Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scotland starts renewed case for independence

gov.scot

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 745 posts

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#471

Post by jleyank »

temp8964 wrote: post #270
SilverBirch wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me, but literally today is the first day that the government starting flying asylum seekers to Rwanda[1], and yesterday they published legislation with the intention of breaking international law[2]. They've also recently curtailed rights to legal protest[3]. The Prime Minister has a history of law breaking including illegally shutting down our parliament[4]. This government only got their majority when UKIP c…

What’s your reasonable definition of far-right?

There’s a whole lot of working definitions provided by the 20th century that can be used as measuring sticks on the passage to the right. Signs include a breakdown or suppression of a free press, simplification of the political spectrum, identification of and processing of enemies of the state, weakening of the rules and protections of government and so on. A shift from the idea of equality of all (protection of minorities) towards the will of the majority.

There dan also be an anti-rational or anti-scientific aspect. And as an old history prof lectured, the political spectrum is not linear it’s a circle. The far ends turn out to be the same part of the circle. Power for the in group and problems for the rest. Read animal farm.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#472

Post by zwirbl »

easytiger wrote: post #327
WJW wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP but also Dutch. Yes I would definitely like the EU to abolish veto powers and move to a majority rule. Europeans are too divided and need to band together to form a realistic opposition to the US and China. Veto rule is no way to govern a large group, since you only have to bribe a single member to cripple the whole. This has been known since at least the ancient Greek citystate era.

I think this is concerning and a misunderstanding of human and geopolitical behaviour. Once some of the EUs more insane policies are forced on countries the desire to leave will spread. > Veto rule is no way to govern a large group, since you only have to bribe a single member to cripple the whole. Are you saying there is a corruption issue right now? With majority rule (size TBD) a handful of countries will ride rou…

> Are you saying there is a corruption issue right now?

If you have followed Hungary's trajectory under Orban it is pretty obvious that there are corruption issues. Not that Hungary is the only country affected, it's just the most obvious

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#473

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

curiousgal wrote: post #315
k_sze wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the Brexit debacle, I joked with my Scottish ex-boss that, one day, Scotland will leave the UK, rejoin the EU, and then reabsorb the UK. And then the UK will be renamed United Kingdom of Scotland instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain. He laughed.

Will/Would the EU accept Scotland's membership though? What about the currency? It all seems so complicated

At the time of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, I remember there being warnings from the EU that rejoining would not be a simple matter of just applying for an independent Scotland.

I could try to find some links on that if you like, but the way I remember it is that the EU was against the idea of Scotland going it alone and EU officials actively worked to discourage any ideas that an independent Scottland would be received with open arms.

But of course, that was before Brexit and while the UK was still an EU member whose national interests were taken into consideration by other members (because EU). This is not the case now.

Still from memory -sorry for that- but when the last UK MEPs were making their parting speeches at the EU Parliament, one Scottish MEP finished his with an impassioned plea to the EU to not forget Scotland. Which I interpreted as a plea to make it easier for Scotland to join the EU if it ever gained independence from the UK.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#474

Post by brigandish »

ncmncm wrote: post #438
brigandish wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A few years later, an unrepresentative (to scotland) tory government takes it from us anyway because they were frightened of nigel farage and some middle englanders don't like hearing polish in their local tescos. You want a referendum because other people you disagree with were given a referendum that you then lost? And you paint this as "tory government takes it from us"? I also note that millions voted, it'd be…

Reasons for wanting a referendum are none of your business. It suffices to say they want one. If it fails, then not enough wanted to leave. That is all. When they failed to do Brexit for years running, and it turned out the arguments for were lies, there should have been another Brexit vote. It would have failed, and a great deal of trouble would be saved.

It's strange that I was allowed to vote in the last one if it's none of my business.

> they want one.

Polls consistently show less than 50%. Perhaps the "they" you meant is the SNP?

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#475

Post by c7THEC2DDFVV2V »

cstross wrote: post #17
afavour wrote: post #2

As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around: good luck to them. Brexit has shown very clearly that Scotland wants to chart a different path to England and IMO they should be allowed to do it. …just be generous to English folks seeking asylum from Tory rule, yeah?

For non-UK people: There are four nations in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). But England has roughly 90% of the population of the UK. So what England votes for in an all-nations referendum, the rest of the UK gets. England voted for Brexit by a narrow-ish majority. But Scotland voted against Brexit by a huge margin -- 62/38, or approximately 3:2. Ironically, the year before the Brexit referendum…

*England voted for Brexit by a narrow-ish majority. But Scotland voted against Brexit by a huge margin -- 62/38, or approximately 3:2.*

Brexit wasn't a case of each nation 'winning' so to speak. The 38% of the vote went to the total number of leave votes. Which contributed to the overall Leave vote.

Point being Scotland did make a significant contribution to the Leave vote.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#476

Post by brigandish »

dijit wrote: post #337
brigandish wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A few years later, an unrepresentative (to scotland) tory government takes it from us anyway because they were frightened of nigel farage and some middle englanders don't like hearing polish in their local tescos. You want a referendum because other people you disagree with were given a referendum that you then lost? And you paint this as "tory government takes it from us"? I also note that millions voted, it'd be…

secession from a union that is not representing your interests is valid. this was the case for brexit, why is it different for scotland?

I wrote that I voted for independence right at the top of the thread, did you miss that?

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#477

Post by SilasX »

jpkeisala wrote: post #443
curiousgal wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will/Would the EU accept Scotland's membership though? What about the currency? It all seems so complicated

It would be very popular move for every EU politician to fast track Scotland to EU. But yes, it would be complicated to separate from UK and become independent. Becoming EU member would not be that complicated.

I thought the problem was that Spain wouldn’t like it because that would set a precedent of rewarding independence movements they oppose like for the Basque region?

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#478

Post by Zenst »

temp8964 wrote: post #270
SilverBirch wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me, but literally today is the first day that the government starting flying asylum seekers to Rwanda[1], and yesterday they published legislation with the intention of breaking international law[2]. They've also recently curtailed rights to legal protest[3]. The Prime Minister has a history of law breaking including illegally shutting down our parliament[4]. This government only got their majority when UKIP c…

What’s your reasonable definition of far-right?

Well that is a good question as no real solid answer. I do know that what has been classed as far-right in the media has shifted more and more towards the center to the stage that if Hitler was around today, most things on the current far-right would appear centerist-left. Though I like to look at that as progress. Though equally some people class what is on the left as far-left and it's all just got very silly with focus upon labels and arguing over rational logical debate with facts.

If you look at various media outlets, their own definition of far-left or far-right varies so much that you can end up being labeled as both very easily.

Another issue would be cultural aspects and you will find what is far-left or far-right will vary country to country and with that. Subjective labels have and always will be a can-of-worms.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#479

Post by ben_w »

mantas wrote: post #348
ben_w wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it — IANAL — the asylum seekers which the UK is sending to Rwanda, are actually allowed under international law (i.e. treaties the UK has signed) to seek asylum in the UK. Rwanda in particular is an odd choice if you are genuinely concerned about the well-being of people who are fleeing persecution, given the UK government travel advice for its own citizens. It is also a very expensive choice (about t…

It's not expensive if it stops people from faking refugee. What percentage of asylum seekers in the UK were eligible for asylum?

> eligible

Even using “granted” as a proxy for “eligible”, hard to tell as every source I found contradicts all the others, somewhere between 25 and 75 percent.

However, this isn’t the right question, for two reasons.

First: The number you want to compare against is the people whose minds were changed by the latest policy. Given how few people were seeking asylum in the UK even before this, the maximum is already low.

Second: this policy does not improve the expected accuracy of government judgement regarding the legitimacy of any given claim.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#480

Post by zwirbl »

veltas wrote: post #90
cstross wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For non-UK people: There are four nations in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). But England has roughly 90% of the population of the UK. So what England votes for in an all-nations referendum, the rest of the UK gets. England voted for Brexit by a narrow-ish majority. But Scotland voted against Brexit by a huge margin -- 62/38, or approximately 3:2. Ironically, the year before the Brexit referendum…

If Scottish leave voters hadn't turned out then the referendum would have resulted in "remain". So it's interesting to say in that context that "Scotland voted to remain" as many people simplify it to. 3:2 is a big margin and it's meaningful, but it doesn't define Scots.

That's a really creative way to spin a majority "remain" vote into a "leave" narrative
Post reply on HN