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

601–610 of 745 posts

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#601

Post by mvc »

mnw21cam wrote: post #174
dale_glass wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's silly. I have no dog in this fight, but people are allowed to change their opinion, especially as circumstances change. If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response. Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with.

The reason for the "once in a generation" promise is that it is widely recognised that holding regular referenda on non-reversible decisions biases in favour of the non-reversible option. Let's imagine for example that genuinely 55% of the population want to remain part of the UK, and so remaining should win given a completely fair and accurate measure of the population's mood. However, every measurement varies for a…

> There's a reasonably strong argument for this reason that non-reversible decisions should require a greater than 50% majority

Cool. I like the idea of that. Other things that seem non-reversible...

  - building nuclear plants/weapons
  - burning fossil fuels
  - dismantling the NHS
Let's have a 75% majority required on any of that and I'll happily remain in the UK.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#602

Post by eyko »

WJW wrote: post #140
eyko wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scotland can be independent _and_ be in the same economic market (ignoring UK and Spain willing to veto Scotland reentering EU out of spite / own political motives).

How would the UK veto an independent Scotland reentering the EU? They no longer have a vote to do so.

It was a talking point during the Scottish independence referendum (pre-Brexit referendum).

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#603

Post by ncmncm »

brigandish wrote: post #572
ncmncm wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is you don't know until the vote how it would turn out. If you did know, there would be no need for the vote. You don't know why the overwhelming majority of them voted as they did. Maybe most of them can't be said to know. It suffices that they voted.

I think you're changing the point. Why is it none of my business?

It is nobody's business. A vote is a vote.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#604

Post by ChildOfChaos »

smcl wrote: post #363
ChildOfChaos wrote: post #217

Scotland is assuming the EU would want them, the only reason they where in Europe previously is because they where part of the UK and came as a package deal, without the rest of the UK, what does Scotland have? it's silly of them and it's all lead by the SNP who only care about independence at all costs, they ignore literally everything else and try and twist it into an independence issue. SNP is causing Scotland far…

> Scotland is assuming the EU would want them The EU is currently negotiating with Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro to join[0]. Is there something these countries have which an independent Scotland wouldn't? > with the SNP in power in Scotland, it makes it hard for the UK to have any other government but the tories. All of Scotland's population could have voted for Labour in the last three elections an…

Yes but as another commentator has mentioned other countries such as Spain would likely veto them joining hence the EU not allowing them.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#605

Post by justin66 »

brigandish wrote: post #576
justin66 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote against the SNP's wishes. You don't believe they should hold the vote again so soon, and so in the event of another vote your reaction will be to... participate in the vote you do not believe should be held, but cast a ballot against the outcome you want? What is…

> What is the crazy logic there? - I do not control whether there is a vote - Those proposing the vote said they wouldn't do it - I will work to spoil it I'd prefer that you work through the simple and obvious points yourself instead of implying some mental problem on my part, if only to remove yourself from the irony of such a claim.

> I will work to spoil it

You've failed to communicate the why? of this.

I can express it a different way: you have decided that you know what is best for yourself and your country regarding independence - a big and highly consequential topic - and you're going to act in opposition of that to spite a relatively small number of powerful people whose actions you disapprove of. Those powerful people will not suffer regardless of whether your country makes the "correct" (whatever that is) choice regarding independence, but you and your country certainly will. Hence my curiosity about your logic.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#606

Post by scott_w »

camjw wrote: post #597
scott_w wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your legal basis for your assessment?

That many other (EU) countries who have implemented the EUHR directive deport asylum seekers to other countries, and those countries SC equivalents have not found it to be illegal. I guess my legal basis is precedent.

Your legal basis on which you base your opinion on U.K. law is (supposed) precedent from countries that are not the U.K.

Forgive me if I find your entire premise suspicious and decline the opportunity to debate further.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#607

Post by iso1631 »

closewith wrote: post #496
iso1631 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet not all nations are in Schengen. If Scotland were allowed to join the EU (despite Spain's veto) I have no doubt there would be an acceptance that it could remain in the CTA with Ireland and the rest of UK

I'd have the opposite view. It seems unlikely that the bloc will ever provide opt-outs going forward given the difficulties they've caused to date.

Unlike Denmark, Sweden doesn't have an optout for the Euro, yet hasn't joined.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#608

Post by smcl »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #599
smcl wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're very carefully dodging the main point made by DonaldFisk: that it rarely matters how Scotland votes. Whoever England votes for, Scotland gets. We could've sent 59 Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster in each of the last three elections and it wouldn't have changed a thing, because England wanted a Conservative government.

>Whoever England votes for, Scotland gets. We could've sent 59 Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster in each of the last three elections and it wouldn't have changed a thing, because England wanted a Conservative government. In 2017, if Scotland didn't elect 13 Conservatives to Westminster then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government with the DUP. If it also didn't elect 4 Liberal Democrats then Theres…

But that's contradicting the original point you were making about Scotland pulling the UK left isn't it? It sounds like you're saying "Scotland matters ... sometimes. Look, 20% of you helped elect Theresa May!"

That's not what we were talking about, which is that Scotland consistently votes to the left. And there is no way we can get a left-wing government, because England votes to the right. And it kind of doesn't matter that we seem to have picked the SNP, because even if we chose Labour it'd still not make a difference because England votes Tory and likely will do for the forseeable.

> In a Parliament of 650 seats no randomly selected bloc of 59 constituencies

This isn't a randomly selected bloc. This is very well defined and distinct territory - which is the topic of this ENTIRE article we're discussing might I add - so I don't know why you'd play daft and pretend otherwise.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#609

Post by iso1631 »

mvc wrote: post #587
iso1631 wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Betting an economy on a high price of oil seems risky, especially when you're a minor player

I'm more worried about what happens when the oil runs out. Apparently it's the only thing of any value in Scotland and in 30 years, we're supposed to be net-zero. What happens when Scotland's geographical resources cease to be of any use to wealthy English people?

Without independence, same as now. Given that even including north sea revenue Scotland is still subsidised by London

There's tons of future stuff that could be invested in Scotland -- offshore wind and tidal and pumped hydro for example. That investment isn't there because the UK (and the EU for that matter) is market led and the market wants short term results over long term investment.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#610

Post by MagnumOpus »

refurb wrote: post #349
patrickk wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as London has been corrupted by Russian money, numerous Russians have been murdered/attempted to be murdered by the Russian state in the UK, and the current PM is the former mayor of London, it’s more than valid to discuss Russian influence in the UK. Further reading: https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2022/mar/21/butler-to-the-...

I mean Canada has been corrupted by Chinese money (see Vancouver home prices recently?) and has a pro-CCP member of the government in British Colombia. Yet I keep hearing about Russians.

It can be both, you know.
Post reply on HN