Talk

Advanced search

Did NS's threat of Indi 2 infuence your EU vote?

(67 Posts)
Corcory Sun 24-Jul-16 13:00:59

If you are an SNP supporter was this your main season for voting remain or if you are from another part of the UK was the threat of Scottish independence another factor in your voting reasons.

AgentProvocateur Sun 24-Jul-16 13:12:55

No, I voted remain for trade/economic reasons and because free movement of people throughout Europe is important for my children's jobs

museumum Sun 24-Jul-16 13:16:21

I voted remain cause I really wanted to stay in the EU and work through the issues it currently has.
I am not a big snp fan but neither to I hate them.
I would rather not have indyref2 but if thd uk can't keep a decent reciprocal relationship with the eu and if the eu have clear transparent conditions for an Indy Scotland joining and the main parties commuted to applying to join in the event of a yes vote then I would support a ref.

Peregrina Sun 24-Jul-16 13:35:24

It did make me wonder whether I could move to Scotland, so that I could vote Yes another time.

prettybird Sun 24-Jul-16 14:10:57

I voted Remain because I believe - and have always believed in - the EU. I warned my No voting/EU supporting friend 2 years ago that the greater risk to Scotland remaining in the EU was a No vote. She promised then that she'd campaign for Independence if what I said came to pass she didn't believe me. She's standing by her promise.

My belief in the EU is nothing to do with Indyref2; like AgentProvocateur, it is to do with free movement of people and free trade, plus workers' rights, consumer protection, environmental considerations.

Even though I will welcome Indyref2 when/if it comes, I don't think NS wanted it quite so soon. She'd have preferred to have opinion polls consisted at 60% in favour.

prettybird Sun 24-Jul-16 14:16:08

...and talking about it being a "threat" rather than a "manifesto commitment" is immediately showing a bias. hmm

Peregrina Sun 24-Jul-16 14:23:43

I think NS could still afford to wait, until article 50 is triggered and she begins to see what deal is in the offing for the UK.

Eigg Sun 24-Jul-16 14:25:35

It's the other way round.

There are two big reasons I voted "yes" at the last indyref:

Trident
The possibility that RUK would pull us out of Europe

Most of my friends and all of my family voted "no" last time but are passionately pro-Europe.

A good number of them are now seriously considering voting "yes" in a future indyref given Brexit.

My Mother is the most anti SNP person you could meet is now seriously considering her vote on independence and is furious (As are everyone we know) about Brexit.

Corcory Sun 24-Jul-16 15:39:08

Prettybird - Yes it was a manifesto commitment but that manifesto was not aimed at the whole of the UK. NS continuously saying she would hold another Indi vote if Scotland voted remain and the rest of the UK voted leave, I feel was definitely thought of as a threat by many.

prettybird Sun 24-Jul-16 16:43:30

There was no manifesto commitment in the 2015 General Election - to many SNP voters' irritation - and despite the other parties keeping on bringing it up as a "threat".

There was indeed an explicit manifesto commitment in the 2016 Holyrood election, if there were a manifest change in circumstances such as a vote about the EU that differed from the way that Scotland voted.

People didn't need to vote SNP (or other parties which support Independence) but still did so.

RortyCrankle Sun 24-Jul-16 17:06:15

It had no influence on my decision. Why would it? I voted Leave because I believed ultimately that it would be beneficial for the whole country.

I hope Scotland don't leave, I don't believe they are currently in a sufficiently good financial position to leave and there is no guarantee of them quickly joining the EU, it could take several years. But ultimately it's up to them.

HirplesWithHaggis Sun 24-Jul-16 17:27:29

If we have another indy ref and vote yes, it's likely we'll negotiate with the EU to stay, at the same time as rUK are negotiating out. No rejoining necessary.

I do think we should wait til Art 50 has been invoked, but not for too long after that. It would be unfair to rUK to leave them negotiating their exit under the misaprehension that they had our wealth/territories to play with.

And to answer the OP, no, this did not influence my remain vote.

Bearbehind Sun 24-Jul-16 17:40:53

If we have another indy ref and vote yes, it's likely we'll negotiate with the EU to stay, at the same time as rUK are negotiating out. No rejoining necessary.

I don't profess to understand the finer details but isn't the bottom line Scotland could never enter the EU in its own right because it doesn't have the financial stability, as an independent nation, to do so?

HirplesWithHaggis Sun 24-Jul-16 17:48:09

No, that's a unionist myth.

Bearbehind Sun 24-Jul-16 17:54:20

Really, why? hmm

HirplesWithHaggis Sun 24-Jul-16 17:57:56

I imagine it's to put Scots off the idea of independence, but as I'm not party to their thinking I can't say for sure.

Bearbehind Sun 24-Jul-16 17:59:01

My knowledge is limited to articles like this but it's fairly damning.

Bearbehind Sun 24-Jul-16 18:05:23

I imagine it's to put Scots off the idea of independence, but as I'm not party to their thinking I can't say for sure.

Surely there's a better argument to the fact Scotland's deficit currently far exceeds that allowed to enter the EU, than its a Unionists myths to put Scots off Independence?

HirplesWithHaggis Sun 24-Jul-16 18:07:32

www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/

Sorry, you link only gives me ^ with no content. It may be my iPad.

Bearbehind Sun 24-Jul-16 18:08:54

Click on the top right 'go to site' thing

HirplesWithHaggis Sun 24-Jul-16 18:14:20

I don't have one, that is literally all I see! Hang on, will try on the pc.

HirplesWithHaggis Sun 24-Jul-16 18:39:44

There’s a certain piquancy about what is happening in Scottish politics at the moment. Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, is insisting that as Scotland voted to remain inside the European Union then that wish must be granted. To the point that there should be another referendum on Scottish independence and then the country could leave the United Kingdom in order to join that EU. There’re a number of problems with this, including the point that the SNP don’t actually want this to happen, not if they think about it they don’t. Others include the fact that the system just doesn’t work that way and further, the EU wouldn’t let Scotland in anyway. Not as it is at present – and that’s exactly why the SNP really just don’t want what they say they want.

That the system doesn’t work this way has been explained by the EU itself. There is no easy way for Scotland to get in. It cannot slide through by saying it was already in thus should have an easy time of it or anything:

The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon’s new bid for independence – by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its membership when Britain leaves.
After the Brexit vote, the SNP leader said she was seeking ‘immediate discussions’ with Brussels to ‘protect Scotland’s place in the EU’.
But The Mail on Sunday can reveal that civil servants in Brussels have already ruled that the whole of the UK must exit the EU following Thursday’s shock vote.

We’re all going and “we all” includes that Scotland which in aggregate voted against doing so. What this means is that Scotland will need to have that second referendum. And I think I speak for many if not most English when I say that if they want to leave well, goodbye and good luck. Also that they’re going to need that good luck. For the next stage would obviously be to join the European Union, as they say they want to.

In one sense this isn’t all that much of a problem. The law is already concordant with EU law, the various institutions are fine and so on. But the economics doesn’t work. In order to join the EU you’ve got to have a budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less or be obviously (which allows for some fudging) moving in that direction. And Scotland, now that oil has plummeted, simply is not there. It’s difficult, given the intertwining of British and Scottish accounts to get it exactly right but reasonable estimates have the Scottish alone budget deficit at 8 to 10% of GDP.

At which point the EU won’t let Scotland in. Not unless they do some fiscal contraction amounting to a good 5% or so of GDP. That is, fiscal contraction very much worse that that imposed by “The Tories” which the SNP are complaining so bitterly about. And that’s why the SNP don’t actually want what they’re claiming to want, independence and then EU entry. Because imposing that sort of austerity on their own nation, when they are obviously in charge and responsible, would kill them as a political party.

To add a little more joy – on entering the EU Scotland would have to promise to adopt the euro at some future date. Again, something they don’t want to do in the least.

So we should take much of this calling for a second referendum as being just political posturing. Because the EU simply would not accept an independent Scotland as a member under the current economic dispensation. And there’s absolutely no domestic desire whatsoever to change that glaring budget deficit currently being funded by the English.

_________________________________________________________________

It's a bit light on actual facts, and quoting the Daily Mail doesn't fill me with confidence. The oil price "plummetting" actually led to only a 1% contraction in our GDP (because lots of thing get cheaper when petrol costs less - anything transported by road, for example) and the price is rising again. In an iScotland, we would retain 100% of taxes raised, instead of getting back around 10%. Oil really isn't the issue, but if you still think it is, google the McCrone Report 1974, in which he talks of Scotland being "embarrasingly" wealthy...

Saying our "deficit" would be too high also assumes that an iScotland would run it's finances the same way WM does - we pay for "admin services", and towards "national infrastructure" like London's Crossrail and sewers, and of course the obscene amount they propose to renew Trident. None of these things would be paid by an iScotland.

Much of the tax revenues raised in Scotland doesn't appear on our books - eg, VAT paid in Scotland in big chain stores etc is attributed to their HQ, often in London, and exports are counted by the port they leave from, so England "exports" most of our whisky and is duly accredited with the funds. Obviously this would be different in an iScotland.

It's true we would have to promise to join the ERM and Euro - eventually. When we feel like it. And that might be never... there are precedents.

Peregrina Sun 24-Jul-16 18:48:59

I can't help wondering how small countries like Belgium or Luxembourg manage. If they do, surely Scotland could?

I could easily see Health care workers moving to Scotland. I could also see Scotland insisting that a hefty fee was paid for keeping Trident at Faslane.

Bearbehind Sun 24-Jul-16 18:56:10

It's true we would have to promise to join the ERM and Euro - eventually. When we feel like it. And that might be never... there are precedents.

On the face of it that sounds incredibly arrogant - what precedents are you referring to?

I don't understand the VAT paid in chain stores either- if Scotland wasn't part of the U.K. then they'd have to pay import duty on the goods sold in those department stores so it's not as if the equivalent VAT would be earned by Scotland.

prettybird Sun 24-Jul-16 19:00:08

Precedents: Sweden and Denmark. Both whom have committed to joining the Euro but for some strange reason wink keep missing the criteria.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now