Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Soft thread split, hard thread split, no-deal thread split. Who gives a sh!t as long as we get a thread split by the 15:35 deadline.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm I have scoured all calendars etc and do you know what I have never found that new bank holiday yet of UK Independence Day for when the UK voted to leave the EU? I wonder why?

'Cos we haven't left yet.

True. Do you care to wager that bank holiday will never come about on the grounds that as proven above that UK was always an independent country in or out of the EU?

The UK does not have supreme law-making power, hence it is not an independent country.

The mark of an independent country is one that can make choices for itself. In the EU the UK chose not to use the Euro. It chose to wage a war based on lies in the Middle East and it chose to hold a referendum at the time of its choice without EU permission on its future in the EU. Whereas Scotland cannot hold a referendum on independence without the say so of Westminster.

Therefore, if the act of Leaving has no meaningful consequences for the concept of 'Independence' - then why the convoluted 'warfare' involved in the simple act of 'Leaving'? If there is nothing of substance lost or gained in Leaving then there is nothing lost or gained in Remaining. But that's not been the argument from either side of the debate, ....has it?

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:In the EU the UK chose not to use the Euro. Whereas Scotland cannot hold a referendum on independence without the say so of Westminster.

Such a 'choice' won't be open to Scotland if they exit the UK and re-join the EU.

The second point is not definitely true. Scotland might be able to hold a referendum without the say-so of Westminster, but it would need to go to court to decide. I believe the SNP are already working on this anyway.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/31/gavin-anderson-et-al-the-independence-referendum-legality-and-the-contested-constitution-widening-the-debate/
https://fullfact.org/law/can-scotland-legally-hold-another-referendum/

The SNP don't want independence anyway.  All they want to do is replace one external power base Parliament with another external power base Administration .... or in other words they simply want to replace their current old boss with a more powerful, more remote younger boss.  "We've rid ourselves of the English!  Now we'll control our own unique independent Scottish destiny from Brussels/Strasbourg!"
Independence, like most words these days, has become something with a hundred pin-prick precise meaningless meanings to serve and soothe any given agenda at any given time.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:In the EU the UK chose not to use the Euro. Whereas Scotland cannot hold a referendum on independence without the say so of Westminster.

Such a 'choice' won't be open to Scotland if they exit the UK and re-join the EU.

The second point is not definitely true. Scotland might be able to hold a referendum without the say-so of Westminster, but it would need to go to court to decide. I believe the SNP are already working on this anyway.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/31/gavin-anderson-et-al-the-independence-referendum-legality-and-the-contested-constitution-widening-the-debate/
https://fullfact.org/law/can-scotland-legally-hold-another-referendum/

You certainly have either selective thought processes or a bad memory. The Scottish Government announced their intention over a year ago to hold a second indyref. It never happened as of yet. Why? The dead woman walking PM said: 'Now is not the time.' Roughly translated it means sit down and shut up. At a time when Scotland has categorically voted to remain in the EU yet it is to be dragged out of the EU on Westminster say so.

SecretFly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:In the EU the UK chose not to use the Euro. Whereas Scotland cannot hold a referendum on independence without the say so of Westminster.

Such a 'choice' won't be open to Scotland if they exit the UK and re-join the EU.

The second point is not definitely true. Scotland might be able to hold a referendum without the say-so of Westminster, but it would need to go to court to decide. I believe the SNP are already working on this anyway.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/31/gavin-anderson-et-al-the-independence-referendum-legality-and-the-contested-constitution-widening-the-debate/
https://fullfact.org/law/can-scotland-legally-hold-another-referendum/

The SNP don't want independence anyway.  All they want to do is replace one external power base Parliament with another external power base Administration .... or in other words they simply want to replace their current old boss with a more powerful, more remote younger boss.  "We've rid ourselves of the English!  Now we'll control our own unique independent Scottish destiny from Brussels/Strasbourg!"
Independence, like most words these days, has become something with a hundred pin-prick precise meaningless meanings to serve and soothe any given agenda at any given time.

You are confusing SNP with the independence movement merely because the SNP are the leading figures in the push for it. Independence is craved by well over a million people in Scotland a lot of whom do not vote SNP. A lot of whom are Anglo-Scots who see the damage Westminster-rule does to Scotland.

Independence is driven by a desire for self-governance. I would sooner be led by a government whose sole focus is on Scotland and led by Scots rather than fat toffs 350 miles away whose raison d'etre is a lot different from what Scots want. Shame you cannot see that.

I can see quite clearly the hypocrisy of an 'Independence movement' - it matters not that the SNP are the visible flag wavers  - ... an Independence movement that tries to besmirch a political dependency on fat-toffs 350 miles away in 'Westminster-rule' London (incidentally possibly the most pro-EU part of the UK!) whilst running into the arms of political dependency on fat bureaucrats 600 miles away in Brussels or 800 miles away in Strasbourg.
You're free to call that Independence if you want, I'd just refer to it as bowing to a new Overlord. Language up to its old tricks again.

Few points on Indyref:

1/ There was a Independence referendum in 2014 which was promised by Scottish nationalists as 'once in a generation'. This is also the reason I'm against the 2nd EU ref: respect democracy. You wouldn't be supportive if there was role reversal and a vote for independence was overturned by future referenda.

2/ The narrative that Scotland is being 'dragged out of the EU against their will' is a false one. By 2014, the Tory government had already promised a EU referendum. Scottish voters were fully aware of the prospect during the Indyref. Voting to stay in the UK, by definition, means that some policies implemented will have majority support in the UK but not in Scotland alone. Yet Scots voted to stay in the UK anyway.  

3/ Scotland would not be able to re-join the EU as it would need approval of all EU countries, including Spain who would certainly veto to send a message to Catalonia.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/independent-scotland-would-have-to-apply-to-join-eu-commission-says

4/ Craig, you talk about independence and self governance. However, there's a strong argument that Scotland would actually lose power and control, in the same way the UK would if they had a WTO Brexit. Given the high percentage of trade Scotland do with the rest of the UK (far higher than the % of overall trade done by the rest of the UK with Scotland), UK would control the negotiations.  
The UK could use the EU's playbook, or go even further: threaten huge tariffs and try and block Scotland using the pound (both of which would cause economic recession in Scotland), and say Scotland will have to follow UK laws anyway (in the same way EU say NI would have to follow EU regulations in Withdrawal Agreement). Norway have to follow EU regulations but get no say in deciding them. Turkey sign up to the EU's trade deals with other countries, but have no say in the trade negotiations.
Unfortunately, as Boris will find out, you can't bluster your way out of no leverage. Don't be surprised if after independence Scotland actually has less say in the way they're run.  

5/ Independence would lead to a race to the bottom for tax competitiveness. If Scotland leave, the rest of the UK could lower income tax and corporation tax. Scottish people and businesses could then move their tax liability to the rest of the UK. Foreign Direct investment would head preferentially to the rest of the UK. Scotland would lose a lot of tax revenue that is used to fund public services. The only way they could counter this is to make Scotland more competitive to corporations. Thus a race to the bottom ensues. The SNP already know this, hence their policy for years was to reduce corporation tax, however due to bad optics in the run up to the Indyref they had to ditch the policy.
Currently Scotland gets more money per person from public spending than the rest of the UK. Independence makes sense if you're a vulture capitalist or a big corporation. It's a catastrophic risk for someone relying on Scottish public services.

I think Scotland will sooner or later become independent - mainly due to SNP being the dominant political power in Scotland - mainly due to the ease at blaming all perceived negative  issues on Westminster - and mainly due to their control over the Scottish education system - such that from a young age Scots can be told stories of the good Scots and the bad English.

So I am more interested in the nature of the separation: that is hard borders, separate militaries, rights to North Sea resources, language, currency, separate national banks, property and inheritance rights for Scots owning property in England and vice versa etc.

ps It would also be an opportunity for England and the English to reflect on what it means to be English (rather than British, or Yorkshian (?), or Lancastrian etc). This conflict and suppression of the meaning of English results in a Scottish National Party being seen as a type of freedom party whilst an English National Party being seen as a racist evil party.

It Must Be Love wrote:Few points on Indyref:

1/ There was a Independence referendum in 2014 which was promised by Scottish nationalists as 'once in a generation'. This is also the reason I'm against the 2nd EU ref: respect democracy. You wouldn't be supportive if there was role reversal and a vote for independence was overturned by future referenda.

2/ The narrative that Scotland is being 'dragged out of the EU against their will' is a false one. By 2014, the Tory government had already promised a EU referendum. Scottish voters were fully aware of the prospect during the Indyref. Voting to stay in the UK, by definition, means that some policies implemented will have majority support in the UK but not in Scotland alone. Yet Scots voted to stay in the UK anyway.  

3/ Scotland would not be able to re-join the EU as it would need approval of all EU countries, including Spain who would certainly veto to send a message to Catalonia.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/independent-scotland-would-have-to-apply-to-join-eu-commission-says

4/ Craig, you talk about independence and self governance. However, there's a strong argument that Scotland would actually lose power and control, in the same way the UK would if they had a WTO Brexit. Given the high percentage of trade Scotland do with the rest of the UK (far higher than the % of overall trade done by the rest of the UK with Scotland), UK would control the negotiations.  
The UK could use the EU's playbook, or go even further: threaten huge tariffs and try and block Scotland using the pound (both of which would cause economic recession in Scotland), and say Scotland will have to follow UK laws anyway (in the same way EU say NI would have to follow EU regulations in Withdrawal Agreement). Norway have to follow EU regulations but get no say in deciding them. Turkey sign up to the EU's trade deals with other countries, but have no say in the trade negotiations.
Unfortunately, as Boris will find out, you can't bluster your way out of no leverage. Don't be surprised if after independence Scotland actually has less say in the way they're run.  

5/ Independence would lead to a race to the bottom for tax competitiveness. If Scotland leave, the rest of the UK could lower income tax and corporation tax. Scottish people and businesses could then move their tax liability to the rest of the UK. Foreign Direct investment would head preferentially to the rest of the UK. Scotland would lose a lot of tax revenue that is used to fund public services. The only way they could counter this is to make Scotland more competitive to corporations. Thus a race to the bottom ensues. The SNP already know this, hence their policy for years was to reduce corporation tax, however due to bad optics in the run up to the Indyref they had to ditch the policy.
Currently Scotland gets more money per person from public spending than the rest of the UK. Independence makes sense if you're a vulture capitalist or a big corporation. It's a catastrophic risk for someone relying on Scottish public services.

1. No it was not promised as a 'once in a generation' referendum. To encourage everyone to vote the term was used but by no means was it ever a promise and not written into any agreements.

2. Nonsense. Yes a Brexit referendum was on the horizon but it was largely in the distant background as it was generally presumed that a Remain vote would be returned as all polls suggested. Every constituency in Scotland voted to Remain in the EU and by a higher percentage than had voted to remain in the UK. Whatsmore one of the key issues of the 2014 indyref was Better Together using EU membership as a big bargaining chip for people to vote no to independence. It was a big help in tipping the vote in their favour and now look where we are.

3. Yes quote The Guardian if you so wish as it is a unionist newspaper. But there are equal reports that suggest otherwise such as:- https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-politics-scotland/spain-would-not-oppose-future-independent-scotland-rejoining-eu-minister-idUKKCN1NP25P . In any case EU membership or not, many Scots would take independence in a heartbeat whatever the circumstances of EU membership. After all it looks nailed on to be losing EU membership in any case.

4. No sorry but I totally disagree. On trade issues the rest of the UK needs Scottish trade that they'd need to negotiate on a level playing field given that Scottish Beef is a major player in the British market, that wind farms etc produce 75% of the UK's renewable power sources, given the massive whisky industry and oil fields. And remember that if independence were to happen in the next couple of years or so the UK will probably be out of any EU deals so not in any position to play hard ball in trade deal negotiations. And no doubt the UK would be wanting to keep trident on Scottish soil which would be at a handsome price.

5. Look nobody is denying (or at least I am not) how tough independence will be early doors but at present the looming prospect of a Hard Deal Brexit shackled to the UK is equally a torturous route ahead financially. Yes Scotland would be in debt but you do realise that the UK is Trillions in debt. Now please answer me this. If Scotland is such a huge burden upon Westminster pray tell why it is so desperate to keep hold of Scotland in this union. It is a question a unionist has never came up with an answer too.

No name Bertie wrote:I think Scotland will sooner or later become independent - mainly due to SNP being the dominant political power in Scotland - mainly due to the ease at blaming all perceived negative  issues on Westminster - and mainly due to their control over the Scottish education system - such that from a young age Scots can be told stories of the good Scots and the bad English.

So I am more interested in the nature of the separation: that is hard borders, separate militaries, rights to North Sea resources, language, currency, separate national banks, property and inheritance rights for Scots owning property in England and vice versa etc.

ps It would also be an opportunity for England and the English to reflect on what it means to be English (rather than British, or Yorkshian (?), or Lancastrian etc).  This conflict and suppression of the meaning of English results in a Scottish National Party being seen as a type of freedom party whilst an English National Party being seen as a racist evil party.

Again you are making that common mistake believing the SNP and independence backers to be anti-English - utter nonsense. Anti-Westminster - yes most definitely. There is a big difference there. If there are to be hard borders and it is highly likely then sobeit. Adding about half an hour or an hour onto journey time is in no way a deal breaker. Separate militaries? Well military is not as huge as you think. When was the last time the UK went to war to defend it's shores? Over 70 years ago now and counting. The last time the UK went into direct conflict over a matter that directly involved them was The Falklands War nearly 40 years ago and those sort of circumstances are not going to be coming about for Scotland. As to rights to North Sea resources well Westminster did move the borders a few years back to ensure they gained some oilfields from what was once Scottish waters so what is done is done sadly. I do not see language being any issue and currency could present a problem depending on the route that takes but now looks increasing likely Scotland would introduce its own currency. Separate National banks will happen that is inevitable. I cannot see property and inheritance being in any major issues as agreements will be reached as it would be in both parties interests.

Plenty of countries have declared independence from Britain, albeit the British Empire. Many others have declared independence from other colonial powers. You'd swear Scotland was the first country to even consider such a thing.

CaledonianCraig wrote:...5. Look nobody is denying (or at least I am not) how tough independence will be early doors but at present the looming prospect of a Hard Deal Brexit shackled to the UK is equally a torturous route ahead financially. Yes Scotland would be in debt but you do realise that the UK is Trillions in debt. Now please answer me this. If Scotland is such a huge burden upon Westminster pray tell why it is so desperate to keep hold of Scotland in this union. It is a question a unionist has never came up with an answer too.

Perhaps because Nationalist, small-minded mindsets should be on their way out? Perhaps, philosophically, we should be coming together, rather than fragmenting? Never mind. You've made up your mind. Wish you well. Enjoy the Euro etc.

Wonder what the Picts, Gaels or ancient Kingdom of Northumbria think about it?

As far as I am aware, the norman barons crushed the English (including the genocide known as the harrowing of the north) and took over.  Then crushed the Welsh and took over, partly crushed the Scots and took over (including intermarrying with the elite - which occurred in Wales too), they sort of did the same in Ireland with the help of the Dutchman William.  At a later stage all the common lands were appropriated in a process called enclosures.  The class system formed from the normal baron ruling classes (with its feudal system) and the English (plus others) subjugated peasant lower classes.

With regard the military I see the possibility of that being needed to resolve possible heated issues between a newly formed Scotland and something called "Britain" - which would be England and Wales and N. Ireland. Scottish independence may also lead to civil disorder in what is left of Britain with the possibility of violent separatist groups springing up (e.g. in Wales) and interferences in N. Ireland from groups in Ireland for a new attempt at a unified Ireland - so the military might be needed there too.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Plenty of countries have declared independence from Britain, albeit the British Empire. Many others have declared independence from other colonial powers. You'd swear Scotland was the first country to even consider such a thing.

Wow - a voice of reason here. I congratulate you.

No name Bertie wrote:As far as I am aware, the norman barons crushed the English (including the genocide known as the harrowing of the north) and took over.  Then crushed the Welsh and took over, partly crushed the Scots and took over (including intermarrying with the elite - which occurred in Wales too), they sort of did the same in Ireland with the help of the Dutchman William.  At a later stage all the common lands were appropriated in a process called enclosures.  The class system formed from the normal baron ruling classes (with its feudal system) and the English (plus others) subjugated peasant lower classes.

With regard the military I see the possibility of that being needed to resolve possible heated issues between a newly formed Scotland and something called "Britain" - which would be England and Wales and N. Ireland.  Scottish independence may also lead to civil disorder in what is left of Britain with the possibility of violent separatist groups springing up (e.g. in Wales) and interferences in N. Ireland from groups in Ireland for a new attempt at a unified Ireland - so the military might be needed there too.  

All wars that took place hundreds of years ago now with spears and arrows. Any major conflict on a worldwide scale now and a military presence will be immaterial with WMD. Military-wise Scotland would have an army no doubt resurrecting defunct renowned regiments axed a few years ago by Westminster.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Plenty of countries have declared independence from Britain, albeit the British Empire. Many others have declared independence from other colonial powers. You'd swear Scotland was the first country to even consider such a thing.

Wow - a voice of reason here. I congratulate you.

Reason can be used to argue for anything.  You only call it a "voice of reason" because he is supporting your viewpoint.  If someone does NOT agree with you (or a given political position you may hold) it does not mean they are NOT being reasonable.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Plenty of countries have declared independence from Britain, albeit the British Empire. Many others have declared independence from other colonial powers. You'd swear Scotland was the first country to even consider such a thing.

Wow - a voice of reason here. I congratulate you.

Are you comparing the treatment of Scotland to the treatment of other countries in the British empire? Wow, that's a pretty inappropriate and tasteless thing to say.

Caledonian Craig wrote:1. No it was not promised as a 'once in a generation' referendum. To encourage everyone to vote the term was used but by no means was it ever a promise and not written into any agreements.

Just like the Brexit campaign's 350M a week for NHS wasn't written into any agreement... Words during campaigns should matter. Democracy should be respected.

Caledonian Craig wrote:On trade issues the rest of the UK needs Scottish trade that they'd need to negotiate on a level playing field given that Scottish Beef is a major player in the British market, that wind farms etc produce 75% of the UK's renewable power sources, given the massive whisky industry and oil fields.

Oh my goodness. Look in a mirror, you'll see the Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg, the worst things you hate about Westminster, looking back at you.
Leverage in a trade deal doesn't come from isolated examples of exports to Scotland. That's literally the Brexit rhetoric which has been disproven.
It's about the overall percentages. 60% of Scotland's exports go to the rest of the UK. Only a small percentage of the rest of the UK's exports go to Scotland. The leverage the UK would have in any negotiation would be gargantuan, and just like Norway with the EU, it's likely you'd end up with a situation where Scotland has to accept many UK laws, except without a say.

Caledonian Craig wrote:Yes Scotland would be in debt but you do realise that the UK is Trillions in debt.

Being in debt without much control on monetary policy is a recipe for disaster. You didn't address my point on how it would be a race to the bottom on taxes.

Caledonian Craig wrote:If Scotland is such a huge burden upon Westminster pray tell why it is so desperate to keep hold of Scotland in this union. It is a question a unionist has never came up with an answer too.

The value of Scotland is much greater than calculations on tax revenue/ person, things are more important than money. So many Scottish people contribute great things to the UK, and make the country what it is. When Sir Andy Murray was on Wimbledon Centre Court, the audience didn't care which nation he was from, he was a Brit and they cheered him on to history.
Of course from a narrow minded mentality where we look to cast people as 'the other': whether that's Polish, Romanian, Scottish or English, it may not make sense at all. But it makes sense to me, and also to the majority of Scots who realise sowing division isn't the solution.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Caledonian Craig wrote:1. No it was not promised as a 'once in a generation' referendum. To encourage everyone to vote the term was used but by no means was it ever a promise and not written into any agreements.

Just like the Brexit campaign's 350M a week for NHS wasn't written into any agreement... Words during campaigns should matter. Democracy should be respected.

Caledonian Craig wrote:On trade issues the rest of the UK needs Scottish trade that they'd need to negotiate on a level playing field given that Scottish Beef is a major player in the British market, that wind farms etc produce 75% of the UK's renewable power sources, given the massive whisky industry and oil fields.

Oh my goodness. Look in a mirror, you'll see the Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg, the worst things you hate about Westminster, looking back at you.
Leverage in a trade deal doesn't come from isolated examples of exports to Scotland. That's literally the Brexit rhetoric which has been disproven.
It's about the overall percentages. 60% of Scotland's exports go to the rest of the UK. Only a small percentage of the rest of the UK's exports go to Scotland. The leverage the UK would have in any negotiation would be gargantuan, and just like Norway with the EU, it's likely you'd end up with a situation where Scotland has to accept many UK laws, except without a say.

Caledonian Craig wrote:Yes Scotland would be in debt but you do realise that the UK is Trillions in debt.

Being in debt without much control on monetary policy is a recipe for disaster. You didn't address my point on how it would be a race to the bottom on taxes.

Caledonian Craig wrote:If Scotland is such a huge burden upon Westminster pray tell why it is so desperate to keep hold of Scotland in this union. It is a question a unionist has never came up with an answer too.

The value of Scotland is much greater than calculations on tax revenue/ person, things are more important than money. So many Scottish people contribute great things to the UK, and make the country what it is. When Sir Andy Murray was on Wimbledon Centre Court, the audience didn't care which nation he was from, he was a Brit and they cheered him on to history.
Of course from a narrow minded mentality where we look to cast people as 'the other': whether that's Polish, Romanian, Scottish or English, it may not make sense at all. But it makes sense to me, and also to the majority of Scots who realise sowing division isn't the solution.

Hmm yes words during campaigning should matter. Better Together campaigned on saying Vote No to remain in the EU and safeguard Scotland's future in the EU. Now look at what is happening. Better Together claimed that, as was the plan, Scotland could not continue to use the pound but since then the Governor of Bank of England has said that plan would have been highly feasible. More lies then. Better Together claimed Scotland was putting too much emphasis on oil - a commodity all but gone. This is a line Westminster has been trumpeting for the last 30 years and guess what? Two new oilfields have been discovered off the coast of Scotland since indyref. Better Together was adamant Scotland would lose the Royal Family. Hours later the Queen was quick to dismiss that. Better Together promised more devolved powers to Scotland for voting No and in fact more powers meant for Scotland from the EU has been taken by Westminster. And lest we forget the nauseous puke put out by Cameron and Mundell after a No vote was returned. Scotland (in their words) was a valued partner of the union. Spin forward a couple of years in the Houses of Parliament and Mundell's rhetoric had changed greatly to 'Scotland is not a partner of the UK but a part of the UK'.

And can I remind you about things changing in politics that over-ride things that have been said. Chamberlain declared 'Peace in our Time' in 1939 with his white paper. Weeks later Britain was at war with Germany.

Sorry but you are devaluing much of what Scotland has to offer a heck of a lot. To try to claim the UK would be in a position themselves to play hardball with Scotland in trade deal talks is daft. Scotland has many goods to trade and assets that the rest of the UK need such as farming produce, oil, renewable power sources, water, whisky etc etc etc. And Scotland stands (I do believe) 44th in the world in terms of exporting yet unionists would have us believe we couldn't survive. Many countries with less to offer have managed just fine as an independent country.

Supposition on racing to the bottom of taxes really as there is no evidence to support that just unionist opinion.

Sorry but Tories live, eat and breathe money. It is wealth that is their reason for being. Sentimentality of what Scots bring to the UK counts for nothing to money motivated politicians. They see what Scotland brings to the union in terms of real finances hence why they won't let Scotland go. I mean it is not rocket science is it? Whenever independence talk is on the agenda they trot out Scotland being too poor and in debt and is bankrolled by the UK. Hmm if that were truly the case the Tories would have got shot of Scotland a mighty long time ago.

The government can't just decide to break up the union to suit it's own needs and to do so would contravene pretty much every single act of parliament since 1707, I do find it strange how you look at things from such a distorted point of view. The UK minus Scotland would have the upper hand in any negotiation, you seem to think that everything will get handed straight over were Independence to happen ignoring that major industries technically come under the Jurisdiction of the UK crown and that parliament simply acts on their behalf.

To be honest Scotland seems to need all the help it can get to overcome it's crippling drug problem.

Caledonian Craig wrote:To try to claim the UK would be in a position themselves to play hardball with Scotland in trade deal talks is daft. Scotland has many goods to trade and assets that the rest of the UK need such as farming produce, oil, renewable power sources, water, whisky etc

Do you understand how leverage in a trade negotiation works? 60% of Scotland's exports are to the rest of the UK. The rest of UK's exports to Scotland is small as a percentage. Of course Scotland has a lot to offer, but it's about the percentages.
Therefore UK has the power and can dictate that negotiation. It's stunning that you can't grasp this.

Caledonian Craig wrote:Supposition on racing to the bottom of taxes really as there is no evidence to support that just unionist opinion.

I made a case based on logic and reason that you didn't attempt to counter. Independence would give the rest of the UK incentive to lower taxes as it would mean businesses and wealthy investors could move there from Scotland to lower their tax burden. Scotland would have the option of either conscientiously haemorrhaging tax revenue, or stop the flight of capital by lowering taxes themselves.

Caledonian Craig wrote:Sentimentality of what Scots bring to the UK counts for nothing to money motivated politicians.

Actually many people in the UK, right wing and left wing, genuinely love and value Scotland. Many of us have family from Scotland. It's sad you come from a place of such anger that you can't see that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Scotland stands (I do believe) 44th in the world in terms of exporting yet unionists would have us believe we couldn't survive. Many countries with less to offer have managed just fine as an independent country.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all net exporters. England is not.

There are plenty of independent countries that are smaller and have poorer natural resources than Wales, never mind Scotland.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Scotland stands (I do believe) 44th in the world in terms of exporting yet unionists would have us believe we couldn't survive. Many countries with less to offer have managed just fine as an independent country.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all net exporters. England is not.

There are plenty of independent countries that are smaller and have poorer natural resources than Wales, never mind Scotland.

Precisely. And to suggest that countries with less resources than Scotland can make it as an independent country but Scotland cannot is an erroneous view.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Caledonian Craig wrote:To try to claim the UK would be in a position themselves to play hardball with Scotland in trade deal talks is daft. Scotland has many goods to trade and assets that the rest of the UK need such as farming produce, oil, renewable power sources, water, whisky etc

Do you understand how leverage in a trade negotiation works? 60% of Scotland's exports are to the rest of the UK. The rest of UK's exports to Scotland is small as a percentage. Of course Scotland has a lot to offer, but it's about the percentages.
Therefore UK has the power and can dictate that negotiation. It's stunning that you can't grasp this.

Caledonian Craig wrote:Supposition on racing to the bottom of taxes really as there is no evidence to support that just unionist opinion.

I made a case based on logic and reason that you didn't attempt to counter. Independence would give the rest of the UK incentive to lower taxes as it would mean businesses and wealthy investors could move there from Scotland to lower their tax burden. Scotland would have the option of either conscientiously haemorrhaging tax revenue, or stop the flight of capital by lowering taxes themselves.

Caledonian Craig wrote:Sentimentality of what Scots bring to the UK counts for nothing to money motivated politicians.

Actually many people in the UK, right wing and left wing, genuinely love and value Scotland. Many of us have family from Scotland. It's sad you come from a place of such anger that you can't see that.  

Okay so lets presume an independent Scotland comes about. I do believe a figure of around 75% is the figure for market share in the UK for British beef. So lets say the UK want to play hardball then it is cutting their noses off to spite their faces. Where do they replace that loss of Scottish Beef from given that the rest of the UK are not involved in any trade deals with the EU either? And are the pubs and clubs of the rest of the UK ready to block Scotch whisky for example if a trade deal is not agreed. And okay the UK can play hardball but is that wise considering they'd be ultra keen to keep Trident in Scottish waters rather than move it down to the said option of Plymouth.

It was not a case you made and is not a case pushed as such by Better Together either so it cannot be an issue of great note if that is the case.

And sorry but you are making wild assumption about Scotland being a place of anger just because it is pursuing independence. On your logic can we call the UK a sad place of anger considering it is attempting to leave a family of 27 countries in the form of the EU?

Pursuing independence?

It was given the choice and 55% decided they'd rather not, I suppose Westminster is going to look at things as simplistically as Beef and Whiskey, we won' try and pursue the best avenues for us considering we put all the infrastructure in place to start with.

Caledonian Craig wrote:I do believe a figure of around 75% is the figure for market share in the UK for British beef. So lets say the UK want to play hardball then it is cutting their noses off to spite their faces. Where do they replace that loss of Scottish Beef from given that the rest of the UK are not involved in any trade deals with the EU either?

I don't believe Scotland produce 75% of UK beef, that's a suspiciously high figure. If it was true, then tariffs would mean UK's beef consumption would have to go down.
And more importantly, beef isn't the only good traded between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I think by focusing on random examples you've lost a sense of perspective. 60% of Scotland's exports go to the UK. They have no leverage in a negotiation.

Caledonian Craig wrote:It was not a case you made and is not a case pushed as such by Better Together either so it cannot be an issue of great note if that is the case.

Is that your response to my point on a race to the bottom on taxes? My point is based on logic, what other campaigns have said is irrelevant.

Caledonian Craig wrote:And sorry but you are making wild assumption about Scotland being a place of anger just because it is pursuing independence.

When I said you are coming from a place of anger, that was a metaphor. I wasn't literally saying Scotland is a place of anger. I mean Scotland voted to stay in the UK anyway.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Caledonian Craig wrote:I do believe a figure of around 75% is the figure for market share in the UK for British beef. So lets say the UK want to play hardball then it is cutting their noses off to spite their faces. Where do they replace that loss of Scottish Beef from given that the rest of the UK are not involved in any trade deals with the EU either?

I don't believe Scotland produce 75% of UK beef, that's a suspiciously high figure. If it was true, then tariffs would mean UK's beef consumption would have to go down.
And more importantly, beef isn't the only good traded between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I think by focusing on random examples you've lost a sense of perspective. 60% of Scotland's exports go to the UK. They have no leverage in a negotiation.

Caledonian Craig wrote:It was not a case you made and is not a case pushed as such by Better Together either so it cannot be an issue of great note if that is the case.

Is that your response to my point on a race to the bottom on taxes? My point is based on logic, what other campaigns have said is irrelevant.

Caledonian Craig wrote:And sorry but you are making wild assumption about Scotland being a place of anger just because it is pursuing independence.

When I said you are coming from a place of anger, that was a metaphor. I wasn't literally saying Scotland is a place of anger. I mean Scotland voted to stay in the UK anyway.

No I said that was the market share. Stats show it does have 30% of the cattle stock in the UK but basic point stands at the end of the day -there are countries far worse off than Scotland that cope just fine as an independent country and have done for decades or even centuries.

As for your logic fair enough as that is your view but you should be involved with Better Together 2 then as it is something they have overlooked then which I cannot see them doing.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK based on lies it was fed with regards future EU membership, losses of royal family, falsehoods over currency, unkept promises about more devolved powers and such-like. In politics things change and lots has changed politically since 2014.

In my view Scotland will decide to go independent mainly for emotional nationalistic reasons.  I suspect when it happens the Parliamentarians in Westminster will be clueless as to what to do - and will just agree to most things the Scottish parliament will demand.  The Scots will be focussed on carving out a new nation with purpose - while the Westminster Parliamentarians will be scratching their heads wondering what to do.  Eventually people in England may in the end become frustrated and from that a new English National Party might arise - but not everyone will accept that - so there may be a period of civil disobedience and instability in what remains of Britain (England+Wales+N Ireland) - similar to what happened a while back in London - when there was a spontaneous looting spree.

No name Bertie wrote:In my view Scotland will decide to go independent mainly for emotional nationalistic reasons.  I suspect when it happens the Parliamentarians in Westminster will be clueless as to what to do - and will just agree to most things the Scottish parliament will demand.  The Scots will be focussed on carving out a new nation with purpose - while the Westminster Parliamentarians will be scratching their heads wondering what to do.  Eventually people in England may in the end become frustrated and from that a new English National Party might arise - but not everyone will accept that - so there may be a period of civil disobedience and instability in what remains of Britain (England+Wales+N Ireland) - similar to what happened a while back in London - when there was a spontaneous looting spree.

Soul Requiem wrote:...

We need a requiem for your brain. Look how Westminster has handled the Brexit process.

The processes aren't at all the same, the UK can unilaterally leave the EU, Scotland cannot do likewise with the UK, it requires parliamentary agreement and that will only be reached if the terms are right for the rest of the UK. The Brexit withdrawal agreement is all about what happens after the UK leaves whereas for Scotland it will be a list of criteria determining if they can leave.

Okay thanks for providing context to your original response.  So you are saying that a second referendum has to be approved by Westminster.  The Catalan Assembly held a referendum in Catalan in which the majority of Catalans voted to leave Spain (92% of the vote) - but the Spanish Government declared that referendum illegal and imprisoned various members of the Catalan Parliament when they declared themselves Independent.

Soul Requiem wrote:The processes aren't at all the same, the UK can unilaterally leave the EU, Scotland cannot do likewise with the UK, it requires parliamentary agreement and that will only be reached if the terms are right for the rest of the UK. The Brexit withdrawal agreement is all about what happens after the UK leaves whereas for Scotland it will be a list of criteria determining if they can leave.

No.  A Referendum in Scotland that said 'yes' to independence would mean that Scotland were leaving - I assume that would be either with agreements on the future relationship between independent neighbours (Deal) or in the absence of agreements (due to stubbornness on the part of one party, the other party or both) - No Deal.

It's not the EU that are preventing the UK from carrying out the result of the Leave Referendum, it is the divisions within the UK itself that are stalling the Process.  Of course the EU, in their considered best interests, have thrown some thumb tacks onto the road to perhaps encourage the UK not to take their preferred route.  But a no deal exit is there for the UK, and the EU are powerless to stop that one if the British decide that's how it has to be.

So 'criteria determining if they can leave' for Scottish people who have already voted for Independence?  I think that kind of Westminster power is exactly the kind of power an Independence vote would decide is no longer legitimate.

Permission for a second indy referendum has to be granted ....yes. it was requested just over a year ago and rejected by Westminster. No doubt if Scotland held a referendum without Westminster's permission the result would not be recognised. The UK is exiting the EU thanks to far less shackles placed on them by the EU. The difference between an independent country (UK) within the EU and a non-independent country (Scotland) within the UK.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Permission for a second indy referendum has to be granted ....yes. it was requested just over a year ago and rejected by Westminster. No doubt if Scotland held a referendum without Westminster's permission the result would not be recognised. The UK is exiting the EU thanks to far less shackles placed on them by the EU. The difference between an independent country (UK) within the EU and a non-independent country (Scotland) within the UK.

Also the difference between an independent country (UK) and a non-country(EU).

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Permission for a second indy referendum has to be granted ....yes. it was requested just over a year ago and rejected by Westminster. No doubt if Scotland held a referendum without Westminster's permission the result would not be recognised. The UK is exiting the EU thanks to far less shackles placed on them by the EU. The difference between an independent country (UK) within the EU and a non-independent country (Scotland) within the UK.

Also the difference between an independent country (UK) and a non-country(EU).

And that is the issue here. A growing number of Scots crave Scotland to be identified as a standalone country and more think that it should be and that is what the independence fight is all about. People that see the way forward for Scotland far differently than Tories do for Scotland under Westminster rule.

SecretFly wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:The processes aren't at all the same, the UK can unilaterally leave the EU, Scotland cannot do likewise with the UK, it requires parliamentary agreement and that will only be reached if the terms are right for the rest of the UK. The Brexit withdrawal agreement is all about what happens after the UK leaves whereas for Scotland it will be a list of criteria determining if they can leave.

No.  A Referendum in Scotland that said 'yes' to independence would mean that Scotland were leaving - I assume that would be either with agreements on the future relationship between independent neighbours (Deal) or in the absence of agreements (due to stubbornness on the part of one party, the other party or both) - No Deal.

It's not the EU that are preventing the UK from carrying out the result of the Leave Referendum, it is the divisions within the UK itself that are stalling the Process.  Of course the EU, in their considered best interests, have thrown some thumb tacks onto the road to perhaps encourage the UK not to take their preferred route.  But a no deal exit is there for the UK, and the EU are powerless to stop that one if the British decide that's how it has to be.

So 'criteria determining if they can leave' for Scottish people who have already voted for Independence?  I think that kind of Westminster power is exactly the kind of power an Independence vote would decide is no longer legitimate.

It is the kind of power that Westminster does have though, if the terms aren't right then the referendum result doesn't mean a lot.

If it's an approved Referendum ( and Craig is right there; that's the first hurdle that truly does have to pass Westminster) - but if it is an approved referendum and it's a positive for Independence then nope, Westminster's power has ended. Neighbourliness would presume discussions, negotiations and agreements...but I wouldn't like to imagine any scenario where a UK parliament would attempt a blunt No to a legitimate referendum result.

......oops! They're trying one already! My apologies.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Permission for a second indy referendum has to be granted ....yes. it was requested just over a year ago and rejected by Westminster. No doubt if Scotland held a referendum without Westminster's permission the result would not be recognised. The UK is exiting the EU thanks to far less shackles placed on them by the EU. The difference between an independent country (UK) within the EU and a non-independent country (Scotland) within the UK.

Also the difference between an independent country (UK) and a non-country(EU).

And that is the issue here. A growing number of Scots crave Scotland to be identified as a standalone country and more think that it should be and that is what the independence fight is all about. People that see the way forward for Scotland far differently than Tories do for Scotland under Westminster rule.

I have nothing against the wish for Independence by a great number of Scots.  Personally, I'd wish it for them.  I've spent quite a bit of time on here arguing their very case during the last campaign.

The desire is a noble one.  But I think the true meaning of the word must be acknowledged and meditated upon by those same Scottish people when they champion an entity called the EU.  That's all I'm continuing to say - honesty about All relationships must be debated by a people honestly championing a word called Independence.

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Permission for a second indy referendum has to be granted ....yes. it was requested just over a year ago and rejected by Westminster. No doubt if Scotland held a referendum without Westminster's permission the result would not be recognised. The UK is exiting the EU thanks to far less shackles placed on them by the EU. The difference between an independent country (UK) within the EU and a non-independent country (Scotland) within the UK.

Also the difference between an independent country (UK) and a non-country(EU).

And that is the issue here. A growing number of Scots crave Scotland to be identified as a standalone country and more think that it should be and that is what the independence fight is all about. People that see the way forward for Scotland far differently than Tories do for Scotland under Westminster rule.

I have nothing against the wish for Independence by a great number of Scots.  Personally, I'd wish it for them.  I've spent quite a bit of time on here arguing their very case during the last campaign.

The desire is a noble one.  But I think the true meaning of the word must be acknowledged and meditated upon by those same Scottish people when they champion an entity called the EU.  That's all I'm continuing to say - honesty about All relationships must be debated by a people honestly championing a word called Independence.

Yes of course SecretFly. People have varying ideas of independence within the EU. To me every country in the EU is independent. As I stated in an earlier post the UK has made a sting of decisions whilst in the EU that only an independent country can make. What people confuse with non-independence is because of the terms that go with membership of the EU ie tied into trade deals but surely that is all on the table before a country signs up to join the EU. In short if it grates then do not join in the first place.

'MPs have backed a bid to stop a new prime minister suspending Parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit.

'A majority of 41 approved an amendment that blocks suspension between 9 October and 18 December unless a Northern Ireland executive is formed.

'Seventeen Conservatives rebelled against the whip, including minister Margot James.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49030225

Tying their negotiator's hands behind his back again even before he's elected.

Nice.  No wonder the talk in the EU is of the British being a bunch of idiots turning up each time to negotiate impossible things ( NOT my option at all btw) Smug and sneering Eurocrats know their game - and that British Parliament, running counter to the declared wish of its people, are shooting every Prime Minister in the foot - as you can in no way negotiate with strength IF your rival (EU) is already aware that your hardest line is a bluff that your own Parliament won't allow.  That's just not smart stuff from British parliamentarians with supposedly British interests at heart.  But of course some of them have long since turned.  EU allegiance before UK loyalty.

Election is the only way out I suppose if Leave continues to be declared goal of both contenders.

SecretFly wrote:Tying their negotiator's hands behind his back again even before he's elected.

Nice.  No wonder the talk in the EU is of the British being a bunch of idiots turning up each time to negotiate impossible things ( NOT my option at all btw) Smug and sneering Eurocrats know their game - and that British Parliament, running counter to the declared wish of its people, are shooting every Prime Minister in the foot - as you can in no way negotiate with strength IF your rival (EU) is already aware that your hardest line is a bluff that your own Parliament won't allow.  That's just not smart stuff from British parliamentarians with supposedly British interests at heart.  But of course some of them have long since turned.  EU allegiance before UK loyalty.

Election is the only way out I suppose if Leave continues to be declared goal of both contenders.

I cannot see an election solving anything. At present the nailed on result would be a hung parliament with the leading party ending up msybe 30 or 40 seats short of an overall majority. That would just complicate things further.

Word is that there is going to be a Labour leadership Election over the summer....

Regarding a GE...I don't know if an Election solves anything......I think the Tories will win seats against Labour....Problem is though that 40/50 Lib Dem targets are Tory seats and them being on 18% means whatever the Tories take from Labour they give back..

Elections are strange beasts though and Momentum is an amazing thing.....Dewey was miles ahead of Truman with the Communist conspiracy debacle....

But Truman's famous whistle stop tour brought it back..

Think Johnson will have to call a GE........He can't govern on a Tory/DUP majority of 3 for long and Corbyn is the weakest link.....He goes and Johnson is in trouble..

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Tying their negotiator's hands behind his back again even before he's elected.

Nice.  No wonder the talk in the EU is of the British being a bunch of idiots turning up each time to negotiate impossible things ( NOT my option at all btw) Smug and sneering Eurocrats know their game - and that British Parliament, running counter to the declared wish of its people, are shooting every Prime Minister in the foot - as you can in no way negotiate with strength IF your rival (EU) is already aware that your hardest line is a bluff that your own Parliament won't allow.  That's just not smart stuff from British parliamentarians with supposedly British interests at heart.  But of course some of them have long since turned.  EU allegiance before UK loyalty.

Election is the only way out I suppose if Leave continues to be declared goal of both contenders.

I cannot see an election solving anything. At present the nailed on result would be a hung parliament with the leading party ending up msybe 30 or 40 seats short of an overall majority. That would just complicate things further.

So what then?  Boris or Hunt accept the same Deal that May lost her Premiership on and couldn't get through that Parliament how many times?
There has to be movement.  So what is the movement?  It would be a very smug bunch of Parliamentary 'toffs' that might try to decide that their wishes to just Remain should bury the declared Referendum wish of the majority in the UK electorate to Leave.
More delays is seen amongst Leavers for what it is.... a drive to enforce a final Remain solution onto their Leave decision.  They're not dumb.

It's perfectly possible to support leaving the EU and oppose leaving without a deal. Opposing a no deal Brexit doesn't mean you secretly want to remain, it means you're not prepared to accept the damage of a no deal Brexit as the price for leaving. I'm very glad that there are enough Leave-minded MPs who feel that way.

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Tying their negotiator's hands behind his back again even before he's elected.

Nice.  No wonder the talk in the EU is of the British being a bunch of idiots turning up each time to negotiate impossible things ( NOT my option at all btw) Smug and sneering Eurocrats know their game - and that British Parliament, running counter to the declared wish of its people, are shooting every Prime Minister in the foot - as you can in no way negotiate with strength IF your rival (EU) is already aware that your hardest line is a bluff that your own Parliament won't allow.  That's just not smart stuff from British parliamentarians with supposedly British interests at heart.  But of course some of them have long since turned.  EU allegiance before UK loyalty.

Election is the only way out I suppose if Leave continues to be declared goal of both contenders.

I cannot see an election solving anything. At present the nailed on result would be a hung parliament with the leading party ending up msybe 30 or 40 seats short of an overall majority. That would just complicate things further.

So what then?  Boris or Hunt accept the same Deal that May lost her Premiership on and couldn't get through that Parliament how many times?
There has to be movement.  So what is the movement?  It would be a very smug bunch of Parliamentary 'toffs' that might try to decide that their wishes to just Remain should bury the declared Referendum wish of the majority in the UK electorate to Leave.
More delays is seen amongst Leavers for what it is.... a drive to enforce a final Remain solution onto their Leave decision.  They're not dumb.

How long does that mandate stay in place? One year? 3? 5?. Some would claim it is permanent, because, you know, apparently democratic decisions can't be changed. The whole process is such a monumental man sausage up.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's perfectly possible to support leaving the EU and oppose leaving without a deal. Opposing a no deal Brexit doesn't mean you secretly want to remain, it means you're not prepared to accept the damage of a no deal Brexit as the price for leaving. I'm very glad that there are enough Leave-minded MPs who feel that way.

If the EU knows in advance, large blinking lights from Westminster - that UK will not walk away from a Deal because such a route has been cut off by British Parliamentarians themselves, then that is a known Weak starting point for negotiations designed to get the best Deal.  Why would the EU have to offer their best (worst for them) deal?  No counter concern driving them forward, no line in the sand the UK won't go beyond.  A Deal negotiation becomes as long and convoluted as the EU wants it to be.  There is no Real Deadline Ever when the EU can change rules and regulations as it goes.....  Eternal Negotiations, low key in the background, window dressing - legal niceties - and the UK fully immersed until a Deal is worked out.

I don't doubt that Remainers see such an outcome as promising...i.e., UK tied into more years of 'negotiation' until that magic voting majority for 'just remain' appears.  That's fine.  That's politics to have such a hidden motive.  But don't insult Leavers by telling them their best interests are served by having 'No Deal' be banned from negotiations. No it's not in their best interests, it's in the interests of Remainers.

People really do believe passivity is stupidity.  It'll bite them one day, that belief.

SecretFly wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's perfectly possible to support leaving the EU and oppose leaving without a deal. Opposing a no deal Brexit doesn't mean you secretly want to remain, it means you're not prepared to accept the damage of a no deal Brexit as the price for leaving. I'm very glad that there are enough Leave-minded MPs who feel that way.

If the EU knows in advance, large blinking lights from Westminster - that UK will not walk away from a Deal because such a route has been cut off by British Parliamentarians themselves, then that is a known Weak starting point for negotiations designed to get the best Deal.  Why would the EU have to offer their best (worst for them) deal?  No counter concern driving them forward, no line in the sand the UK won't go beyond.  A Deal negotiation becomes as long and convoluted as the EU wants it to be.  There is no Real Deadline Ever when the EU can change rules and regulations as it goes.....  Eternal Negotiations, low key in the background, window dressing - legal niceties - and the UK fully immersed until a Deal is worked out.

I don't doubt that Remainers see such an outcome as promising...i.e., UK tied into more years of 'negotiation' until that magic voting majority for 'just remain' appears.  That's fine.  That's politics to have such a hidden motive.  But don't insult Leavers by telling them their best interests are served by having 'No Deal' be banned from negotiations.  No it's not in their best interests, it's in the interests of Remainers.

I'll say it again: it's a fallacy that everyone who wants to leave the EU is happy to leave with no deal.

There are many MPs (as witnessed by today's vote), and no doubt millions of people in the UK, who want to the leave the EU but certainly don't want to leave without a deal.

It's not remainers alone wanting to take no deal off the table, but leavers too. That's the truth of it.

lostinwales wrote:


How long does that mandate stay in place? One year? 3? 5?. Some would claim it is permanent, because, you know, apparently democratic decisions can't be changed. The whole process is such a monumental man sausage up.

I'd hope that common decency and good law might decide that before a democratic decision is changed, that the decision itself is affirmed and abided by, carried out and adopted.
In other words, you'd hope and pray that the Party that wins a General Election, legally, is allowed a period in power before someone decides that they shouldn't be allowed take power, that the electorate might have changed their minds after a week, and that in the interests of fairness, another election should be called immediately after the first one ended - or worse still, just ignore the election altogether and let the outgoing Party that ruled before election continue on uninterrupted - the electorate didn't really want a change of government at all - signed Intellectual superior class.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

I'll say it again: it's a fallacy that everyone who wants to leave the EU is happy to leave with no deal.

There are dozens of MPs (as witnessed by today's vote), and no doubt millions of people in the UK, who want to the leave the EU but certainly don't want to leave without a deal.

It's not remainers alone taking no deal off the table, but leavers too. That's the truth of it.

It's also a fallacy to think everyone that publically says they want to respect the Referendum vote actually means it or doesn't intend doing anything in their power to help effect a final Remain decision. Delay is the key. I've said it before, for so many people who claim boredom and frustration with the process, they don't half like choosing the longest route through ever sequence of negotiations. No Deal off the table means yet another extension. Bravo say the people who cling to their Remain dreams.