EU membership doesn't prevent self-determination. Being subsumed into the UK does (by default).
Scotland has its own parliament with considerable freedom to set its own laws. It also has independent judicial and education systems.
Sure, there are some areas in which they have to follow what the whole union decides. But they have democratic representation in the Westminster parliament, which means they have a say in making those laws, so that’s ok. Right?
The Scottish Parliament's "freedom" is currently within the gift of Westminster. The Sewel Convention, as per recent court judgements, does not have the force of law. This gives the devolved bodies less power to prevent being overruled by the Westminster government than even the House of Lords. "Devolved" is in fact the key term - in the UK the Westminster parliament is sovereign and can grant or revoke powers to other bodies simply by passing legislation. The EU is the opposite - made up of independent states who choose to pool decision making on certain issues. The power there rests with the individual states, while in the UK it is all centralised. As I've mentioned previously, this is made crystal clear by the different processes required for the 2014 and 2016 referenda.
Quite. If Scotland were to unilaterally hold a referendum and voted to leave, there is no actual mechanism it could use to do so. It could, in theory at least, play out exactly as it did in Catalonia. By comparison, it's baked into the very existence of Article 50 that an EU member can unilaterally decide to leave.
Funnily enough, the High Court of Australia issued a decision today which said, among other things, that trying to talk as if the mere act of union or federation tells you something is nonsense. You have to examine more closely the nature of the particular union or federation you're talking about. In the case of the Australian States, you have to look at the Australian Constitution.
I agree with them. Despite the ongoing attempt of some Shipmates to act as if Scotland being in the UK and the UK being in the EU must be analogous, they're simply not. Talking about these things in the abstract while ignoring the actual constitutional arrangements within the UK, and the actual terms of EU membership, makes about as much sense as claiming that all sports involving 2 teams and a ball are functionally identical and that the actual rules of each sport aren't relevant.
Addressing the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, Raab sought to play down the impact on food prices, though he acknowledged there would be “bumps along the road”.
“We will be well braced and well prepared to deal with those, and we are going to make a success of leaving the transition period, come what may.”
Daniel Finkelstein has summarised the UK Government position succinctly: they want the theoretical freedom to do something they don't want to do because it's politically impossible (to depart from EU standards). Fotr this they are prepared (apparently) to plunge the country into economic chaos.
Even if I had been a Leaver myself, I could only come to the conclusion that this whole Brexit episode has been organised, or rather mis-managed, by incompetents and fools. Extricating the UK from the tortuous intricacies of EU membership at the same time as leaving with an advantageous trade deal would've required the highest level of skilled and subtle negotiation, careful (and possibly behind-the-scenes) nurturing of material goodwill, and an indestructible common-sense and practical approach to reality. Instead we got jingoistic bullshit and childish promises. We were doomed from the word 'Referendum'.
However. Let's hope that despite the incompetence and neglect of our Rulers in the Cabinet Room, the hard working British people will slog on regardless of the making-bricks-without-straw policies, to keep things going. Dominic Raab has apparently said he's even willing to work on Christmas Day to help get a deal through! So that'll be a big help.
So, you're saying that, whilst a member of the EU, we had political self-determination, whilst Scotland as a member of the UK does not?
This is correct (noting the caveats orfeo lays out above), the devolved arrangements do not alter the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, a future incarnation of which could well decide to lay aside the 'will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters' clause of the Sewel convention.
Meanwhile, I hear that Tesco's are stockpiling dry foods and other items, ready for the inevitable delays in January. Are other supermarkets following suit?
BTW, I've just seen a photo of the dinner line-up - the obese Frost, a dishevelled-looking tramp with saggy trousers, and a bird's nest on his head (Bojo?), a trim and neatly-coiffured lady (Frau von der Leyen), and an equally trim-looking M Barnier.
Could we not have sent some respectable-looking people?
Ah yes - Swivel-eyed Loons tend not to photograph well...
That would be 52% of those who voted then
Well, no. Not really.
There are to groups - those who advocated leaving the EU, and those who voted Leave in 2016. There's an overlap (and, those in the first group entitled to vote in 2016 presumably all voted to leave), but they're not the same.
I would say the swivel-eyed loons are mostly in the advocating leave group, rather than the wider voted leave group.
Those who advocated leave are also subdivided into several groups. There are some very rational people, mostly immensely wealthy, who saw Brexit as an opportunity to make short term financial gain at the expense of ordinary people. Others who saw this as an opportunity to gain significant political clout without necessarily believing in the cause (Mr Johnson appears to be in that group). Some were simply racists and xenophobes who thought getting out of the EU would allow the UK government to close our borders to foreigners, especially those with darker skins.
Those who voted leave include the above. And, also those who fell for the lies that the Leave advocates drip fed the population over decades - that the UK can't afford immigrants (as opposed to the demonstrable fact that immigrants more than pay for themselves, generating tax income to invest in housing and health care, and often working in those parts of the economy it's claimed were being overstretched by their presence), that the UK government was forced into accepting irrational laws from an undemocratic European government (as opposed to the demonstrable fact that those rules were sensible common sense, produced by democratically accountable institutions under direction from elected leadership, that the UK Parliament could have rejected any of them, and that many of those were initiated by the UK government in the first place) etc. Leave voters also included many who have been disenfranchised by the system, who found themselves repeatedly without a voice that's heard by the government (whether Conservative or Labour) finding the government and opposition arguing to Remain and thus voting Leave an opportunity to give the political classes a kicking. A former Shipmate relates how he met someone of Kenyan ancestry who voted Leave because he wanted to do his bit to make sure the UK's never again a powerful nation able to rule other lands, an act of vengeance on Britain for past sins against Africa (and, ex-Shippy noting that he's possibly one of the very few who actually got what they voted for). Only a small proportion of the 52% are swivel-eyed loons.
Fair comment, @Alan Cresswell - I hereby absolve some of those misguided Leavers (now, perhaps, enlightened as to their folly) from Swivel-Eyed Looniness.
The trouble is that *England* appears to be *governed* (I use the term loosely) entirely by Swivel-Eyed Loons.
Ah yes - Swivel-eyed Loons tend not to photograph well...
That would be 52% of those who voted then
Well, no. Not really.
There are to groups - those who advocated leaving the EU, and those who voted Leave in 2016. There's an overlap (and, those in the first group entitled to vote in 2016 presumably all voted to leave), but they're not the same.
I would say the swivel-eyed loons are mostly in the advocating leave group, rather than the wider voted leave group.
Those who advocated leave are also subdivided into several groups. There are some very rational people, mostly immensely wealthy, who saw Brexit as an opportunity to make short term financial gain at the expense of ordinary people. Others who saw this as an opportunity to gain significant political clout without necessarily believing in the cause (Mr Johnson appears to be in that group). Some were simply racists and xenophobes who thought getting out of the EU would allow the UK government to close our borders to foreigners, especially those with darker skins.
Those who voted leave include the above. And, also those who fell for the lies that the Leave advocates drip fed the population over decades - that the UK can't afford immigrants (as opposed to the demonstrable fact that immigrants more than pay for themselves, generating tax income to invest in housing and health care, and often working in those parts of the economy it's claimed were being overstretched by their presence), that the UK government was forced into accepting irrational laws from an undemocratic European government (as opposed to the demonstrable fact that those rules were sensible common sense, produced by democratically accountable institutions under direction from elected leadership, that the UK Parliament could have rejected any of them, and that many of those were initiated by the UK government in the first place) etc. Leave voters also included many who have been disenfranchised by the system, who found themselves repeatedly without a voice that's heard by the government (whether Conservative or Labour) finding the government and opposition arguing to Remain and thus voting Leave an opportunity to give the political classes a kicking. A former Shipmate relates how he met someone of Kenyan ancestry who voted Leave because he wanted to do his bit to make sure the UK's never again a powerful nation able to rule other lands, an act of vengeance on Britain for past sins against Africa (and, ex-Shippy noting that he's possibly one of the very few who actually got what they voted for). Only a small proportion of the 52% are swivel-eyed loons.
But it is still common to tar all 52% with the same brush.
In 2015 you could say the same about the UK ... considerable freedom, independent judicial systems, democratic representation in European Parliament and other institutions, a say in regulations and standards. If the UK was subsumed by the EU and needed to regain it's sovereignty then so is Scotland subsumed within the UK ... or Scotland is actually free within the UK and the UK was free within the EU. By that argument.
Yes, and I agree with both independence movements.
Or else, the two arrangements are fundamentally different and not comparable. Which is what I would say: The Scottish Parliament has very few powers and in most areas is subject to Westminster
That’s a difference of magnitude, not kind. And the EU will only continue to expand its areas of control.
The voice of the Scottish Parliament and Government is unheard south of the border. A few MPs only have influence if neither of the two big English political parties has a majority. Being subject to a foreign government with almost no say in that government is no where near comparable to being one of the biggest voices in a cooperative organisation of independent sovereign nations.
Scotland has 9.1% (59 of 650) of the seats at Westminster, and as of the 2014 EU elections the UK had a whopping 9.7% (73 of 761) of the seats in the EU parliament.
That’s almost exactly the same amount of say in the respective governments.
Or else, the two arrangements are fundamentally different and not comparable. Which is what I would say: The Scottish Parliament has very few powers and in most areas is subject to Westminster
That’s a difference of magnitude, not kind. And the EU will only continue to expand its areas of control.
That it is absolutely of kind can be seen in the fact that Scotland needed Westminster's consent to hold a referendum, whereas the UK did not need the EU's consent to hold the poll in 2016.
In the UK system the government is formed by the party with the largest representation in Parliament. The just under 10% of seats from Scotland are not sufficient for Scottish MPs to form a government, the UK government will be formed by whichever of Labour or Conservative get the most English seats. If the difference is small then maybe the few Scottish seats could swing things - as it has for Labour a couple of times in the past - to forming a government. More often those seats will be at best the difference between government winning or losing a vote only if the government faces a rebellion from within it's ranks.
In the EU the Parliament doesn't form a government (because there isn't one) and the international blocs within the Parliament don't have the cohesion of political parties. The UK MEPs were in the same position as German, French of Belgian MEPs, insufficient to dominate the Parliament and needing to cooperate with others for Parliament to function. Needing MPs to cooperate across boundaries is something the UK Parliamentary system could do well to adopt rather than the ludicrous system we have of MPs shouting at each other across the divide down the middle of the Commons, and MPs trooping through the lobbies like good little sheep rather than representatives of their constituents.
The UK MEPs were in the same position as German, French of Belgian MEPs, insufficient to dominate the Parliament and needing to cooperate with others for Parliament to function.
But the Brexiteers were really worried that the Luxembourg MEPs would creep into all the positions of power and at the same time control the Europarliament.
Or else, the two arrangements are fundamentally different and not comparable. Which is what I would say: The Scottish Parliament has very few powers and in most areas is subject to Westminster
That’s a difference of magnitude, not kind. And the EU will only continue to expand its areas of control.
That it is absolutely of kind can be seen in the fact that Scotland needed Westminster's consent to hold a referendum, whereas the UK did not need the EU's consent to hold the poll in 2016.
The break up of a country is rather different to one country leaving a trading block
In the UK system the government is formed by the party with the largest representation in Parliament. The just under 10% of seats from Scotland are not sufficient for Scottish MPs to form a government, the UK government will be formed by whichever of Labour or Conservative get the most English seats. If the difference is small then maybe the few Scottish seats could swing things - as it has for Labour a couple of times in the past - to forming a government. More often those seats will be at best the difference between government winning or losing a vote only if the government faces a rebellion from within it's ranks.
In the EU the Parliament doesn't form a government (because there isn't one) and the international blocs within the Parliament don't have the cohesion of political parties. The UK MEPs were in the same position as German, French of Belgian MEPs, insufficient to dominate the Parliament and needing to cooperate with others for Parliament to function. Needing MPs to cooperate across boundaries is something the UK Parliamentary system could do well to adopt rather than the ludicrous system we have of MPs shouting at each other across the divide down the middle of the Commons, and MPs trooping through the lobbies like good little sheep rather than representatives of their constituents.
If Scottish voters want to be better represented in Parliament they need to stop voting SNP and start voting Labour or Conservative
In the UK system the government is formed by the party with the largest representation in Parliament. The just under 10% of seats from Scotland are not sufficient for Scottish MPs to form a government, the UK government will be formed by whichever of Labour or Conservative get the most English seats. If the difference is small then maybe the few Scottish seats could swing things - as it has for Labour a couple of times in the past - to forming a government. More often those seats will be at best the difference between government winning or losing a vote only if the government faces a rebellion from within it's ranks.
In the EU the Parliament doesn't form a government (because there isn't one) and the international blocs within the Parliament don't have the cohesion of political parties. The UK MEPs were in the same position as German, French of Belgian MEPs, insufficient to dominate the Parliament and needing to cooperate with others for Parliament to function. Needing MPs to cooperate across boundaries is something the UK Parliamentary system could do well to adopt rather than the ludicrous system we have of MPs shouting at each other across the divide down the middle of the Commons, and MPs trooping through the lobbies like good little sheep rather than representatives of their constituents.
If Scottish voters want to be better represented in Parliament they need to stop voting SNP and start voting Labour or Conservative
Scotland voted Unionist (i.e. tory) for much of the first half of the 20th century; Labour for much of the second half. How well-represented were Scotland's interests within the UK during that time? Scottish MPs were simply lobby fodder.
You might as well say people should stop voting Green, LibDem, DUP, Sinn Fein, or any of the other parties who will never be the largest party in Parliament, or Independent, and go for the democratically deficient position of being an effectively two party system. In which case you'll be saying that the majority in Scotland who support independence don't have a party to represent their views.
To revert for a moment to Brexit: Why is it that I find myself irresistibly reminded of the chapter in 'The Last Battle' - 'How the Dwarfs Refused to be Taken In'?
I'm not convinced Glasgow or Dundee share more interests with Edinburgh than with Newcastle or Manchester.
Probably not, and I've no objection to a federal state of Scotland and Northern England. Scotland can't solve the problem of English small towns voting tory. We can (potentially) reduce its impact on us.
Or else, the two arrangements are fundamentally different and not comparable. Which is what I would say: The Scottish Parliament has very few powers and in most areas is subject to Westminster
That’s a difference of magnitude, not kind. And the EU will only continue to expand its areas of control.
That it is absolutely of kind can be seen in the fact that Scotland needed Westminster's consent to hold a referendum, whereas the UK did not need the EU's consent to hold the poll in 2016.
The break up of a country is rather different to one country leaving a trading block
Entirely why it's a difference of kind and not magnitude.
In the UK system the government is formed by the party with the largest representation in Parliament. The just under 10% of seats from Scotland are not sufficient for Scottish MPs to form a government, the UK government will be formed by whichever of Labour or Conservative get the most English seats. If the difference is small then maybe the few Scottish seats could swing things - as it has for Labour a couple of times in the past - to forming a government. More often those seats will be at best the difference between government winning or losing a vote only if the government faces a rebellion from within it's ranks.
In the EU the Parliament doesn't form a government (because there isn't one) and the international blocs within the Parliament don't have the cohesion of political parties. The UK MEPs were in the same position as German, French of Belgian MEPs, insufficient to dominate the Parliament and needing to cooperate with others for Parliament to function. Needing MPs to cooperate across boundaries is something the UK Parliamentary system could do well to adopt rather than the ludicrous system we have of MPs shouting at each other across the divide down the middle of the Commons, and MPs trooping through the lobbies like good little sheep rather than representatives of their constituents.
If Scottish voters want to be better represented in Parliament they need to stop voting SNP and start voting Labour or Conservative
Scotland voted Unionist (i.e. tory) for much of the first half of the 20th century; Labour for much of the second half. How well-represented were Scotland's interests within the UK during that time? Scottish MPs were simply lobby fodder.
No different to the majority of the MPs in Westminster. I seem to recall that Gordon Brown was a Scottish MP.
You might as well say people should stop voting Green, LibDem, DUP, Sinn Fein, or any of the other parties who will never be the largest party in Parliament, or Independent, and go for the democratically deficient position of being an effectively two party system. In which case you'll be saying that the majority in Scotland who support independence don't have a party to represent their views.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have a party that only focuses on independance and complain that the same party has no influence in Westminster
In more normal times (ie: when the UK government hadn't thrown democracy under a bus to pursue a vanity project to make ministers rich and feel important while flushing the nation down the loo) the SNP wouldn't currently be pursuing independence, we had a referendum in 2014 and they'd have been concentrating on getting the best for Scotland from the Westminster government short of independence. Part of the reason the SNP has such strength in Holyrood and the Scottish seats in Westminster is because Scotland is a second class part of the UK with little influence over national politics that's dominated by the SE corner of England, and has been for a long time. The only reason independence is even on the table at the moment is because the UK government put it there, with Cameron breaking all the promises made in 2014 to by a No vote, with May and Johnson pushing ahead with their vanity project roundly rejected by Scotland and N Ireland (admittedly in a public vote where the Leave option was inadequately defined and so is meaningless, but also in general elections since then).
In more normal times (ie: when the UK government hadn't thrown democracy under a bus to pursue a vanity project to make ministers rich and feel important while flushing the nation down the loo) the SNP wouldn't currently be pursuing independence, we had a referendum in 2014 and they'd have been concentrating on getting the best for Scotland from the Westminster government short of independence. Part of the reason the SNP has such strength in Holyrood and the Scottish seats in Westminster is because Scotland is a second class part of the UK with little influence over national politics that's dominated by the SE corner of England, and has been for a long time. The only reason independence is even on the table at the moment is because the UK government put it there, with Cameron breaking all the promises made in 2014 to by a No vote, with May and Johnson pushing ahead with their vanity project roundly rejected by Scotland and N Ireland (admittedly in a public vote where the Leave option was inadequately defined and so is meaningless, but also in general elections since then).
The SNP have always sought independence.Brexit merely gave them ammunition.
Yes, of course they seek independence. In September 2014 they'd had their shot, and it didn't come off. They'd have then put that aim on the back burner thinking they'd need to wait a couple of decades before having a realistic chance at another referendum - and using the time to build a reputation of competence in government in Scotland and seeking to use their position in Westminster to get the best for Scotland from the UK government. If Cameron hadn't called his stupid peoples vote (and lost) there'd be no talk of Scottish independence at the moment. We're only talking about it now because we're in the post-Brexit generation, and it's right for this generation to have a say on the future of Scotland given that we're a European nation (well, the whole UK is a European nation) dragged out of the EU against our will.
Yes, of course they seek independence. In September 2014 they'd had their shot, and it didn't come off. They'd have then put that aim on the back burner thinking they'd need to wait a couple of decades before having a realistic chance at another referendum - and using the time to build a reputation of competence in government in Scotland and seeking to use their position in Westminster to get the best for Scotland from the UK government. If Cameron hadn't called his stupid peoples vote (and lost) there'd be no talk of Scottish independence at the moment. We're only talking about it now because we're in the post-Brexit generation, and it's right for this generation to have a say on the future of Scotland given that we're a European nation (well, the whole UK is a European nation) dragged out of the EU against our will.
In 2016, the majority of Scottish voters who voted, voted for the UK to remain in the EU.
Yes, that's what I said. In 2016 the vote in Scotland was strongly to remain. That's the whole f*cking point ... if Scotland had voted to Leave then we'd probably also not be talking about independence at this point. But the English government decided to drag Scotland out of the EU without a mandate to do so (I agree, however, that the 2019 election result could be seen as having gained a mandate from the UK, if not Scotland).
I'm not convinced Glasgow or Dundee share more interests with Edinburgh than with Newcastle or Manchester.
Probably not, and I've no objection to a federal state of Scotland and Northern England. Scotland can't solve the problem of English small towns voting tory. We can (potentially) reduce its impact on us.
And good luck to you. Those towns are no doubt thinking of it in terms of reducing Scotland's impact on them.
Yes, that's what I said. In 2016 the vote in Scotland was strongly to remain. That's the whole f*cking point ... if Scotland had voted to Leave then we'd probably also not be talking about independence at this point. But the English government decided to drag Scotland out of the EU without a mandate to do so (I agree, however, that the 2019 election result could be seen as having gained a mandate from the UK, if not Scotland).
Scottish voters did not vote for Scotland to remain. It was all about the whole of the UK. The whole of the UK had to leave or remain.
Yes, that's what I said. In 2016 the vote in Scotland was strongly to remain. That's the whole f*cking point ... if Scotland had voted to Leave then we'd probably also not be talking about independence at this point. But the English government decided to drag Scotland out of the EU without a mandate to do so (I agree, however, that the 2019 election result could be seen as having gained a mandate from the UK, if not Scotland).
Scottish voters did not vote for Scotland to remain. It was all about the whole of the UK. The whole of the UK had to leave or remain.
It is not as simple as that. As has been said here time and again there are complications
Comments
Quite. If Scotland were to unilaterally hold a referendum and voted to leave, there is no actual mechanism it could use to do so. It could, in theory at least, play out exactly as it did in Catalonia. By comparison, it's baked into the very existence of Article 50 that an EU member can unilaterally decide to leave.
The comparison does not hold.
Interesting....
I agree with them. Despite the ongoing attempt of some Shipmates to act as if Scotland being in the UK and the UK being in the EU must be analogous, they're simply not. Talking about these things in the abstract while ignoring the actual constitutional arrangements within the UK, and the actual terms of EU membership, makes about as much sense as claiming that all sports involving 2 teams and a ball are functionally identical and that the actual rules of each sport aren't relevant.
Addressing the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, Raab sought to play down the impact on food prices, though he acknowledged there would be “bumps along the road”.
“We will be well braced and well prepared to deal with those, and we are going to make a success of leaving the transition period, come what may.”
Does anyone believe him?
Even if I had been a Leaver myself, I could only come to the conclusion that this whole Brexit episode has been organised, or rather mis-managed, by incompetents and fools. Extricating the UK from the tortuous intricacies of EU membership at the same time as leaving with an advantageous trade deal would've required the highest level of skilled and subtle negotiation, careful (and possibly behind-the-scenes) nurturing of material goodwill, and an indestructible common-sense and practical approach to reality. Instead we got jingoistic bullshit and childish promises. We were doomed from the word 'Referendum'.
However. Let's hope that despite the incompetence and neglect of our Rulers in the Cabinet Room, the hard working British people will slog on regardless of the making-bricks-without-straw policies, to keep things going. Dominic Raab has apparently said he's even willing to work on Christmas Day to help get a deal through! So that'll be a big help.
This is correct (noting the caveats orfeo lays out above), the devolved arrangements do not alter the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, a future incarnation of which could well decide to lay aside the 'will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters' clause of the Sewel convention.
We can hardly compare Brexit with Scottish independence without referring to the history and nature of the Union.
Yes, although reactions to the debacle among some Europeans range from Sad-but-get-lost, through What-are-they-thinking-of?, to Who-cares?
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/265804/brexit-board-game-second-chances
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/276528/brexit-real-deal
Typically for the whole mess that is Brexit, neither of them look any good. Nor have I bought into the total lack of hype surrounding them.
How have we come to be living in this ghastly alternative universe, for surely that's what it must be?
He who said it, with his toadies and lickspittles, no doubt, but not The Rest Of Us...
Could we not have sent some respectable-looking people?
That would be 52% of those who voted then
There are to groups - those who advocated leaving the EU, and those who voted Leave in 2016. There's an overlap (and, those in the first group entitled to vote in 2016 presumably all voted to leave), but they're not the same.
I would say the swivel-eyed loons are mostly in the advocating leave group, rather than the wider voted leave group.
Those who advocated leave are also subdivided into several groups. There are some very rational people, mostly immensely wealthy, who saw Brexit as an opportunity to make short term financial gain at the expense of ordinary people. Others who saw this as an opportunity to gain significant political clout without necessarily believing in the cause (Mr Johnson appears to be in that group). Some were simply racists and xenophobes who thought getting out of the EU would allow the UK government to close our borders to foreigners, especially those with darker skins.
Those who voted leave include the above. And, also those who fell for the lies that the Leave advocates drip fed the population over decades - that the UK can't afford immigrants (as opposed to the demonstrable fact that immigrants more than pay for themselves, generating tax income to invest in housing and health care, and often working in those parts of the economy it's claimed were being overstretched by their presence), that the UK government was forced into accepting irrational laws from an undemocratic European government (as opposed to the demonstrable fact that those rules were sensible common sense, produced by democratically accountable institutions under direction from elected leadership, that the UK Parliament could have rejected any of them, and that many of those were initiated by the UK government in the first place) etc. Leave voters also included many who have been disenfranchised by the system, who found themselves repeatedly without a voice that's heard by the government (whether Conservative or Labour) finding the government and opposition arguing to Remain and thus voting Leave an opportunity to give the political classes a kicking. A former Shipmate relates how he met someone of Kenyan ancestry who voted Leave because he wanted to do his bit to make sure the UK's never again a powerful nation able to rule other lands, an act of vengeance on Britain for past sins against Africa (and, ex-Shippy noting that he's possibly one of the very few who actually got what they voted for). Only a small proportion of the 52% are swivel-eyed loons.
The trouble is that *England* appears to be *governed* (I use the term loosely) entirely by Swivel-Eyed Loons.
Yes, and I agree with both independence movements.
That’s a difference of magnitude, not kind. And the EU will only continue to expand its areas of control.
Scotland has 9.1% (59 of 650) of the seats at Westminster, and as of the 2014 EU elections the UK had a whopping 9.7% (73 of 761) of the seats in the EU parliament.
That’s almost exactly the same amount of say in the respective governments.
That it is absolutely of kind can be seen in the fact that Scotland needed Westminster's consent to hold a referendum, whereas the UK did not need the EU's consent to hold the poll in 2016.
In the UK system the government is formed by the party with the largest representation in Parliament. The just under 10% of seats from Scotland are not sufficient for Scottish MPs to form a government, the UK government will be formed by whichever of Labour or Conservative get the most English seats. If the difference is small then maybe the few Scottish seats could swing things - as it has for Labour a couple of times in the past - to forming a government. More often those seats will be at best the difference between government winning or losing a vote only if the government faces a rebellion from within it's ranks.
In the EU the Parliament doesn't form a government (because there isn't one) and the international blocs within the Parliament don't have the cohesion of political parties. The UK MEPs were in the same position as German, French of Belgian MEPs, insufficient to dominate the Parliament and needing to cooperate with others for Parliament to function. Needing MPs to cooperate across boundaries is something the UK Parliamentary system could do well to adopt rather than the ludicrous system we have of MPs shouting at each other across the divide down the middle of the Commons, and MPs trooping through the lobbies like good little sheep rather than representatives of their constituents.
But the Brexiteers were really worried that the Luxembourg MEPs would creep into all the positions of power and at the same time control the Europarliament.
The break up of a country is rather different to one country leaving a trading block
If Scottish voters want to be better represented in Parliament they need to stop voting SNP and start voting Labour or Conservative
Scotland voted Unionist (i.e. tory) for much of the first half of the 20th century; Labour for much of the second half. How well-represented were Scotland's interests within the UK during that time? Scottish MPs were simply lobby fodder.
Probably not, and I've no objection to a federal state of Scotland and Northern England. Scotland can't solve the problem of English small towns voting tory. We can (potentially) reduce its impact on us.
Entirely why it's a difference of kind and not magnitude.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have a party that only focuses on independance and complain that the same party has no influence in Westminster
The SNP have always sought independence.Brexit merely gave them ammunition.
In 2016, the majority of Scottish voters who voted, voted for the UK to remain in the EU.
However, I actually agree with you.
And good luck to you. Those towns are no doubt thinking of it in terms of reducing Scotland's impact on them.
Scottish voters did not vote for Scotland to remain. It was all about the whole of the UK. The whole of the UK had to leave or remain.
It is not as simple as that. As has been said here time and again there are complications