end-all of any nation, as you appear to imagine. Subjugation simply doesn't come into it and, anyway - if it did come to that - Scotland could later on have its very own Scoxit referendum, couldn't it?
Perhaps that would be SNP for a while, perhaps Labour, as it would probably have been until relatively recently...maybe even Tory, as it frequently was in the past!
Yes, as I've already explained, there would be European Union rules to be followed, but these are not the be-all and end-all of any nation, as you appear to imagine. Subjugation simply doesn't come into it and, anyway - if it did come to that - Scotland could later on have its very own Scoxit referendum, couldn't it?
“Clearly the population of the EU is vastly larger than that of Scotland, but - given independence - Scotland would be in a position to elect its OWN government of choice.”
Quite true. And what, precisely, would that government be empowered to do? We’ve already seen moves to harmonise tax regimes across the EU (the “Apple” fiasco). Just for starters, Scotland would have to adopt the euro so would unable to control its exchange rates or interest rates. It would have to become a Schengen member so would unable to control its borders. Being a relatively impoverished EU member it would almost certainly be dependent on the sort of support that Greece has to rely on (and the conditions that go with it). All the Scots would be doing would be replacing one overarching government (Westminster) with another (Brussels). The Scottish government is in an extremely good position currently: it does not have to worry about the tiresome task of raising revenue but merely of spending that which is shovelled to it from Westminster. I’m sure they envisage a similar situation should they become an EU member in their own right (which is by no means guaranteed and will certainly not happen the day after they leave the UK, if at all). Of the two I know which I’d prefer.
Quite a number of areas of the country voted to remain including London (with twice the population of Scotland). It is also true that the future of the UK has fundamentally altered as a result of the Brexit vote but that’s no reason for the various parish councils up and down the country to demand independence. It seems incredible to me that those in the Remain camp (including 62% of the Scots) level accusations against the Brexiteers of jeopardising the country’s future by “Leaping into the unknown”. Quite how an independent Scotland, with no guarantee of the EU membership they say they crave, is a model of certainty and security is a little unclear.
Quite true. And what, precisely, would that government be empowered to do? We’ve already seen moves to harmonise tax regimes across the EU (the “Apple” fiasco). Just for starters, Scotland would have to adopt the euro so would unable to control its exchange rates or interest rates. It would have to become a Schengen member so would unable to control its borders. Being a relatively impoverished EU member it would almost certainly be dependent on the sort of support that Greece has to rely on (and the conditions that go with it). All the Scots would be doing would be replacing one overarching government (Westminster) with another (Brussels). The Scottish government is in an extremely good position currently: it does not have to worry about the tiresome task of raising revenue but merely of spending that which is shovelled to it from Westminster. I’m sure they envisage a similar situation should they become an EU member in their own right (which is by no means guaranteed and will certainly not happen the day after they leave the UK, if at all). Of the two I know which I’d prefer.
Quite a number of areas of the country voted to remain including London (with twice the population of Scotland). It is also true that the future of the UK has fundamentally altered as a result of the Brexit vote but that’s no reason for the various parish councils up and down the country to demand independence. It seems incredible to me that those in the Remain camp (including 62% of the Scots) level accusations against the Brexiteers of jeopardising the country’s future by “Leaping into the unknown”. Quite how an independent Scotland, with no guarantee of the EU membership they say they crave, is a model of certainty and security is a little unclear.
I thought it was quite telling the other day when she said that her job was to persuade those don’t want independence to change their minds. Well, I am not sure that is what her job is at all. She should be listening to the people, not spending taxpayers’ money, and wasting valuable Government resources, trying to get everyone to think like she does.
“And what, precisely, would that government be empowered to do?”
Precisely what the UK government or any other EU country’s government has been empowered to do in recent times. Are you suggesting the UK has been powerless to create ANY legislation of its own for decades?
As I have pointed out to you before now - when you've suggested that London somehow deserves more consideration of its views than Scotland - the key difference between Scotland and London is that Scotland is a formerly-independent country/nation. London, which really is only a glorified "parish council", cannot make such a claim, so money and population size are irrelevant. In other words, I and others like me, want to revert to a Britain as it was. In what conceivable way could London do any such thing, since it never was anything other than a "town"?
As for being "unable to control its borders", could Scotland in the EU possibly be any worse than the UK under the Tories have been in that respect of late?
Precisely what the UK government or any other EU country’s government has been empowered to do in recent times. Are you suggesting the UK has been powerless to create ANY legislation of its own for decades?
As I have pointed out to you before now - when you've suggested that London somehow deserves more consideration of its views than Scotland - the key difference between Scotland and London is that Scotland is a formerly-independent country/nation. London, which really is only a glorified "parish council", cannot make such a claim, so money and population size are irrelevant. In other words, I and others like me, want to revert to a Britain as it was. In what conceivable way could London do any such thing, since it never was anything other than a "town"?
As for being "unable to control its borders", could Scotland in the EU possibly be any worse than the UK under the Tories have been in that respect of late?
I notice in your earlier thread re nicknames, NJ, that - as you admit - the nickname for the only Tory you mention was his actual name! Do you seriously contend that that was as vulgar as applying a nickname to a woman by reference to men noted for their ugliness? I had always thought of you as at least a gentleman, sir!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.