Seil Chat

NB,
You have disported a YES sign until very recently on this website and I am sure that you are very desirous of someone like myself querying the substitution of the 45 sign, to enlighten us of the current move to negate the results of a recent referendum.
Do keep us in the picture - what's all this 45 business ? and what difference will it make to the "Once in a lifetime", and "The most important decision you will have to make in your lifetime" on a decision which was recently made.

.
Jim, I have split your post off as it belongs here, not in the Seil Chat forum.

I am sure you are aware that the 45 refers to the percentage of voters who voted for independence.

Westminster panicked in the final days of the campaign and waded in with promises of far-reaching new powers for Scotland. No-one will ever know what effect this had on the result, but a swing of just 5.5% would have seen a very different future for Scotland. It is very likely that the 'Vow' and other promises made in those panicky few days swayed at least that number of people.

It is therefore vitally important that Westminster is held to these promises, yet already we see things falling apart. The Smith Commission will report before the general election in May, and we must wait for their recommendations. While we wait, let us not forget what we were promised. Gordon Brown said:

'The plan for a stronger Scottish Parliament we seek agreement on is for nothing short of a modern form of Scottish home rule within the UK'.

and

'We are going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85% of the population'.

Scots now need to hold Westminster to the promises it made in its desperation to secure a NO vote. If they renege then I can see the Labour party in Scotland suffering the same fate as the Tories.

We still live in interesting times. Sorry if you thought it would all just go away.

NB
Thanks for the elucidation about your cryptic 45 sign.
Will we now be getting these appearing like a rash all over the island?
Actually my immediate thought about the 45 was to another abortive attempt by one Bonny Prince Charlie to achieve the same objective - actually here's a thought for your crusade - why not call it the "New 45" - I have not copyrighted it so feel free to use it.
However you are obviously clinging to the hope that should Holyrood subject us to another long winded 2+ year referendum campaign in the foreseeable future, that you will hold your 45% (despite any interim devo max) and swing the others that succumbed to the idea of devo max ( a lot of conjecture there).
There is no denying that a lot of mistakes and misjudgements were made on both sides of the argument, but I think you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land (as per your logo) if you place much hope on your scenario.

.
There are certain circumstances that could potentially trigger another referendum.

But for now we need to hold Westminster's feet to the fire to ensure they deliver what was promised - substantial new powers delivered swiftly.

I hear the Daily Record's sales have taken a nosedive.

Jim C

You seem very ignorant of your history - Charles did not raise his standard at Glenfinnan to gain an Independent Scotland.

You also don't get out much. The 45 slogan is Scotland wide and seems to be energising rather than diminishing the cause for Independence. The slogan is "45 and rising", seen to vindicate those who had the courage to vote Yes and for those who voted No, and now regret it, to push to ensure the promises made that turned them to vote No are fulfilled. This has sown to be a huge political movement, with SNP now the 3rd largest political party in the UK and traditional Labour vote smashed in central Scotland. There is talk of a Scottish Labour party MPs revolt to back ongoing transition toward Independence. Perhaps a splitting of the party, perhaps lock, stock and barrel support for progressive Independence.

I also have been on watching the debate on this forum for a few months now and see nothing but your endless trolling of the debate. Mostly personal attacks on Nick for voicing his political opinion.

At no point have you ever enthusiastically defended your loyalty to the Union with a single positive reason for its continuance. This is typical of the No campaign, full of scorn and contempt for the plebiscite with no substance to back it up on why the opposite - status quo - is such a good idea - other than some who said it had lasted a long time. Many long term political alliances have ended, with new countries forming but none have ever reformed because having regretted it.

So Jim - over to you. Why don't you start listing the good things about us still being in the Union. Come on! Convince us that we were wrong and you were right.

To the PM poster - Link message reads "You are not authorised to read private messages."

PM messaging still not working.

S

Stevie Jarron wrote:To the PM poster - Link message reads "You are not authorised to read private messages."

PM messaging still not working.

S

I've re-enabled it and sent you a PM - did you get it?

So Stevie Jarron joins the fray.
This whole shebang is listed as a debate, and there is precious little debating if it merely consists of NB and like minds swapping YES propaganda.
So I have tried to put a dampener on some of their wilder utterances.
In defence of my stance, I would cite the saying "United we stand - Divided we fall".
History is a story of Empires who brought stability and protection to their populations, but unfortunately they were ruled by force and this was instrumental in their disintegration.
More recently alliances have been voluntary (EU, NATO and USA) and this has given us stability and freedom from outside aggression, within their membership.
If the human race is to survive, with a burgeoning population and inherent aggressive genetics, in my view, it will be by amalgamation rather than dissolution.

Hi Jim,

Nice to (virtually) meet you. Hope we meet at leisure at some point. Email is such an impersonal medium, whilst at the same time it is usually taken very personally. So I hope we can turn this into a political debate and not a personal mudslinging contest. And if my first foray into the thread seems like the latter, I apologise.

To discuss your point of Unions...
EU - formed to ensure trade was so integrated among its members that another disastrous European war would not be possible. The Benilux countries, West Germany and France had no choice in its formation. It was demanded by USA and to some extent the UK as a way of ensuring they'd get some of their money back this time. Since then "Beggar my neighbour" economics mean it's better in than out. A lesson the Westminster elite will be pouring out in the next year, for despite the Tories making the EU the bogeyman for the last 20 years, (they know) we'd be screwed if the vote is to leave permanently. It'd bring the UK and the whole EU economies to their knees.

NATO - formed to shield small countries under the nuclear wing of the USA for fear of take over by the Soviet expansion into Europe as it had with the Warsaw Pact. Papers from the era show that upon joining NATO, the Soviets instantly marked that country as a nuclear target as joining meant an American military presence on your soil. Since its formation, many original signatories have asked US bases to be removed and that only non nuclear ships visit their ports for this very reason.

USA - A country created in genocidal expansion into indigenous populations, through guerilla warfare gained Independence from the British Empire, several wars with same Empire and the Empire of Spain, then Mexico, then itself when seven Southern States tried to secede from this peaceful Union. Aggressive expansion west, causing a holocaust on the indigenous Indian people and land grabs at the expense of European settlers already there, to the point of mass murder to secure new state enrollment. Racism, slavery, global bullyboy tactics since 2nd world, Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Iraq etc etc.

All the above unions, have federal or independent governments setting taxes, so not really relevant to the UK model really!

Democracy exists to exercise the will of its voters on the economics that democratic unit controls. The UK (a political construct), due to the size differential between the 4 (main) constituent countries, barely staved of a vote to leave the Union by one of the 3 smaller countries. It is believed (by men more capable that us) that democracy is better served in units small enough to directly affect agreed changes that benefit the lives of those within it, without leaving too many large (identifiable) sections of the population discontent that the changes made were against their representative choices.

With the Tories and New Labour (Tory Plan B) being the result of the last 35 years UK politics, Scottish left-of-centre politics have rebelled, sought and won the formation of the Scottish Parliament and evolved toward the 18th Sep vote. The closeness of which, and the resultant in fighting and Westminster politic, is unlikely to satisfy the voting masses (North and South of the border).

So here we go, lets debate -

Debate dilemma - Next year there will be a vote on EU membership. If the resultant vote is that the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish populations vote to stay in the EU but the vastly larger English vote is for No, could we then ask England to leave the UK, leaving the rUK within the EU? Problem solved! Or do you agree that the Union should hold and we all leave together?

S

Steve J,
While your interpretation of the alliances I cited does contain a lot of historical truth (one or two points are debatable) it is the nature of things that any new developments of this sort are bound to go through teething troubles.
But it is significant that they were formed by mutual agreement and invitation rather than by coercion and force.
And that currently the move has been to apply for membership rather than to resign from same.
This, I consider to be a favourable sign for the future of harmonious relationships among the human species.
However, coming to your second point about a possible opting out of EU membership - here I have a dilemma. While I consider that Scottish interests are better served within the UK, I would be concerned if the UK (as a whole) opted out of membership of the EU - probably due to xenophobia by the English. In this case I would be hard put to defend the Union, but even opting for separation from the UK would not automatically guarantee that an independent Scotland would be fast tracked into the EU despite A. Salmond's glib assurances.

Jim C,

I never bought into the "It will all be fine" mantra that was used in the referendum. I thought that a more honest approach may have been better accepted by some, but may have been rounded on by the doom sayers none the less.

One area was the claim of instant access to the EU. I doubted it would have been made that easy but still worth the short term pain to achieve long term independence.

Strange how we were told (on Scottish delayed ascension to the EU) that Mr Barroso was telling the truth and that we should listen to him by the press and by westminster. Now today when he says the UK and EU will be crippled if the UK leave, he's not to be trusted and doesn't know what he's talking about.

What I suggested was that we (Scotland, N Ireland and Wales - the rUK) would remain in the EU and England leaves the Union and (in doing so) the EU. By Westminster's own rules that would leave rUK as signatories to all the EU treaties, therefore still an EU member.

The way that the vitriol is being raised (by far right Tories and UKIP) about "lack of English voice in both these unfair Unions", UK exit from the EU and even English Independence is a real possibility. We may very soon rue the missed chance we had of making our own way and go down with the sinking HMS UK.

Steve J, and anyone else who is following these meanderings -
Currently, I have to agree with you that the present political scene is a mess.
All the UK parties are more concerned with their own powerbase, and how to protect or enhance it, rather than the good or the will of the people - this particularly applies to Labour/Tory/UKIP.
This in-fighting for political advantage does not play well to the general public who tend to denigrate the participants further into disrepute - except of course to the party faithful - to whom they can do no wrong.
However, coming to the projected referendum on EU membership -
We do not know the wording yet - would it be a straight IN/OUT option?
Would any account be taken of Scottish/Irish/Welsh preferences?
Or would it be binding on everyone with a simple majority?
Your scenario raises all sorts of possibilities within these parameters, but all sorts of complications as well.
One point you mentioned which I find difficult to comprehend is the assertion that the SNP is now the third largest political party in the UK. Obviously you are not basing this claim on the number of elected representatives in either or both Holyrood and Westminster - so it would be interesting to know what figures you have to base this dubious assertion on.

.
The SNP have 82,000 paid up party members. Only Labour and the Tories have more.

Cameron has promised an in/out referendum on Europe, a simple bilateral choice - after he has negotiated the promised 'new deal'. (I suspect he will get short shrift from the Eurocrats with that one and will negotiate nothing or, at best, some insignificant window dressing)

It is entirely possible that Scotland as an entity could vote to stay in while the UK as a whole votes to leave. That is a potential trigger scenario for a second independence referendum if the Scottish government elected in 2016 has chosen to make that a manifesto commitment.

Entirely possible! The feeling in the Scottish Labour camp is very uncomfortable with the party line standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories and Lib Dems in the Better Together campaign.

The Scottish Labour MPs and MSPs were very quiet during the campaign (only a few brave ones stood up to be counted on the No side) and they have watched their voters vote against the UK Labour line in droves and 10s of thousands join the Greens and SNP.

There will be a few MPs and MSPs from Scottish Labour who will want the party to look at supporting Independence already, but the prospect of an out of EU vote south of the border while the Scottish electorate are for staying in may be the final straw.

Then you may see a large pool of pro Independence MPs, Green, Socialist, SNP, Scottish Labour (even Lib/Dem if any of them keep their seats). Another referendum call for early 2016!? We may even be in the zone of UDI (Unilaterally Declared Independence), where we can simply leave the UK when a majority of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish MPs support the move.

So, I now have two protagonists in the offing.
Firstly, in the order of posting -NB
You are evidently in the position of quoting statistics with 82.000 SNP paid up members - could you possibly fill in for us your figures for Lib/Dem, UKIP, Green (and even Lab/Tory for that matter) and other peripherals so that we could make some comparisons with your figures?
If your figures only relate to Scotland as opposed to the whole of the UK then they have little relevance in the claim that they are the third largest party in the UK.
And party strength is normally registered by the number of elected representatives they have in office, not from the numbers they have on their books, which is illusive, as I can testify.
Secondly, Your claim that Scotland could opt to stay within the EU, if a majority of the UK voted out - how would this be established as a fact within the Referendum voting system, and if so, would it also not necessitate a referendum on independence from UK and subsequently applying for EU membership thereafter? Here NB, please do not obfuscate by trotting out A. Salmond's bland assurances.
SJ
I have addressed your arguments mostly in the above remarks to NB, except from your apparent insider knowledge of Scottish Labour, and while you may have your ear close to the ground in the groundswell of Labour opinion I doubt that it will make a significant difference when it comes to a UK vote. As for UDI (real fighting talk here) - you are into the realms of fantasy - we are not a colony ruled by force whose only way out of servitude is by drastic unilateral action. Historically it is interesting to note that the subsequent fate of the country that took this course is now probably the biggest "basket case" in Africa.

.
Prior to the re-establishment of the Scottish parliament in 1999 the SNP's proposed route to independence was to gain a majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster. They would have regarded that as a mandate for independence. In other words, the SNP route to independence prior to the devolution settlement was UDI.

However, Salmond and Sturgeon have made it quite plain that the decision lies with the Scottish people. They will decide if or when there is a second referendum when they elect a government with a mandate to deliver one. In the meantime the task is to deliver as many pro-independence MPs to Westminster as possible to hold to account those who made promises to the Scottish electorate.

As for party membership - the SNP have more members than any other UK party except the Tories and Labour - counted on a UK-wide basis. I don't see why you choose to regard that as insignificant or why you describe it as 'illusive' , particularly as most of the new members are politically energised and many will be active campaigners in the forthcoming general election.

Hi there,

UDI while certainly controversial, is hardly fantasy.

First Minister Sturgeon is against it anyway.

Jim,

What is your view on the EU referendum?

I fear Cameron is pandering to the UKIP vote and may accidentally set us out of the EU.

S

SJ
I had a very comprehensive reply being typed up in response to your request on the EU referendum question - and was just congratulating myself on the wisdom of my thoughts when the whole thing disappeared into oblivion - a power cut. On resumption of the power (about 20 minutes) all my well rounded remarks had disappeared into cyberspace.
At this time of night I am not feeling like starting from scratch, so will attempt to reply to your query at a later try.
NB
I am not conversant enough with your website to put sections of quotes from previous posts, but on your preamble I would suggest that the word "when" should be better represented by "if" at one point.

Hopefully yesterday's 2 power cuts are history and have been properly repaired.
In both cases SSE or Hydro, phoned after power was restored to check that we had a supply, which is a step in the right direction with customer relations.
However - back to the EU referendum - it will probably from my previous posts that I am all in favour of alliances (and the bigger the better) especially when they are voluntary, and not brought about by coercion or force.
The current discontent (I think mainly in England) is brought about by back bench Tories and their supporters who still have a hankering for Empire days when UK word was law, and authority was absolute. It is compounded by UKIP who are playing on the discontent of natives who falsely believe that without immigrants, they would have cushy jobs with affluent salaries.
Admittedly we are very fortunate to live in a part of the country where diverse cultures do not impinge seriously on our everyday lives or relations.
Having said that I am in favour of continued membership of the EU, does not mean that it is perfect.
The current ruling that any one member state can veto a proposal by the other 25 is un-democratic, and it does appear to be something of a gravy train for it's elected representatives - the same could also apply to those establishments closer to home.
Personally, and hopefully, I think that on an IN/OUT referendum the result would be rather similar to the last one where all the big furore was made by activists for change, and the silent majority carried the day.
Perhaps SJ, or even NB, if you have an opinion outside Independence, you see things differently?