Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday March 14 2017, @10:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the twice-in-a-generation dept.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is seeking another vote on Scottish independence, coming possibly as soon as late 2018:

In a bombshell announcement Monday, Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon told reporters in Edinburgh that she will seek the authority to hold a second independence referendum for Scotland. Citing a "brick wall of intransigence" from British Prime Minister Theresa May, Sturgeon asserted that the only way to preserve Scottish interests in the midst of the U.K. exit from the European Union is to put matters directly in the hands of Scottish voters.

"What Scotland deserves, in the light of the material change of circumstances brought about by the Brexit vote, is the chance to decide our future in a fair, free and democratic way — and at a time when we are equipped with the facts we need," the Scottish first minister and head of the Scottish National Party said in prepared remarks. "Whatever path we take, it should be one decided by us, not for us."

Next week, she will seek a section 30 order from the Scottish Parliament to begin the referendum process — which the U.K. Parliament in Westminster ultimately must approve. If all goes as planned, Sturgeon expects that a vote would be held in the fall of 2018 or spring of 2019, after terms of a Brexit deal worked out by the U.K. and the EU become clear.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday March 14 2017, @10:55AM (45 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @10:55AM (#478854) Journal

    which the U.K. Parliament in Westminster ultimately must approve.

    Actually, it does not have to approve the Referendum, but refusing it would not be a wise thing to do. Whatever Scottish support there is for the current UK Government would be diminished in Scotland. However, the timing is one thing that can be dictated to a certain extent by Westminster. They Govt argue that the middle of the Brexit negotiations is not a sensible time to hold the referendum, but that is precisely what Sturgeon is asking for. It might not happen until after the Brexit deal has been agreed. Westminster will not want to have to divide its efforts and resources in fighting 2 major battles at the same time.

    Sturgeon has been talking about a second referendum since the results of the Brexit vote were announced - and although her timing caught the Govt on the back foot is it not entirely unexpected. The Scottish Nationalists were hoping for a win last time and they now feel that they may stand a better chance as any European migrants that have settled in Scotland are unlikely to vote to leave the EU. However, if the referendum can be delayed until after there is agreement on the future of both foreign migrants to the UK and British migrants in Europe, those extra votes could melt away if the agreement is such that migrants are not forced to leave their newly adopted homes and post-Brexit life is found not to be so bad after all.

    Independence is, of course, a major desire for the Scottish Nationalists - and Brexit provides a good excuse for them to ignore the pledge that they gave that the last referendum in 2014s would be a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

    My own view is the the Nationalists are simply trying for a second bite of the cherry - they didn't get the result they wanted last time and so would love the opportunity to try again. In effect, they intend to keep asking the question until they get the answer that they want.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:16AM (12 children)

    by pe1rxq (844) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:16AM (#478856) Homepage

    The last time they lost because the Scottish where told they would not be able to stay in the EU if they voted for independence. That promise is now broken as well. I don't blame them for using it as an excuse to try again.

    • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:34PM (10 children)

      by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:34PM (#478955)

      > The last time they lost because the Scottish where told they would not be able to stay in the EU if they voted for independence. That promise is now broken as well. I don't blame them for using it as an excuse to try again.

      But they have been just told again by the EU that they don't automatically stay an EU member if they split from the UK. They will have to apply to join the club like any other "new" country would.

      If the UK leaves, Scotland is leaving as well, no matter whether they vote again (and which side wins). What this referendum should be about, is whether Scotland should leave the UK and reapply to the EU as an independent state, along with the entire process of joining the club.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:42PM (9 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:42PM (#479009)

        Brussels may be eager to keep Scotland as a giant FU to England, and to show other separatist areas that the EU is still attractive.
        "If the Scots are ready to break their link with England to stay with us, why would you leave?"

        Given the political trends in the Netherlands and France, plus Catalonia, Pais Basco, Corsica... the EU will take a symbolic win for integration.
        England might even (quietly) push for it as a gateway to the EU markets, since there will be retaliation for leaving.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:21PM (8 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:21PM (#479032) Journal

          since there will be retaliation for leaving.

          Which I believe is an abhorrent way for anyone to behave in a group of democratic nations, and reflects badly on those who would retaliate. The decision to leave the EU was made democratically, why do other nations think that the UK should be punished for being a democracy?

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:32PM (7 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:32PM (#479040)

            The childish answer is because people are pissed at the Brits always bitching about the EU while enjoying the benefits.

            The real answer was in my previous line: to dissuade a long list of others from leaving, and protect the integration which, for all its faults, has been beneficial overall.
            Right after the vote, lots of Brits were hoping they could keep the single-market benefits while dropping the obligations by leaving. While May has got the message that it won't happen, being too nice to England would open the door to more people making short-sighted populist decisions.
            There is no question that the EU has lots of room to improve, and should listen to the people raging against both overbearing regulation and excessive liberalism (in the Euro sense).

            But the EU does allow secession without civil wars, so it has to convince people they are better in than out, especially when the most vocal of those who want out are right-wing extremists.
            We're leaving a repeat of the 1930s, remember?.

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:04PM (3 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:04PM (#479072) Journal

              The majority didn't seem to value the 'benefits' that you seem to think are so good. We are paying in far more than we get back, although the pro-Brexiteers claims were simply ridiculous and didn't bear close scrutiny.

              To follow on from the remainder of your comment (thank you, by the way), if the EU has to resort to threats and intimidation to keep other nations as members then perhaps it is not a group one should consider being a member of? Surely, if being a member of the EU is so good then other nations wouldn't even dream of wanting to leave, but we both know that that is not the case. And if you cannot get change by negotiation (because that offends the bigger nations who currently rule the EU roost), then the only option remaining is to leave.

              The EEC (European Economic Community) was a good idea, particularly for trade; the EU's dream of a federal Europe with a handful of nations controlling the currency and economics of the union is less attractive to many members. The one's who are desperate to remain members (other than the relative few who currently have the most control) are those that are receiving far more in aid that they contribute to the EU. The reason the EU would like the UK to remain is because we are paying for it!

              The UK will negotiate to maintain cooperation between police and security forces, to allow those migrants that have settled in the UK and elsewhere to remain where they are, and would like to cooperate on trade in the way that the EEC once promised. How much of that will be acceptable to the EU remains to be seen.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:59PM (1 child)

                by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:59PM (#479107)

                While there is no question that the richest countries pay more than they get back (same for US states), they do pay their access to the biggest market in the world.
                The middle-class gets shafted as their jobs move to Poland/Romania/Bulgaria ([Mexico]), but the companies do pocket most of the profits. Then the middle-class gets double-shafted as the companies actually avoid paying taxes through non-uniform taxation rules, depriving their government of the means to attract more jobs home, or pay for unemployment and other services.
                So when the big boys can make the City into the most expensive real estate and go to their country club, they're not opposed to the EU.
                The midlands accumulate resentment and voted on what they could. They were not asked whether tax heavens should exist inside the EU, or whether someone should be able to work in a Western country with a much cheaper contract from an Eastern country. They were not asked whether being offered a relocation to Poland should be illegal when your plant closes, or whether their own politicians should stop brown-nosing City asses. They weren't asked whether they agree with Angela's refugee policies or Calais's jungle bulldozing.

                "Should the UK leave the EU? Heck yes, what's it done for me? Politicos have told me for 30 years that it's the single reason for every bad decision they don't want to own up to." Citizens have been setting record abstention for EU elections, even as it's been the scapegoat for all the ills of accelerated world trade...

                But it's still better to stick together and fix the EU, leverage its massive market to fight price-dumping and protect jobs, than to throw the towel and get crushed.
                The EU is in a bad place now, with enough build to be blamed (for the US crisis, the Crimean impotence, and the Chinese prices), but not enough integration to weigh in and be more than the playtoy of market-minded conglomerates. Keeping it together is critical, because the alternative is nasty.
                Asking angry people a black-or-white question is never a good idea.

                • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:40AM

                  by mojo chan (266) on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:40AM (#479308)

                  They pay more than they get back directly, but it is hard to measure the benefits of bringing other countries up to the level where they can afford you high end goods and services.

                  Look at Ireland. Massively benefited from EU membership. Wages and living standards came up. The UK benefited too because now it has another developed market on its doorstep that speaks the same language.

                  --
                  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:18PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:18PM (#479113)

                > if the EU has to resort to threats and intimidation

                If put that way, it sounds pretty bad. But the same thing could be put as "if you start a book club and you sell the books to non-members for 1 EUR, but to members for 2 EUR, you will not have many members" it's just common sense.
                The other part why people think the UK will no manage to get a good deal is because it doesn't look good on the negotiation front.
                I think all too many people in the UK cannot fathom the EU as an idealistic project, and they will have a hard time negotiating with those people that do.
                Things like the government basically saying "we absolutely need to hold the fate of EU nationals in the UK as negotiation chips" really doesn't leave much space for goodwill. Unless that is quickly resolved, there is a risk of that alone generating a front of people who just won't be interested in a deal, even if it has a financial cost.
                Honesty, kindness and interest in the common good are also assets you bring to the negotiation table, and the UK (in shape of its government, the people are a completely different topic) since quite a while hasn't shown much ability for any of these.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:04PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:04PM (#479109)

              If they have to punish countries for leaving to prevent others from doing the same, isn't that already a sign things aren't great? Shouldn't it be better IN the EU so countries won't WANT to leave? If you have to directly make things hard on a country to "set an example" that signals to me that it isn't so rosy and you're worried other people will realize that.

              • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @09:06PM

                by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @09:06PM (#479135)

                As I already replied above, people are angry for many reasons, some homegrown, some EU-based, some totally foreign, and leaving is he easiest knee-jerk reaction but not the wisest.

                The extent of "punishments" for someone leaving is limited to treating them no better than Somalia on trade/customs/immigration matters.
                It's the country leaving the Union who is asking to retain a preferential status (leave the club, but keep a key), and the worst punishment is to slam the door on their ass (with the consequence of losing trade with them). WTO rules pretty much prevent going very far beyond that.

                The EU has a vested interest in people understanding that tantrums don't get rewarded, and the "leave" energy should be directed at fixing the EU problems instead.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 15 2017, @01:55AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 15 2017, @01:55AM (#479239)

              all i know is what i saw in brexit: the movie but...i think it's ridiculous to act like some massive unelected bureaucracy is beneficial to the people in any overall way. We need to be decentralizing politically, not turning over all control to supranational opportunists. What a foolish way to throw away all the hard fought gains of freedom.

    • (Score: 2) by rleigh on Tuesday March 14 2017, @10:57PM

      by rleigh (4887) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @10:57PM (#479188) Homepage

      What broken promise?

      "Not being an EU member after independence" does not imply that "not having independence guarantees remaining an EU member". Both the independence referendum and the EU referendum were a long time in coming. While not finalised by the time of the independence referendum, the EU referendum was clearly a likely possibility by that time, and it's not like the EU has ever been hugely popular; even amongst remain voters there's a large amount who dislike but tolerate it. The way things have played out was not a certainty, but it was a very plausible one which I would have thought most informed voters would have considered.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:21AM (12 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:21AM (#478859) Journal

    My own view is the the Nationalists are simply trying for a second bite of the cherry - they didn't get the result they wanted last time and so would love the opportunity to try again. In effect, they intend to keep asking the question until they get the answer that they want.

    But Brexit is too good of an excuse. A great one, in fact. Scots are living in a new generation today... the post-Brexit generation. If the Nationalists are lucky, they'll take full advantage of Brexit and get the result they wanted on merely the 2nd try. "Yes Scotland" can become "Better Together... With The EU".

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:03PM (11 children)

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:03PM (#478871)

      the problem is the EU needs Britain , more than the EU needs Scotland.

      There are only 3 1/2 big EU countries supporting all the small ones. If Britain leaves, there will only be 2 1/2 big countries, and 1 of those is Germany and is not happy about paying for all the rest.

      I'm not sure I see any solutions apart (say) from some more terrible natural disaster to unite the populations and realise the world is not a nice place...

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:27PM (8 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:27PM (#478877) Journal

        the problem is the EU needs Britain , more than the EU needs Scotland.

        Except Scotland comes in with the North Sea: strategic position (the only seashore of Germany is there) + Brent crude (the only oil/gas fields out of OPEC influence) - two of the oil pipes [wikimedia.org] from the field land in Scotland (the Shetlands are Scottish).

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:51PM (2 children)

          by zocalo (302) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:51PM (#478885)
          Don't forget the fishing rights and EEZ. If Scotland breaks with the UK, then all those fishermen in the NE of England that were so desperate for the removal of EU fishing quotas so they could fish the North Sea to piscine extinction and let their grandkids worry about what to do for a living will have a virtual fence imposed out from the border. Something like the Cod Wars all over again, perhaps?

          There's also a NATO angle to all this. There is quite a bit of military infrastructure in Scotland - the submarine base in Faslane and some of the RAF's capacity for intercepting the Russian aircraft the routinely loop down out of the Arctic to test NATO's Northern flank. Scotland leaving the UK would also mean leaving NATO - at least temporarily - and that interim period could result in some weaknesses that I'm sure Russia will be more than happy to search for.
          --
          UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
          • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:57AM (1 child)

            by mojo chan (266) on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:57AM (#479315)

            The UK government has already had to admit that fishing rights are unlikely to change much, if at all, and we will probably have to sign up to the existing rules anyway. The stocks have to be managed and since all the other interested parties are in the EU, the UK isn't going to get an exception.

            That points to our bigger problem in all this. We have no cards, nothing to offer. The best we can do is argue that a bad deal will be bad for the EU as well, i.e. mutually assured destruction. But we also want things - special terms, market access, a soft border with Ireland and Spain and so on. We have no cards but expect to somehow get all these things we want.

            --
            const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
            • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday March 15 2017, @10:24AM

              by zocalo (302) on Wednesday March 15 2017, @10:24AM (#479332)
              I definitely think the government is chasing a pipe dream with BrExit, but that's a given in negotiations - you aim high and end up somewhere in the middle. They do seem to be aiming unreasonably high though, and that's almost certainly going to backfire when they are being seen to be giving so much ground when the inevitable haggling over details happens.

              Getting back to the fishing stocks though, that's based on the assumption of a UK-EU deal. It does not consider the possibility of a three way (UK-Scotland)-EU-Scotland deal, or even a (UK-Scotland)-(EU+Scotland) deal. Drawing out the EEZs on the map for the various areas of interest and there are some really interesting issues for the UK if the EU decides not to do a deal - and they'd have the UK less Scotland over a major barrel on this. If we assume Scotland's EEZ would extend out from the border towards southern Norway, then you basically bisect the North Sea from the channel to that line. Between the EEZs of Scotland, Norway, Denmark's around the Faroes, and Iceland, were there no deals at all then any deepwater fishermen from the NE of England looking to trawl in the larger Atlantic would need to travel several hundred nautical miles before they could even drop their nets legally. There's no way the UK could allow that to be the case, and the other parties must know it, which gives them another ace in the hole should negotiations turn ugly - so more concessions from the UK elsewhere to get a favourable deal.

              Hypothetically though, if it was a no deal BrExit and EEZs were to be enforced, how likely is it that the UK fishermen abide by such rules? Probably pretty slim - they certainly didn't in the Cod Wars - and there would be a much larger expanse of ocean to illegally fish in than there was around the Icelandic coast, but equally - despite the support of a much larger Royal Navy than there is now, they still lost to the Icelandic Coastguard's limited resources just by virtue of the tactic of putting nets beyond use. With a much weaker Royal Navy, combined with enforcement by more capable and numerous opposing navies (real ones this time), I have little doubt which side would come of worse if it ever did come to that. Interesting times...
              --
              UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:58PM (3 children)

          by opinionated_science (4031) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:58PM (#478888)

          I'll wager the oil will not go with Scotland independence, and may not even be available.

          Nationalism 200 years ago, meant using your population to feed, clothe and defend your populations.

          Nationalism 100 years ago, meant blaming the other guy, for your inability to feed, clothe and defend your populations.

          Nationalism today, is a political game where blaming the other guy is a means to feed , clothe and defend your interests, and screw everyone else.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:07PM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:07PM (#478909) Journal

            I'll wager the oil will not go with Scotland independence

            You think?
            What do you reckon the 21 joint owners of the Brent system [wikipedia.org] will do, invest in extra pipe lengths to reach England or be happy with whatever Scotland chooses to do?
            (remember what side of brexit referendum was supported by the major businesses?)

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:28PM (1 child)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:28PM (#479037) Journal

              The money to exploit the North Sea oilfields was not provided by Scotland, but by the UK. The whole of the UK has a stake in those resources, they are not Scotland's to simply claim. Similarly with fishing rights. Scotland can claim out to 12 nm of the coast, but the rest of the water is still a resource belonging to the UK. Whose navy will police the area to prevent 'English' fishermen from working there? The nationalists want to get rid of nuclear weapons, so Faslane will not be remaining a RN docks indefinitely. There will be, in my opinion, an agreement to provide defence and other support in return for payment from the Scottish tax payers, or do they really think that they are going to get all of this for free?

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:25PM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:25PM (#479115) Journal

                The money to exploit the North Sea oilfields was not provided by Scotland, but by the UK.

                The oil nay belong to whoever, the pipes are in private ownership and end in Scotland.
                Who has control over the oil flow?

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:27PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:27PM (#479090)

          The oil output of the Scottish oil fields has been diminishing since the 1970's, and it's quite low at the present with no hope of recovery. At least half, and possibly three quarters, of all the oil has been taken already. Oil prices have plunged and are hovering around $50; Scotland probably needs around $60 to do well for itself. Furthermore, the cost of decommissioning old infrastructure looms ahead.

          Scotland is going to need some fiscal transfer in the future. They may well hope that the EU will be more generous than the English.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:21PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:21PM (#478944) Journal

        I'm not sure I see any solutions apart (say) from some more terrible natural disaster to unite the populations and realise the world is not a nice place...

        If your solution for a better world requires a terrible natural disaster to work, then maybe it's not a solution.

        I personally don't have any problems with the EU falling apart. It'd be better to fail now while it's still a mildly anti-democratic experiment than fail later when it's a millennia-old totalitarian state.

      • (Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:59PM

        by gawdonblue (412) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:59PM (#479132)

        There are only 3 1/2 big EU countries supporting all the small ones. If Britain leaves, there will only be 2 1/2 big countries, and 1 of those is Germany and is not happy about paying for all the rest.

        Germany is very happy with the situation, at least regards to single currency.

        Germany's economy is doing very, very well and their currency would normally be spiking in value, and the problem economies, such as the PIGS, would normally have their currencies devaluing. The situation with the shared currency means that overall the Euro reaches a sort of middle-ground, without any hope for the PIGS to become competitive and no inflationary threat to Germany's export commodities.

        Without complete freedom of movement of people and capital and in particular tax income being spread across the Eurozone, the situation has become an economic abomination. Germany "bails out" Greece (with massive strings attached) while simultaneously destroying Greek competitiveness for the good of the German economy.

        Don't know about whether Scotland leaving Britain is a good idea, or whether Brexit will benefit whatever is left of Britain, but the PIGS need to leave the Eurozone ASAP.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:39AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:39AM (#478867) Journal

    Why would McPolsky and Patricks [nrscotland.gov.uk] want to be governed from London?
    Europe has quite good regional dev programs and science funding, I don't think London can match them.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:44AM (9 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:44AM (#478868) Homepage
    > post-Brexit life is found not to be so bad after all.

    Conservatives in power. Non-existent 3rd party. Unelectable Labour party.

    Might I add "Female PM" to that list in order to highlight the fact that history is repeating itself, and it was bad last time. C^HHunt's decimation of the NHS (which is exactly what we got under Thatcher, history *is* repeating) in 3, 2, 1, ...
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:28PM (1 child)

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:28PM (#478915) Journal

      Might I add "Female PM" to that list in order to highlight the fact that history is repeating itself, and it was bad last time

      This one is a shame. The bar for a female PM to be better than her recent male equivalents is really low, yet the two that we've had have both been awful. That said, John Major is probably the best PM we've had in my lifetime, which is a really depressing thought.

      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:20PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:20PM (#479083) Homepage
        Indeed. The scale, for as long as I've been alive, has been "least bad". Jim Hacker^W^WJohn Major was probably the closest to neutrality on that scale.

        I'll pin my colours to the mast and say that probably the only good PM would have been John Smith. He was Modern-Old, but not New. I might well be very very wrong, there's no real way of knowing.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:15PM (6 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:15PM (#478997) Journal

      Thatcher didn't suck because she was a woman; she sucked because she was Margaret Thatcher. Let's not be stupid here.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:12PM (4 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:12PM (#479075) Homepage
        Stop being a knee-jerk SJW. Care to point out the exact words where I assert that Thatcher was bad because she was female? Clue - you can't because I did't say that. I said she was a woman, and she was bad for the country (or at least its middle and lower classes, which is the majority of it, or for its primary, seconday, and half of its tertiary industries, if you'd prefer to categorise things that way). There's no implication in an "and".

        Here's an exercise for you - work out the difference between
        "You're wrong and your are a grotesquely ugly freak"
        and
        "You're wrong because you are a grotesquely ugly freak".
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:28PM (#479091)

          Here's an exercise for you - work out the difference between
          "You're wrong and your are a grotesquely ugly freak"
          and
          "You're wrong because you are a grotesquely ugly freak".

          In the first one the "you" is misspelled as "your". /rimshot

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:42PM (2 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:42PM (#479122) Journal

          Shut your condescending mouth, Phil. I know very well what an ad-hom is, thank you *very* much. If you look at my posts closely, I make sure to insult people *in addition* to pointing out why they are wrong, not saying they are wrong *because* of $INSULT.

          In this case, for example, you are wrong because you lack the facts. However, I also called you out on your unwarranted condescension and self-importance. If I wanted to go for another low blow, I could also call you out for your idiotic assumption that I'm one of the dreaded ess-jay-double-yews, and the appearance of implied misogyny/"mansplaining" if I wanted extra troll points.

          See how that works? You're in way over your head.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:36AM (1 child)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:36AM (#479307) Homepage
            You're wrong again, there are no facts relevant to my point that I am missing. You're good at being wrong, probably because you get a lot of practice.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:13PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:13PM (#479557) Journal

              Oh, so is that what you're reduced to, Phil? You're wrong because, and I've been told this by SJWs, I don't qualify as a SJW. Something about being skeptical that gender is entirely a social construct in one case, in another case being an omnivore, in a few other cases accusations of Islamophobia, etc. You get the idea.

              But you insist on calling me that. So no, you don't have all the facts. And now you have nothing but insults, and it *shows* Good DAY to you, sir. You may show yourself out.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Saturday March 18 2017, @11:45PM

        by purple_cobra (1435) on Saturday March 18 2017, @11:45PM (#480972)

        Amen.
        She, along with large sections of her party both then and now, seem to want to shove us back into Victorian times. While this is personally shit for me - I'm still thin enough to be shoved up a chimney - they're looking through rose-tinted glasses at a history they don't understand. We built infrastructure in those days, so it wasn't just suffering or indignity for the sake of it. Brexit is a problem because we have little in the way of indigenous worth to the world; arseholes like Johnson might witter on about the financial firms, but they'll piss off elsewhere if and when their bottom line is being hit, leaving us without their "benefit". We could sell off the Windsors' property but who'd buy it? We don't make much, we grow very little (for export purposes). Hammond's suggestion we become even more of a tax haven would benefit a few Tory donors but no-one else.
        Brexit will render obvious our pointlessness.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by n1 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:29PM (1 child)

    by n1 (993) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:29PM (#478896) Journal

    it's not really post brexit when a50 hasn't happened yet.

    also from my own position, new orders for my business have dried up. all the clients who actually paid well have now lost all their potential profits on the fall of the pound and the stagnation of the general economy which has seriously affected liquidity.

    I am contributing to what could be seen as positive economic situations as I'm working on exporting my assets and diversifying. my previous plans of a house in France are a distant memory. I am reducing my exposure to the UK and EU. but that all still counts as economic activity, but it's a one off deal while I reposition.

    brexit could be a great thing, and has more potential than remaining in the European union, but how the UK government is managing it is a shambles and fucking pathetic. this is the start of a long road and the country is starting off on the wrong foot. the idea that the UK has all the leverage in trade negotiations is laughable, nostalgia is not the reality.

    the house built on sand of pension deficits sustained by overvalued real estate, over leveraged banks and a service economy doesn't have an appeal when access to markets is in serious doubt.

    people are cashing out and the vultures are descending, the population will be held hostage, but financial services will survive even if standards of living continues to decline and wages stagnate while inflation is manipulated to mask the real situation.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 15 2017, @02:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 15 2017, @02:14AM (#479247)

      this is the way it looks to me too. politicians fucking everything up. it makes me wonder if it's all just a way to consolidate wealth under the guise of nationalism.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:35PM (#478898)

    The problem is that they're doing it too rationally. "Oh, let's wait until we know exactly what Brexit is, so that we can talk about it like informed, civilized people and come to a rational conclusion supported by the evidence." That's a bunch of fag talk if I ever imagined any.

    People with honest intentions fall into that trap. "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." They should be ramping up some good pandering to the Scottish Nationalists if they want to win as well as painting parliament as a bunch of shysters that can't keep their word. Re-do the original arguments for Scotland to stay in the UK as though parliament had promised that Scotland would always be in the EU. Really rally the people against oppressors from London (or wherever somebody in the UK would say is the seat of ebil gummit).

    I'm sure there are all kinds of ways to invent an alternative history of the 2014 referendum.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:36PM (1 child)

    by Rivenaleem (3400) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:36PM (#478899)

    Wait, the Scottish Nationalists are banking on the support of European migrants to get their Independance? You owe me a new Ironymeter, mine just blew up.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:04AM (#479301)

      There was a survey done of how the EU migrants voted in the last attempt, not unsurprisingly they voted in the main to keep Scotland in the UK thanks mainly to the threat of Scotland being kicked out of the EU...fast forward to now, the UK is on its way out of the EU and these migrants may now have a different view...my, ain't people fickle and politics fun?
      Maybe they'll also reconsider not just relying on the goodwill of transient migrants and giving Scots, currently non-domiciled, the vote, as there were indications that the majority of them supported Independance, who knows?.

      I know which way I'll be voting, but I will note that a couple of people I've spoken to have already said they're not going to bother again, one saying 'what's the fucking point, the traitors won the last time.' her words, not mine. The last result left a very, very bitter taste in many peoples mouths..

  • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:38PM (2 children)

    by Spook brat (775) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:38PM (#479006) Journal

    Actually, it does not have to approve the Referendum, but refusing it would not be a wise thing to do.

    That was a massive understatement. When we colonists decided to announce our independence we didn't bother asking for ratification by Westminster, either. It took some time (and a bunch of ammunition) to convince King George we were serious, but we didn't ask - we told.

    If it comes to that, the English will have a serious problem on their hands. My interactions with the British army lead me to believe that the cream of their fighting force comes from Scotland. Good luck keeping the Kingdom united by force of arms once all the Scots strip the Union Jack from their uniforms and replace it with St Andrew's Cross; there won't be enough of a fighting force left to march North.

    --
    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:45PM (1 child)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:45PM (#479057) Journal

      British army lead me to believe that the cream of their fighting force comes from Scotland

      Is your experience dated? There are far fewer Scottish Infantry Regts than there once were. Whether they are operationally better than any other is very much open to debate. I have the greatest respect for the Scottish regts however they contribute to, but do not provide, the 'cream' of the UK's forces. If your experience is based on working alongside any of the Scottish regiments, what would you expect them to say - that they were not as good as any other regiment?

      The remainder of the army is not geographically associated but consists of Corps [army.mod.uk], e.g. Royal Armoured Corps, Corps of Royal Engineers, Royal Logistic Corp.

      • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:44PM

        by Spook brat (775) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:44PM (#479099) Journal

        Is your experience dated? There are far fewer Scottish Infantry Regts than there once were.

        Not that dated; during Operation Enuring Freedom things were already as you describe with corps broken out by function instead of by geography.

        Even so, it seemed to me that there was an oddly large percentage of Northern troops in their ranks. It's probably something like the high fraction of minorities in the U.S. military, where there is a self-selection process involved. It's not the recruiters' fault if more volunteers drop by the Glasgow offices than the ones in London.

        I will admit that my perception of the quality of the Scots I met on deployment may be a case of confirmation bias ;)

        On the other hand, I have a really funny story from that deployment about an English officer, some beer he shouldn't have been sharing with U.S. enlisted personnel, and a friendly-fire incident ("negligent discharge") whose official report bore little resemblance to the story told in the chow line. (short version: drunk US enlisted soldier shoots himself in the leg with an English officer's Hi Power pistol, reported as a totally sober U.S. soldier catching stray round from a gun cleaning mistake) Not a great showing for England.

        --
        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]