Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Manfred Belheim]

I generally agree with this point, but the problem is that one of the reasons Scots voted against independence was their unsure status as EU members if they left the UK. Now it turns out the way for them to stay in the EU is by leaving the UK.

But is that definitely a way for them to stay in the EU? Given that it was uncertain if they could remain in the EU even when the country they were leaving was, is it really now a given that they would be allowed back in the EU? I haven't heard this stated by anyone and I think it's one (of at least two) key questions that would need to have a definite answer before it would make sense to have a second referendum.

 

[Mise]

Scotland competes on the world stage in sports as Scotland and will do so at the Rio 2016 Olympics

Scottish athletes compete as part of Great Britain in the Olympics.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But then, the UK was so often doing just the same in the European UNION, that they lost all sympathy from me about it. If they get a good dose of their own medecine, I won't feel sorry.

Well, leaving aside how petty that sounds, don't forget that it would then be England getting a taste of the UK's own medicine (which included Scotland at the time). But anyway, if it was wrong for the UK to do that in the EU then it's still wrong for Scotland to do that in the UK is it not?

 

[Arakhor]

I haven't heard this stated by anyone and I think it's one (of at least two) key questions that would need to have a definite answer before it would make sense to have a second referendum.

One thing we've established so far is that making sense is not required for a national referendum.

 

[Old Hippy]

Scottish athletes compete as part of Great Britain in the Olympics.

My mistake make that the commonwealth games as opened by the Queen of England

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, but as long as it is "united" it is by definition a unity made up of parts.

There have been united kingdoms that have stopped being united kingdoms and geled into nation states over time, but the UK clearly isn't one of those.

I'm not debating exactly how "united" the nation is or not, that's a whole other issue for another discussion. The only relevant factor is that Scotland joined a political union with England hundreds of years ago, very recently voted to stay in that political union, and now certain parties are claiming they should somehow be exempted from a decision taken by that political union, which they took part in, because reasons. I'm not unsympathetic the the idea in general, but it has to be accepted that to argue for it as some sort of obvious and fair next step requires one to kind of sweep a lot of democratic ideas under the carpet and pretend they don't count.

 

[luiz]

But is that definitely a way for them to stay in the EU? Given that it was uncertain if they could remain in the EU even when the country they were leaving was, is it really now a given that they would be allowed back in the EU? I haven't heard this stated by anyone and I think it's one (of at least two) key questions that would need to have a definite answer before it would make sense to have a second referendum.

Absolutely. It would only make sense to call a referendum if Scotland got guarantees from the powers that be at the EU that by leaving the UK before the UK completes its departure from the EU, it could stay (perhaps with Scotland inheriting Britain's place).

Since leaving the EU will be a huge a mess that will take a couple years and involve interminable negotiations, I'm sure Scotland's eventual place could be included in the debates.

 

[Akka]

Well, leaving aside how petty that sounds, don't forget that it would then be England getting a taste of the UK's own medicine (which included Scotland at the time). But anyway, if it was wrong for the UK to do that in the EU then it's still wrong for Scotland to do that in the UK is it not?

I'm not talking about right or wrong, I'm talking about not feeling sorry for them.
And anyway, I'd say that "secession" vs "consolidation" is more of a viewpoint on how the world should run than a point on morality. And if we're talking about morality, then not being hypocrital would be a start, and it's not a point on which the UK can get any ground here.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No the equivalent would be if the UK had voted to stay and 6 months from now the EU decides that they're cancelling the rebate. The UK would have every reason to want a second referendum, as there has been a major change in their relationship.

Would that still be true if, 6 months ago, everyone knew full well that a vote on the rebate was likely to be coming and that all predictions were that it would be a very close vote if it did? At that point could you not accuse the UK of hedging its bets, of wanting its cake and eating it etc? Let's not pretend that this referendum, or its result, was some total bolt out of the blue that no-one could possibly have foreseen in late 2014.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Wait, isn't it exactly what the UK has always done from the very beginning ?

Exactly. And how much love did they get for that? So why is it okay to do the same thing if you're wearing a kilt? (Other than the aforementioned "taste of their own medicine" argument which isn't really a very good one when applied on an international scale to millions of people with limited power and differing viewpoints).

 

[AdrienIer]

Would that still be true if, 6 months ago, everyone knew full well that a vote on the rebate was likely to be coming and that all predictions were that it would be a very close vote if it did? At that point could you not accuse the UK of hedging its bets, of wanting its cake and eating it etc? Let's not pretend that this referendum, or its result, was some total bolt out of the blue that no-one could possibly have foreseen in late 2014.

This referendum wasn't a certainty in 2014. Cameron winning the 2015 election was a surprise for pretty much everyone

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Scotland competes on the world stage in sports as Scotland and will do so at Rio often against England so however you spin it Scotland is more than a sub-section of a nation, as accepted acknowledged by England's actions. it is a Nation in its own right that has clearly said it does not wish to be ruled by Westminster red tape but by EU red tape.
any other choice would take away the legitimacy of the UK result for its own independence day
but still should have their referendum before Westminster does any bargaining with the EU about Scotland's future
you never know the might even stay


edit: make that the commonwealth games where England competes against Scotland as separate nations

Look you're just playing word games over the use of the word "nation", which is just a way of sidestepping the argument. If you don't want to engage honestly then let's leave it.

 

[Atticus]

But wasn't the Scottish referendum a simple yes/no poll? Of course the brexit changes the setting totally. It's like EMU would have been implemented all over the EU without countries having a chance to opt out or break out of the union.

For the record, I don't think there's anyone who's saying that it was wrong for the UK to hold the referendum and break out. Some people just think the outcome was stupid. As another note, the London equivalent isn't proper, because people don't think that Londoners shouldn't in principle have right to do it. The idea of London breaking out from the UK sounds odd because nobody can't imagine Londoners really wanting to do it.

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm not debating exactly how "united" the nation is or not, that's a whole other issue for another discussion. The only relevant factor is that Scotland joined a political union with England hundreds of years ago, very recently voted to stay in that political union, and now certain parties are claiming they should somehow be exempted from a decision taken by that political union, which they took part in, because reasons. I'm not unsympathetic the the idea in general, but it has to be accepted that to argue for it as some sort of obvious and fair next step requires one to kind of sweep a lot of democratic ideas under the carpet and pretend they don't count.

because reasons
that's all they need, a reason to see their future apart from the UK, it was a non binding referendum
you even acknowledge that recently they voted to stay so all the past history was not important at that time to wether a vote should be taken and since then BREXIT has changed the very nature of the existing Union. so the Brexit vote swept a lot under the carpet and just as the UK decide to have a vote about the EU, because reasons' Scotland should have the same democratic right to vote on its future due to current circumstances

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This referendum wasn't a certainty in 2014. Cameron winning the 2015 election was a surprise for pretty much everyone

I didn't say it was a certainty I said it was likely. It was pretty clear that the Lib Dems had lost a hell of a lot of goodwill and support over the previous government so were never going to achieve the same result as the last election. Labour were essentially nowhere. So it was pretty much certain that, at the very least, it would be another coalition government with the tories forming an even bigger part of the government than last time. An outright majority might have been a surprise, but that's not to say it was a requirement in order to get the referendum. The Lib Dems weren't massively successful in blocking a lot of the Tory policies even when they were a bigger partner in the coalition than they inevitably would have been.

Anyway, as I keep saying, I'm not even massively against the idea of a second independence referendum in Scotland, I'm just annoyed about how it's being talked about as if it's the only fair and correct thing to do, and how hypocritical some people are being. But if it is to happen (and if it is to mean anything) then two questions need to be settled:

a) What a UK outside of the EU actually means. This is all up in the air at the moment.

b) Whether Scotland outside of the UK is even eligible for re-entry into the EU.

Without knowing either of these things the people of Scotland might as well flip a coin. It wouldn't make sense to have a second referendum at this point and any Sturgeons who might push for one would obviously be doing so for their own ends.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

because reasons
that's all they need, a reason to see their future apart from the UK, it was a non binding referendum
you even acknowledge that recently they voted to stay so all the past history was not important at that time to wether a vote should be taken and since then BREXIT has changed the very nature of the existing Union. so the Brexit vote swept a lot under the carpet and just as the UK decide to have a vote about the EU, because reasons' Scotland should have the same democratic right to vote on its future due to current circumstances

Is it not possible for you to post without using emotes?

 

[Old Hippy]

Is it not possible for you to post without using emotes?

apparently not, but I will try in future

 

[AdrienIer]

I didn't say it was a certainty I said it was likely. It was pretty clear that the Lib Dems had lost a hell of a lot of goodwill and support over the previous government so were never going to achieve the same result as the last election. Labour were essentially nowhere. So it was pretty much certain that, at the very least, it would be another coalition government with the tories forming an even bigger part of the government than last time. An outright majority might have been a surprise, but that's not to say it was a requirement in order to get the referendum. The Lib Dems weren't massively successful in blocking a lot of the Tory policies even when they were a bigger partner in the coalition than they inevitably would have been.

Anyway, as I keep saying, I'm not even massively against the idea of a second independence referendum in Scotland, I'm just annoyed about how it's being talked about as if it's the only fair and correct thing to do, and how hypocritical some people are being. But if it is to happen (and if it is to mean anything) then two questions need to be settled:

a) What a UK outside of the EU actually means. This is all up in the air at the moment.

b) Whether Scotland outside of the UK is even eligible for re-entry into the EU.

Without knowing either of these things the people of Scotland might as well flip a coin. It wouldn't make sense to have a second referendum at this point and any Sturgeons who might push for one would obviously be doing so for their own ends.

Also note that around the time the Scottish referendum was held the polls suggested a tight vote in favor of remaining in the EU.

And I think your questions are being answered as we post : the heads of the right and of the center in the European parliament just said that Scotland was welcome to stay in the EU if they wanted to, as well as several of Merkel's closest ministers and allies. If Rajoy had won handily yesterday he could have tried to block a Scottish entry but not when he's in a position of weakness.

 

[metalhead]

I'm not debating exactly how "united" the nation is or not, that's a whole other issue for another discussion. The only relevant factor is that Scotland joined a political union with England hundreds of years ago, very recently voted to stay in that political union, and now certain parties are claiming they should somehow be exempted from a decision taken by that political union, which they took part in, because reasons. I'm not unsympathetic the the idea in general, but it has to be accepted that to argue for it as some sort of obvious and fair next step requires one to kind of sweep a lot of democratic ideas under the carpet and pretend they don't count.

Bollocks. Who cares how recent it was? Fact is, the situation has changed drastically since the last Scottish referendum. You can't vote to withdraw from a political union and then turn around and tell members of your own political union, "You shouldn't hold a vote to leave." There's nothing undemocratic about it; referenda are as democratic as it gets. If the previous one didn't specify a time frame for its effect, it is in no way undemocratic to hold another referendum on Scottish independence.

Of course, this simply demonstrates the pure idiocy of leaving such consequential decisions up to popular referenda. But apparently that's how the British Isles have decided to handle fundamental questions of statehood and sovereignty, so that's how it has to be. You can't limit that for recency's sake if there is nothing that says you have to - that would be undemocratic.

 

[Akka]

Exactly. And how much love did they get for that? So why is it okay to do the same thing if you're wearing a kilt? (Other than the aforementioned "taste of their own medicine" argument which isn't really a very good one when applied on an international scale to millions of people with limited power and differing viewpoints).

The problem is that you can't both say "it's bad when one does it, so the other shouldn't" AND "reciprocity doesn't apply !" as they are mutually exclusive.