Posts
The Scottish Nationalists can only have one more referendum. If they lose again it's over.
Of course they can only hold a referendum if Westminster lets them. If the SNP fights an election with a referendum in its manifesto it would give it leverage over Westminster, but they very recently had a referendum, so not that much leverage.
Of course they can only hold a referendum if Westminster lets them. If the SNP fights an election with a referendum in its manifesto it would give it leverage over Westminster, but they very recently had a referendum, so not that much leverage.
Much more importantly, the Scottish Nationalists will not ask for a referendum unless they are sure they will win. And they will not, in the foreseeable future, have a chance of winning.
Scots will not vote to leave because they would have to leave the UK without - at least at first and very possibly ever - joining the EU.
They might have left the UK while the UK remained in the EU, but even then it would have been impossible for them to have negotiated with the EU until after independence. The EU would not waive that rule because Spain (thinking of Catalonia), Romania (Transylvania) and Belgium (Flanders) would not permit it. And if the EU waived its rules the UK would not permit it. A penny of public money spent on negotiating with the EU would be ultra vires.
Leaving the UK without joining the EU means Scotland having to pay her own bills.
To be truly independent and not subsidised by either England and Wales or Europe would be something the Scots simply could not contemplate. If Scotland were an independent country now, Scots would have the biggest deficit of any OECD member state.
Had the Scots voted for independence they would have achieved it in August of this year. The SNP during the referendum campaign forecast that North Sea oil revenues would be almost £8 billion by 2015/16. In reality, they came to £60 million.
Nor will Scots like having to adopt the euro and having another currency from England and Wales - to say nothing of tariff barriers. Or a border between England and Wales.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has just been playing games since the referendum result. It is shocking that very few journalists understand this.
Scots will not vote to leave because they would have to leave the UK without - at least at first and very possibly ever - joining the EU.
They might have left the UK while the UK remained in the EU, but even then it would have been impossible for them to have negotiated with the EU until after independence. The EU would not waive that rule because Spain (thinking of Catalonia), Romania (Transylvania) and Belgium (Flanders) would not permit it. And if the EU waived its rules the UK would not permit it. A penny of public money spent on negotiating with the EU would be ultra vires.
Leaving the UK without joining the EU means Scotland having to pay her own bills.
To be truly independent and not subsidised by either England and Wales or Europe would be something the Scots simply could not contemplate. If Scotland were an independent country now, Scots would have the biggest deficit of any OECD member state.
Had the Scots voted for independence they would have achieved it in August of this year. The SNP during the referendum campaign forecast that North Sea oil revenues would be almost £8 billion by 2015/16. In reality, they came to £60 million.
Nor will Scots like having to adopt the euro and having another currency from England and Wales - to say nothing of tariff barriers. Or a border between England and Wales.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has just been playing games since the referendum result. It is shocking that very few journalists understand this.
If Ms. Sturgeon were 100% serious, she would commit to a ref in her next manifesto. With a manifesto pledge, May cannot say "No." But without manifesto mandate, May is likely to show the finger. So whether she agrees or not, Sturgeon wins. Agrees - 2 more years of flags and secret oil fantasy mania. Disagrees - oh, you see how evil Westminster is? See?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you're deluded. The Scots have every right and the national will to seperate themselves from the xenophobes.
ReplyDeleteThe British are xenophobes because they're leaving EU but Scots are not xenophobes if they leave the United Kingdom? Please explain how that works.
DeleteSimple, they weren't swayed by the anti immigrant rhetoric, and they voted
ReplyDeleteto stay. They are outward looking and welcoming to foreigners. Not the opposite.
The Scots and Irish, unlike the English and Welsh, were not fooled by the rhetoric and plain lies of the out campaign. They are friendly to foreigners, do not scapegoat refugees and are outward looking. Maybe it's something to do with superior education.
ReplyDeleteThe English have been extremely welcoming to foreigners - almost all the immigrants who came to our shores since 1945 have ended up in England. The Scots Nats are very hostile to the English, a hostility that no-one in England returns. Brexit is all about turning our gaze outwards across the seas.
Delete38% of Scots voted Leave - are they xenophobes?
I agree, they have been, but not now. The 38% are probably huns.
DeleteI think you are confusing being anti-immigration, which most people in England are, with being anti-immigrant. There was little anti-immigrant feeling in the 1970s and I'd be surprised if there is more now.
DeleteI also realise that many liberals in all parties but especially on the left are simply unable to understand why people are concerned by sovereignty or want national independence. My former English master for example.
Deletehttp://pvewood.blogspot.ro/2016/08/why-people-who-want-to-leave-eu-are.html
I also recall talking to an English friend many years ago and saying, 'I don't want us to be governed by foreigners' and his reply: 'Isn't that racist?'
DeleteAnti-immigrant rhetoric is used to divert attention from more pressing issues. Like making someone on a zero hours contract feel that they are threatened by a tide of cheap labour. It has always been so.
DeleteNationalism, or patriotism, more accurately, is still the last refuge of the scoundrel.
People's objection to immigration is much less about economics than national identity, but people who voted Leave whom I spoke to in the summer (with 3 exceptions two of whom were Muslim) didn't mention immigration. It would be interesting to know if the result of the referendum would have been the same had it happened before the financial crisis. Possibly not.
DeleteDr Johnson was not condemning patriotism but scoundrels. He would have hated the EU.
Did you read this? http://pvewood.blogspot.ro/2016/08/talking-to-people-in-england-about.html
James Forsyth in this week's Spectator says "what started out as a financial crisis has morphed into a political one too, so the bitter memories will linger on" and this is the reason for Brexit and Trump. For Trump certainly. I am not sure the crisis explains Brexit but perhaps.
DeleteThe American Conservative: Unmaking England: Will immigration demolish in decades a nation built over centuries?http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/
DeleteThere are frequent polls on this matter, all giving 'Leave' a decent lag. Everything has changed since the referendum, except this sum total...
ReplyDeleteFrom @britainelects