brexit?!!?

[georgey]

I think there is a good chance of that. I think I'm going to have my personal copy ready in a fortnight; it is likely that I'll have to start sorting out image rights for the cover artwork which wasn't too difficult last time. If I release it privately on CD Baby, for example, it will definitely be out soon as I will be inclined to do it just as a digital release (reproduction plus repeatedly sending their warehouse more CDs is not inexpensive), and such releases are easy enough to set up. If it comes out through a record label there will be more of an initial delay because it will need to be auditioned, paperwork be signed, etc. Whether or not that happens I'll have to wait and see. I remain optimistic it will be out before Christmas irrespective of which route.

Fantastic!  I hope you can announce here on Pianostreet when the CD's are available for public sale.  I will order my CD as soon as I learn that it is available for purchase.  Thank you!

[ahinton]

Well, one can argue if it was a good thing or a bad thing, but it would be difficult to argue that it wasn't the right thing.

Indeed - and not only the right thing but the only possible thing, I would argue.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I'm not so sure that it does, actually. Yes, Scotland's allegiance to France is something that I've experienced personally on an number of occasions but, in the first Scottish independence referendum, there was never any question of Scots' EU citizenship being removed from them, whereas now it would be in the forefront of the agenda for any second one.

The Scots went to the polls knowing there was going to be a referendum on EU membership. What influence that had on the outcome i have no idea.

Thal

[ahinton]

He's essentially caused a huge legislative and diplomatic mess, and left everyone else to sort it out. Not that it isn't soluble, but the point is he bears a heavy responsibility for the mess existing in the first place. A bit like kicking a window in and running away. I expected little else of a man who never appeared to have any solid principles at all.

By quite unnecessarily taking a large gamble with his country's future he has indeed caused just what you ascribe to him in your first sentence; there was absolutely no need, in the sense of general public clamour, for his party to introduce the question of UK/EU in/out, either in the absurd format of a referendum or even in the more conventional debate/vote in Parliament format. Add to that the fact that neither he nor the advocates of this messy business told the public that the outcome of the exercise would not be legally binding and your first sentence is wholly justified in its content.

I have to admit that, when he was UK's PM, I was never certain what he felt, or thought that he represented.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I don't think that this was all down to him alone but you certainly have a serious point here.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No mention there of his greatest crime which was the ring fencing of the foreign aid budget. He was happy to watch his own people suffer whilst pouring billions down the throats of foreigners. For that alone, he was a traitor.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Fantastic!  I hope you can announce here on Pianostreet when the CD's are available for public sale.  I will order my CD as soon as I learn that it is available for purchase.  Thank you!

Just a touch off-topic  but I certainly will!

[ahinton]

At first there seems to be no distinction between law and morality. There are passages in ancient Greek writers, for example, which seem to suggest that the good person is the one who will do what is lawful. It is the lawgivers, in these early societies, who determine what is right and wrong.

I am however making no moral judgement of Mr. Cameron's decision. There is a legal framework for viewing his behavior, however.   I can review your laws and show you how it was in fact legal for Mr. Cameron to resign.  Cheers.

You do not need to do that; I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that, in resigning as an MP, having already done so as PM, there was anything illegal in either of his resignatory actions - and indeed there wasn't and isn't.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The Scots went to the polls knowing there was going to be a referendum on EU membership. What influence that had on the outcome i have no idea.

EU membership was a major issue in the referendum. A principal tack of the No campaign was to emphasise (accurately or otherwise) that a newly independent Scotland would have difficulty being accepted into the EU: this looks very askance now.

[ahinton]

The Scots went to the polls knowing there was going to be a referendum on EU membership. What influence that had on the outcome i have no idea.

I referred to the first Scottish independence referendum when severance with EU was not on the agenda; for a second one, however, it might be.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

there was absolutely no need, in the sense of general public clamour, for his party to inroduce the question of UK/EU in/out

You have mentioned this a few times and my answer is the same. There certainly was a clamour in my neck of the woods, with the people i associate with, with the newspapers i read and the internet sites i visited and the forums i saw.

There was a public clamour for a referendum and although Cameron was stupid, he would not have promised one if he did not think it was a vote winner which it arguably was. If there was no clamour then the percentage who voted would have been much smaller.

I don't know how you missed it really.

Thal

[ahinton]

EU membership was a major issue in the referendum. A principal tack of the No campaign was to emphasise (accurately or otherwise) that a newly independent Scotland would have difficulty being accepted into the EU: this looks very askance now.

I think that we need to clarify which referendum's being referred to and when.

When the Scots had theirs a couple of years back about independence from UK, they voted again by a smallish majority (albeit a much larger one than was achieved by Leave in this year's UK/EU in/out one); in the very fact of the Scots having voted by a larger majority than in both their first UK in/out one and in the UK/EU in/out one, the subsequent moving of goalposts in all of this is clearly revealed. Scotland's first UK in/out referendum was not obliged to embrace the concept of its being dragged out of EU against what we now know to be its majority will..

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You have mentioned this a few times and my answer is the same. There certainly was a clamour in my neck of the woods, with the people i associate with, with the newspapers i read and the internet sites i visited and the forums i saw.

There was a public clamour for a referendum and although Cameron was stupid, he would not have promised one if he did not think it was a vote winner which it arguably was. If there was no clamour then the percentage who voted would have been much smaller.

I don't know how you missed it really.

In part perhaps because I don't live in le Fin des Graves. Your neck of the woods (are there still woods there?) are hardly representative of UK as a whole and, even if it were more so than it is, might one not reasonably have expected other political parties to have included at least some kind of promise in their election manifestos to address this issue if it was going successfully to secure some realistic traction instead of leaving it only to the Tories, who weren't even in a majority government in UK at the time?

Yes, Cameron was indeed monumentally stupid in doing this but the far more sensible alternative would have been to do nothing instead of try to gamble with the nation's future on what  has since revealed itself to be the stickiest of wickets...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I referred to the first Scottish independence referendum when severance with EU was not on the agenda; for a second one, however, it might be.

There has only been one and there will be no second. Cameron was promising an EU referendum for years, as long ago as 2009.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

In part perhaps because I don't live in le Fin des Graves. Your neck of the woods (are there still woods there?) are hardly representative of UK as a whole and, even if it were more so than it is, might one not reasonably have expected other political parties to have included at least some kind of promise in their election manifestos to address this issue

The other shameful parties did not want to let the people have their say.

Although you don't read them, the Sun and Mail, with a readership in the millions, had been campaigning for a referendum for years. Hardly unrepresentative of UK as a whole.

You would not of heard of it in that Guardian bog paper.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

"Cameron was promising an EU referendum for years, as long ago as 2009."


And Brown also promised one, though he did a typical Brown thing in arguing that the very minor rewriting done in the Lisbon Treaty negated his promise; his promise having pertained only to the previous Treaty.

[ahinton]

There has only been one and there will be no second.

There's no way that either of us or anyone else can know that for sure right now; some Scots deeply and bitterly resent the idea that Westmonster (hardly its favourite place) removes from them their EU citizenship without asking them first if they'd be OK with that (which I for one of many am not); again, I'm not saying that there will be a second Scottish independence referendum and, frankly, should Westmonster ditch the Brexit nonsense sooner rather than later, I cannot imagine other than that the Scots' appetite for such a refendum will die the death that in such circumstances it will quite reasonably deserve to do. It's up to you, Ms May; throw Brexit away once and for all and the Scots will almost certainly quietly push the notion of a second UK independence referendum into the long grass where it rightfully belongs.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The other shameful parties did not want to let the people have their say.

But as you have quite rightly pointed out, one could not resort to referenda for most or all other legislative issues. The people have in any case not had their say in this; just 37% have done so on the side that you happen to support, but you've still declined to tell us why you think that a referendum could possibly have been the best way to go about this, even it someone had really had reason to think that it was worth going about in the first place.

That said, on the basis of the way that you seem to think, would you be happy to let Brexit happen if the deals done between UK and EU left the former much worse off that it s now?

Although you don't read them, the Sun and Mail, with a readership in the millions, had been campaigning for a referendum for years. Hardly unrepresentative of UK as a whole.

You would not of heard of it in that Guardian bog paper.

I do not read one UK newpaper - or indeed "newspaper" - to the disproportionate exclusion of others, but if the readership statistics of the Sun and Mail are anything by which to go, what of the "representative" nature of the now 4,146,880 signatories to that petition? How do you reconcile that?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is really very simple. The Scots voted to stay in the Union in full knowledge there was going to be a referendum on EU membership.

The UK including the Scots, voted to leave the EU.

It cannot get more simple than that. No more referendums, no more silly court cases.

Unless you have any fresh points to argue, i would be inclined to wait and see what happens next. You are beginnig to bore me.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The other shameful parties did not want to let the people have their say.[/quote
But as you have quite rightly pointed out, one could not resort to referenda for most or all other legislative issues. The people have in any case not had their say in this; just 37% have done so on the side that you happen to support, but you've still declined to tell us why you think that a referendum could possibly have been the best way to go about this, even it someone had really had reason to think that it was worth going about in the first place.

That said, on the basis of the way that you seem to think, would yoube happy to let Brexit happen if the deals done between UK and EU left the former much worse off that it s now?

Although you don't read them, the Sun and Mail, with a readership in the millions, had been campaigning for a referendum for years. Hardly unrepresentative of UK as a whole.

You would not of heard of it in that Guardian bog paper.
I do not read one UK newpaper - or indeed "newspaper" - to the disproportionate exclusion of others, but if the readership statistics of the Sun and Mail are anything by which to go, what of the "representative" nature of the now 4,146,880 signatories to that petition? How do you reconcile that?

Best,

Alistair

I was referring to the clamour for the referendum and your silly petition is dwarfed by the over 17,000,000 who subsequently voted to leave.

Now kindly bog off.

Thal

[georgey]

You do not need to do that; I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that, in resigning as an MP, having already done so as PM, there was anything illegal in either of his resignatory actions - and indeed there wasn't and isn't.

Best,

Alistair

Then we may ALL be in agreement on this one item (sort of like agreeing that the sky is blue).  

I started a new “Better way to save the elephants and allow for more free use of ivory?” thread in the “anything but piano” section.  I will not be participating in the discussion, but I would be interested to know how you think we can save the elephants or if saving elephants is even something that you feel is desired.  You commented that the new US law to regulate ivory sales was hysterical. I gave a proposal in my new thread.  You may be able to say my proposal “sounds good to me”.  No need participate if you are too busy, but please participate in that thread as opposed to here to keep things on topic.  

Cheers.

[visitor]

Than we may ALL be in agreement on this one item (sort of like agreeing that the sky is blue). 

I started a new “Better way to save the elephants and allow for more free use of ivory?” thread in the “anything but piano” section.  I will not be participating in the discussion, but I would be interested to know how you think we can save the elephants or if saving elephants is even something that you feel is desired.  You commented that the new US law to regulate ivory sales was hysterical. I gave a proposal in my new thread  You may be able to say my proposal “sounds good to me”.  No need participate if you are too busy, but please participate in that thread as opposed to here to keep things on topic.  Cheers.

*conjured imagery lol

[georgey]

*conjured imagery lol

No need to pray.  My prior post is my last mention of anything of ivory or elephants.  Others will have the last word.  I do not have the answers.  Just asking a question.

[ahinton]

It is really very simple. The Scots voted to stay in the Union in full knowledge there was going to be a referendum on EU membership.

How could they have done that when the Tories hadn't even announced that a referendum on UK's continued EU membership had not been published by the time that the Scottish independe refernedum was launched?!

The UK including the Scots, voted to leave the EU.

No; you have seen the figures so you do not need me or anyone else to remind you of the differences between the wsays in which all four UK nations voted.

It cannot get more simple than that. No more referendums, no more silly court cases.

It;s not as simple as you make it out to be. Thee may well be no more referenda other than one for Scottish independence but the court cases to which you refer are not, as I have previously stated, "silly" otherwise no judges would agree to try them) and, in any case, none has yet been heard, so you cannot write of "no more" thereof.

Unless you have any fresh points to argue, i would be inclined to wait and see what happens next. You are beginnig to bore me.

"Beginnig"? So be it. Maybe you get bored easily, so go do some banjo pracice or scan another obscure 19th centuiry Romantic piano concerto or both. As to the Brexit and Scottish referendum issues and others, we're both waiting to see what happens (or doesn't) next, along with millions of others, so at least I'm with you there!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I was referring to the clamour for the referendum and your silly petition is dwarfed by the over 17,000,000 who subsequently voted to leave.

It was not my petition; indeed, it was launched by a Leave campaigner of very suspect political beliefs (English Democrats). Had this petition attracted more signatories than the number of people who voted either Remain or Leave (which woulod obviously be utterly inconceivable), the entire referendum would have been blown out of the water. It's still a remarkably large number of signatories given the subject of the petition and that their purpose in signing was not to say "in" or "out" but that "this wasn't the way to conduct the matter", no more, no less - so get your facts and reasoning in proportion, please!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

No need to pray.  My prior post is my last mention of anything of ivory or elephants.  Others will have the last word.  I do not have the answers.  Just asking a question.

Ivoryson to bring the discussion back to the thread topic; might you be able to think of one as well?

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

The UK including the Scots, voted to leave the EU.

Unfortunately that's nonsense... the SCOTS wanted to remain, they voted to remain at almost 2 votes to every 1 leave.

The Scots did NOT vote to leave the EU, but because there's more people in England, than Scotland - England got the majority.

Here's a nice colourful map as well to highlight that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-referendum/

[ahinton]

It is really very simple. The Scots voted to stay in the Union in full knowledge there was going to be a referendum on EU membership.

The Scots voted to remain in UK in 2014. The Tories included the UK/EU in/out referedum in their electon manifesto in 2015. Furthermore, neither the Scots nor most other people in UK expected the outcome of the latter to be other than a Remain vote which, in Scotland itself, it actually was and by a far more substantial majority than pertained in the other three member states.

Scotland's position should Brexit proceed is now very different to what it would have been had the majority in the UK/EU in/out referendum voted to Remain; this would provide its reason to hold a second independence referendum should it decide to do so.

As I've stated previously, I hope that it doesn't do that and I feel pretty certain that, once Brexit is ditched (which I hope it will be), Scotland will queitly drop its second independence referendum, because the principal thrust behind the desire to hold one, namely the wish to retain Scotland's status as an EU member state, will have disappeared from the agenda.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You have mentioned this a few times and my answer is the same. There certainly was a clamour in my neck of the woods, with the people i associate with, with the newspapers i read and the internet sites i visited and the forums i saw.

I mentioned the general public, by no means all members of which live in your neck of the woods, associate with the same people as you do or read the same newspapers and visit the same internet sites or fora as you do.

Not only that, as we know from election results, not everyone votes Tory, so what of all the supporters of other parties that didn't include the promise of this referendum in their election manifestos? Had there been the general public clamour for this, all the parties would have promised one as they'd all have regarded it as the vote winner that you say you believe Cameron thought it to be.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

There has only been one and there will be no second.

You cannot know that for certain at this point; much will depend on what happens about Brexit and Scotland will be watching this very carefully indeed.

Cameron was promising an EU referendum for years, as long ago as 2009.

In 2009 he wasn't PM and his party wasn't in government!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I was referring to the clamour for the referendum and your silly petition is dwarfed by the over 17,000,000 who subsequently voted to leave.

You have encapsulated yourself (it's the missing sqaure bracket at the end of the first "[quote/ " that's done this.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Unfortunately that's nonsense... the SCOTS wanted to remain, they voted to remain at almost 2 votes to every 1 leave.

The Scots did NOT vote to leave the EU, but because there's more people in England, than Scotland - England got the majority.

Here's a nice colourful map as well to highlight that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-referendum/

The Scots were part of the UK and the UK voted to leave.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

In 2009 he wasn't PM and his party wasn't in government!

As an MP after the Lisbon Treaty he was promising a referendum should he get into power.

In any case, the Scots when voting in their Independence referendum were well aware there was going to be an EU referendum.

END OF.

Thal

[georgey]

It is really very simple. The Scots voted to stay in the Union in full knowledge there was going to be a referendum on EU membership.

The UK including the Scots, voted to leave the EU.

I just wanted to clarify what I think Thalbergmad said and show that I can post on-topic in my last post here.

Thalbergmad saying:
1) "The Scots voted to stay in the Union"
2) "The UK including the Scots, voted to leave the EU."

The 2nd item meaning: The UK as a whole (including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), voted to leave the EU.

Cheers!

[ahinton]

The Scots were part of the UK and the UK voted to leave.

Indeed so on both counts - and Scotland not only was but still is part of UK, just as UK is still part of EU - but Scotland itself didn't vote to leave; that's why, should the opinion poll outcome lead to invocation of Article 50 and proceeding with Brexit, Scotland will want and likely hold a second referendum. What I think that you might be forgetting here is that Scotland, in voting as it did in the referendum, demonstrated two separate things - firstly, that it did not want UK to leave the EU and, secondly, that it did not want Scotland to leave EU. As I mentioned, the result of the poll in Scotland was a higher majority (for either side) than pertained in any of the other three UK member states.

I am not about to predict what will happen in terms either of

a) whether or when Article 50 will be invoked or

b) the outcome of any negotiations subsequent to invocation of that Article or

c) the legal challenges to Brexit and its conduct or

d) whether Scotland will feel the need to hold a second independence referendum or

e) what next year's election results in France, Germany and Netherlands will be and what impact they might have on EU or on Brexit should proceedings towards it have begun by that time

or indeed about any other factor that's directly pertinent to and/or might impact upon any aspect of the UK/EU in/out business because I do not know what will happen about any of those things; we will all simply have to wait and see. The only thing in which I feel that I can remain fairly confident is that, unless the skids are put under Brexit soon, what will happen instead will spread itself over many uncomfortable years to come.

Have you by chance seen any "England has voted: Scots go home!" posters in your particular part of SE London? Just curious!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

As an MP after the Lisbon Treaty he was promising a referendum should he get into power.

That's about as meaningful as saying that, were I to succeed Simon Rattle as principal conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic, I'd conduct some of my own works! (and I'm not even a conductor)...

In any case, the Scots when voting in their Independence referendum were well aware there was going to be an EU referendum.

They did not - and nor could they have done. As you know, only the Tories included the promise of an UK/EU in/out refeendum in their 2015 election manifesto (i.e. the year after the first Scottish independence vote took place) so, had they not won that election outright (and, after all, they were only in coalition when it was called), there would have been no such referendum.

Do you really believe that, when Scots voted in that first independence referendum, they all knew for certain not only that the Tories would include the promise of an UK/EU in/out referendum in their election manifesto the following year but also that they would win that election outright and thus be able to fulfil it?!

Moreover, even if the Scots had been able to know all of this in advance (which obviously they could not), they would, like almost everyone else, have assumed its outcome to be that UK should remain in EU and so the question of a perceived need for a second independence referendum in Scotland would never have arisen; indeed, I firmly believe that it's arisen now largely if not solely because of the outcome of that opinion poll across UK which is clearly contrary to what Scotland wanted for UK and for itself.

No, Thal; what you write above simply fails to stand up to scrutiny.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I just wanted to clarify what I think Thalbergmad said and show that I can post on-topic in my last post here.

Thalbergmad saying:
1) "The Scots voted to stay in the Union"
2) "The UK including the Scots, voted to leave the EU."

The 2nd item meaning: The UK (including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), voted to leave the EU.

I believe that you have interpreted him correctly; however, his statements being conveniently selective, they fall well short of representing the whole story.

The Scots voted to stay in the Union in 2014 at a time when when no UK/EU referendum had been promised by any UK political party and an UK General Election had yet to be called.

The Tory party - but no other UK party (not even UKIP) - included the promise of such a referendum in its 2015 General Election manifesto; it did so on the unfounded basis of a fear of defections from it to UKIP, which is hardly a credible reason to promise a referendum on a topic of such fundamental importance that it might result in the redrawing of the EU map.

Had the Tories not won that election outright, no UK/EU in/out referendum would have been launched and we wouldn't be having this discussion!

Now that this referendum has taken place, the UK taken as a whole has (just about) voted to leave EU, but the outcomes in each of its four nations were different, namely a small majority in England in favour of leaving, an even smaller one in Wales for the same, a small majority in Northern Ireland in favour of remaining and a considerably larger one (the largest majority of all four, in fact) in favour of remaining; this, along with the fact that almost all of UK's largest cities voted to remain, has exposed a number of divisions within EU.

Those who voted to remain, wherever they did so, did not wish to have their EU citizenship stripped from them by the Westminster government and are aggreived at the possible risk that this will nevertheless occur should Brexit proceed.

Those in Scotland who voted to remain are especially aggreived at this, which is why a second independence referendum might be held, since the risk that Scotland would be taken out of EU against its will did not pertain on the occasion of the first one.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No, Thal; what you write above simply fails to stand up to scrutiny.

And what you write fails to stand up to common sense. I was convinced of the inevitability of a referendum. It had been talked about for years, and whilst not certain (nothing is), it certainly would have been something I would have considered if I were a Scot voting on independence.

If you were not certain, that is your own problem.

Thal

[ahinton]

I was convinced of the inevitability of a referendum. It had been talked about for years, and whilst not certain (nothing is), it certainly would have been something I would have considered if I were a Scot voting on independence.

YOU might have been "convinced" - so might others - but merely being a single member of the UK electroate who was "convinced" of this is a far cry from asserting that the majority of Scots were "convinced" of it.

What would have been the source of such conviction in the first place if

(a) it was not on the cards at the time of the first Scottish independence referendum and

(b) when the next UK General Election came around the year after that referendum had taken place, only one party - and one that was only in coalition at the time - was to promise an UK/EU in/out one in its election manifesto so, had it not won that election outright (which it was widely expected not to do), that would have been the end of that for the referendum, whatever some Scots might have thought themselves to be "convinced" of the previous year.

Even all of that, though, is not really the point. We all know that most people, whether they supported Remain or Leave, expected the opinion poll result to favour Remain; the government of the day which had promised it thought so as well and accordingly spent almost £10m of taxpayers' funds promoting it. How, therefore, could Scots have been "convinced" a year in advance that

(a) the Tories (but no one else) would promise an UK/EU in/out referendum in its election manifesto the following year (especially given the sheer paucity of Tories in Scotland)

(b) the Tories would win that election with an outright majority, thereby enabling them to fulfil their promise and

(c) Leave would win, albeit by a very small margin and not in Scotland itself, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar?

Many Scots are intelligent people but all of that would have been asking far too much of their perceptive and predictive powers!

If you were not certain, that is your own problem.

Far from being "my problem" it's not a problem at all; as I stated, no one could possibly have foreseen all of the above.

Do you believe there to be a palpable desire for a second Scottish independence referendum for any reason other than the possible threat of Brexit? I don't, but that's only my opinion - maybe you have evidence to justify thinking differently about this, in which case please present it.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If you were blind to the bleedin obvious, that is not my fault.

I have skip read your post as I expect you are prattling on about the same things.

Thal

[perfect_pitch]

The Scots were part of the UK and the UK voted to leave.

Wrong... The UK didn't vote to leave... England voted to leave and since they had almost 18x the votes of any other country, they basically screwed everyone else over.

As a Scotsman myself, don't mesh Scotland into the mess that England created.

[thalbergmad]

Wrong... The UK didn't vote to leave... England voted to leave and since they had almost 18x the votes of any other country, they basically screwed everyone else over.

Wrong.... Scotland were part of the UK when the UK voted to leave. What Scotland voted for is as irrelevant as what Bognor Regis voted for. If you are part of a Union and the Union votes a certain way, you accept the vote, or in Hinty's case, you throw your toys out of the pram.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

What Scotland voted for is as irrelevant as what Bognor Regis voted for.

And that, in a nutshell, is the argument for Scottish independence. The Scottish opinion is regularly rendered irrelevant by sheer weight of numbers.

*back to editing* 

[ahinton]

Wrong.... Scotland were part of the UK when the UK voted to leave. What Scotland voted for is as irrelevant as what Bognor Regis voted for. If you are part of a Union and the Union votes a certain way, you accept the vote, or

...consider your position in terms of applying for independence from the remainder of that Union. As it happens, Scotland voted to remain whereas I believe that Bognor Regis voted by a very small majority to leave, but you have surely noticed that only one of them is actually a country? Scotland could hold a referendum for independence from the rest of UK whereas it would be rather difficult for Bognor Regis to do so.

The point here, however, is that Scotland would not, I imagine, want to try another independence referendum unless Brexit pertains whereas, if indeed it does pertain, Scotland might consider wanting out of the Union because it wishes to retain its status as an EU member state (as is clear from the way that it voted). It's up to Westminster to steer Brexit or not (and how and when), just as it's up to Scotland to observe what it's doing and act accordingly in its own interests.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

And that, in a nutshell, is the argument for Scottish independence. The Scottish opinion is regularly rendered irrelevant by sheer weight of numbers.

Not to the Scots it isn't!

Those who consider the question of Scotland's possible independence from the Union (even though a second referendum is unlikely to be generated unless Brexit negotiations go ahead), ought also to take due cognisance of the immense party political differences between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other; whereas England has several political parties with MPs in office and Wales has the same + a handful of nationalist (Plaid Cymru) MPs, almosts all MPs in Scotland are nationalist (SNP), so the political cliamte there is already very different to that in England and Wales.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If you were blind to the bleedin obvious, that is not my fault.

You were writing about yourself, not me.

I have skip read your post

Not my problem.

as I expect you are prattling on about the same things

I was responding to one of your posts and, if doing so is "prattling", then I assume my honoured mantle as Sir Simon Prattle.

If you don't read things, you are in no position to comment on them; if you only skim read them, your ability to comment intelligently on them will accordingly be limited.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Scotland could hold a referendum for independence from the rest of UK whereas it would be rather difficult for Bognor Regis to do so.

The people of Bognor Regis will be duly concerned if Brexit does not happen, if indeed they voted to leave. The people of Boston Lincs even moreso.

If Brexit does not happen, then for the first time in my memory, the minority (however small) has won. British politics would be the laughing stock of the World. Brexit has to happen and if the Scots are dim enough to want to leave a winning group and rejoin a failing one, they deserve all thy get.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

And that, in a nutshell, is the argument for Scottish independence. The Scottish opinion is regularly rendered irrelevant by sheer weight of numbers.

Then they should have voted for Independence. They had the opportunity.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Then they should have voted for Independence. They had the opportunity.

Yes. Of course they should have. I completely understand Scots who voted No from an essentially right-wing position: that was the objectively rational choice for them.  What I fail completely to understand is the left-leaning Scots who voted No (let's not forget Scotland hasn't voted Conservative at a general election since the 50s). Forever complaining about the impositions of Tory rule, yet when the chance comes to rid themselves of this for the foreseeable future, they start bleating about how they don't like Salmond and other excuses. Considering even Salmond and Sturgeon's detractors almost universally acknowledge their competence, this is pathetic beyond belief. If you complain about a problem then can't execute the glaringly obvious solution to remove it, then in my book you are a whinging sorry excuse for a human being. I remain disgusted at a significant percentage of my compatriots, spineless contemptible cowards that they are. Obviously the pleasure of a good and perpetual whine about the 'effing Tories' is much greater than that of taking responsibility for one's own destiny.

[ahinton]

The people of Bognor Regis will be duly concerned if Brexit does not happen, if indeed they voted to leave. The people of Boston Lincs even moreso.

If Brexit does not happen, then for the first time in my memory, the minority (however small) has won. British politics would be the laughing stock of the World.

It already is, sadly.

Brexit has to happen

Who says that it does? and who says that it will?

Best,

Alistair