uk and eu membership

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
the s.n.p. is not anti english or racist. if you like i could take you to local our councilor or mp. or go to a s.n.p. local meeting. or check the s.n.p. web site Scottish National Party (SNP) and see if there is any racist rhetoric there. to compare the s.n.p to the b.n.p is at best an outright insult

Hey, I'm pretty sure that the BNP doesn't have any racist rhetoric on its website either.

But as they always say - when you listen to the people that vote for the BNP & SNP -it's a different matter.

I'd be more convinced if Salmond told anti English voters to F8ck off, & I'd also be more impressed if the Scots didn't whine so in the Scottish press & message boards about Westminster, especially as they did for 13 years when Scots ruled the roost in London, as if it were the English making policy.

Remember, the Act of Union was a direct consequence of the Scots getting rid of their own Stuart king.

Any view of the Celtic/ Rangers debacle shows that prejudice is alive & kicking hard in Glasgow at least.

Let's just have a vote & get it over with - you either want out, or you don't.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
A cultural identity is a weak justification for a nation state - most nations have an ethnic and linguistic foundation.
Ah, I see, your objection to a union of the Uk France and Germany into one country is simply that they speak different languages, since their peoples are ethnically much the same mix. I'm sure we can overcome the difference in language.

There is a risk of Scotland sleepwalking into voting for independence and into total economic collapse.
No one votes to become part of a union on financial grounds. Usually they are totally disregarded if the countries concerned are perceived as incompatible. True, Scotland merged with england becaus it was given an enormous financial bribe, but that was given to pay off vast debts (caused by bankers, of course) and in particular benefitted key powerful individuals. The country as a whole was not happy at what its leaders did in its name.

There's also a risk of an English backlash, with elements in England deciding to stir the nationalist pot with a view to getting Scotland to leave the Union.
There's an ironic volte-face.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Let's just have a vote & get it over with - you either want out, or you don't.

Yes.

And it has to be an in/out referendum. The idea that Scotland could somehow have its independence alongside sterling and UK defence interests is a non starter. The lesson of the euro is that a single currency requires a single country, and that small territories (Greece) can destabilise the whole. There is no reason why sterling should risk this.

It is also wrong to schedule the referendum at a time when the SNP think they are most likely to win it. A change needs settled support. Probably it should be well over 50%, though such doesn't seem to be the fashion today. In view of the abject poverty that would be caused to the people of Scotland were they to leave the Union I think there should be consideration of two or more referenda some years apart in order to demonstrate a settled view.

In view of the unfolding euro/EU saga I think pause before a referendum is held may be kindest to the Scots. It seems that we will have a very different world in a few months' time.

My personal views is that there is far more chance of Republic of Ireland forming some sort of federation with the UK than of Scotland becoming independent. As the EU fails smaller nations will need to forge unions. A Spanish-Portuguese federation has to be possible. And Germany-Netherlands-Austria.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The lesson of the euro is that a single currency requires a single country, and that small territories (Greece) can destabilise the whole.
No. the lesson of the euro is that international financiers have no loyalty to any country or currency and wil happily do anything which makes them money, however much harm it eventually causes. Obviously bankers want trhe euro destroyed because it has cut away a significant income stream for them. Financiers are not all equal and while some stand to lose from a greek default, no doubt others now stand to gain from it. The euro has led to Greece being propped up longer than many expected, and no doubt this has cost some banker a lot of money. If it defaults then those that lost can expect to be bailed out by other countries and the bankers can make yet more money organising loans to the newly re-solvent Greece. Naturally, at higher interest rates than is being paid on the current arrangements keeping it afloat. So no doubt all round, bankers hate the euro becaus its net result is to keep money out of their pockets and in ours.

It is also wrong to schedule the referendum at a time when the SNP think they are most likely to win it.
Why? that is how votes are usually arranged. Are you suggesting the normal rules be overturned in this case?

A change needs settled support. Probably it should be well over 50%, though such doesn't seem to be the fashion today.
So you would suggest a 75% majority would be needed in any vote for britain to leave the EU?

I think there should be consideration of two or more referenda some years apart
ditto, leaving the EU? Do you think these rules should be applied inside parliament too? A 3year moritorium before any new law can come into force, or maybe requiring ratification by the following elected parliament?
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There used to be acceptance that a higher % than 50% was needed for a big change. The last referendum on Scottish independence was fought on this system - I think the threshold set was 55% and Scotland achieved more than 50% but less than the threshold.

The Welsh Assembly was set up on a mandate of a whisker over 50% on a low turnout - something like one person in four actually voted for it. This seems less than ideal.

For changes in the EU - Maastricht, Lisbon, any subsequent treaty - there should be a single referendum. Certainly 50% approval should be needed to sign up, arguably more. A referendum to leave the EU should be conducted on the same basis. A vote to leave of 51% IMO may not be enough, though it would be a hard sell politically. There also needs to be evidence that this is the settled view. This may be two referenda, though there may well be practical problems. I think the settled position of the polls may be taken in lieu of one.

IF we get as far as an in/out EU referendum I think the Conservative party would support out (with Ken Clarke bound and gagged). I suspect Labour would look at the political consequences of backing the side that loses and decide to campaign for out. I think it is possible to envisage a massive proportion of the UK population voting for out. Even in my dreams it wouldn't be the near unanimity of the Gibraltar or Falkland views on their future, but I think 67% isachievablee, even possibly 75%. Of course I would love to see 99% - a bit of national unity would be great for the national psyche.

The best case scenario for Scotland is an independence referendum with a clear majority for remaining part of the UK. SNP seem to be trying to offer some middle ground of Scotland having it's cake and eating it - this cannot be acceptable. The nightmare scenario is Scotland leaving the UK and within a decade we have a failed state. The blunt truth is that there is no possibility whatsoever of Scotland surviving economically in the present climate - which is why SNP are going for their middle vote.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
There used to be acceptance that a higher % than 50% was needed for a big change.
This also begs the question of how those that do not vote should be counted. Should they automatically be assumed to want 'no change'?

IF we get as far as an in/out EU referendum I think the Conservative party would support out (with Ken Clarke bound and gagged). I suspect Labour would look at the political consequences of backing the side that loses and decide to campaign for out.
I agree it would be interesting to see the politicans squirm.