What I have trouble understanding is why, if Sturgeon wants independence, is she so hell bent on handing power over to the EU.

And there's more....

This from the Guardian Politics Live website: "I'm told at this morning's Downing Street meeting Guto Harri told staff Chris Pincher was vulnerable and had lost his career, so they should all "think about how he feels" today"

That is a pretty easy one to answer and self-evident "With his hands".

I do not know how much independent they have today-But I know they will lose about 80-90 % of it when they join EU.

I have heard on several occasion our Danish reporters, in our MSM saying that Denmark has lost nearly 90 % of it's sovereignty to EU-That EU decided over Denmark in most cases.

Markus

It's an interesting question, but I think the following is a big reason:

Scotland is a small country and thus would be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis larger ones. Being part of a larger bloc like the EU negates part of that problem, i.e. safety of the herd. Fundamentally, that was a part of the attraction in 1707, Scotland couldn't go it alone as colonial power so hitched a ride with England to gain access to the latters imperial holdings and the economic boost they provided. Likewise, when Keir Hardy and his ilk championed home rule in the early 20th Century it was "Home Rule within the Empire" (Dominion Status like AUS,CAN & NZ, effectively), not as a fully independant state. Viewed in that light, "Independance within the EU" is it's modern successor; largely self-governing but part of a much larger economic "Empire".

In many respects it comes down the social Elites of two sides, Indy vs Union, disagreeing on what is in Scotland's (and their own personal, for a lot of them) best economic interests.

The only thing they appear to agree on is that Scotland is better off as part of a larger grouping, just not the one the other side favours.

England, being a large country, doesn't really have to face the same problem.

Mike.:hmmm:

Well I'll state it publicly here and now that I am totally in favour of the Union remaining unchanged.

Should Scotland end up deciding or voting otherwise then the breakup will most likely have a more devastating impact on them than the remaining part of the UK and so be it.

Large nations will always have an inherent advantage over small ones. It's not surprising therefore that the latter seek ways to "tilt the field" in their own favour to nullify that advantage.

Mike.

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

The Scottish Greens said a single issue general election on independence has to be an option if formal consent for indyref2 is not granted.

Co-leader Patrick Harvie said it would be the only alternative if both Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Supreme Court block the request.

Opposition parties have criticised the strategy and its timing.

It comes after First Minister Nicola Sturgeon last week proposed holding a referendum on 19 October 2023.

The UK government said it would examine the first minister's proposals, but stressed that its position that "now is not the time" for another referendum had not changed.

It has also said that it is "clear" that the constitution is reserved to Westminster.

A new poll found showed 44% of Scots are opposed to another referendum, with 43% in favour.

The research by Panelbase for the Sunday Times also indicated that 48% would vote for independence, with 47% against, while 5% were undecided.

In 2014 Scotland voted to stick with the UK by 55% to 45%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-62028031

Westminster should give Nicola her 2nd referendum and also state that no other independence vote will be granted until at least the 2070's, if she fails in her bid once again to be the Mistress of Scotland's destiny she should fall on her sword and resign as Scotland's First Minister.

You can't have things your own way every time Nicola, lose this vote again and the consequences should be severe, as in your job, who knows, maybe that Black Clock fellow down in Westminster will take over and do a better job than you have done.
Hehehe, I'm sure there's many an MP down in Westminster who wished that the whingeing pillock would either disappear up his own rectum or even down a black hole. :O:

York (UK) - Münster (GER) in four days, including ferry.


https://www.yorkeuropean.uk/munstercycle.html


https://www.muensterschezeitung.de/l...enster-2595151


https://asc-images.imgix.net/2022/07...24&auto=format


Edit. I wondered how they managed to do the trip in four days when the navigation software gave me a distance via Dover ferry of around 1100 km. I mean - due to the long time to sit - it would be painful. But the German newspaper said they boarded the ferry already in Hull and unboarded in Rotterdam, so them clever Brits snipped a very huge chunk out of the trip distance. York to Hull and then Rotterdam to Münster in 3-4 days - that is doable. I got to Enschede, Netherlands, on bicycle myself, back and forth in one day, around 150-160 km.


Edit 2: York and Münster are "partner cities".

This is the UK Politics thread Skybird, shouldn't the above post be in your bicycle thread, unless of course you slap in a picture of Boris riding a bike, and I don't mean a bicycle. :haha:

I take it they want independence and control over (english) immigration :D
Nah, i guess they are looking for an own future after brexit, which they saw as a betrayal after the guarantee to stay in the EU.

This is from 2019:

"It was impossible to meet the unfounded promises of the Brexiters that won the referendum, but only the Brexit process could reveal the extent to which those promises were unachievable.

While many policy makers and academics made valiant efforts to try and resolve the contradictions, more people are now in opposition to Brexit than initially supported it, and for good reason. Considerable economic analysis showed that Brexit would lower living standards (there has been debate over the magnitude, but not the direction).

The Brexit referendum shouldn’t be remembered as the vote of a generation — it was a vote to lower the living standards of subsequent generations.

That referendum was never really about supposed European Union control over the United Kingdom or about Britain’s inability to set its own destiny without the encumbrance of myriad rules and regulations mandated by the European Union (there may be some basis for the latter). Rather, it was a lightning rod for an intertwined set of long-simmering issues that have plagued the UK economy:

stagnant incomes as a result of languishing productivity growth — it has essentially not risen in a decade — which the chief economist of the Bank of England, Andrew Haldane, notes is “almost unprecedented” in the modern era; the regional divide, in part brought on by trade and deindustrialization; rising inequality; inadequate funding for welfare programs and the National Health Service; and so on. To blame the European Union for these underlying issues is incredible.

Moreover, Brexit will only intensify these issues: if the United Kingdom can’t afford the current system, how will they afford it with lower national income?"

https://www.cigionline.org/articles/...m_medium=grant

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/iss...te-2022-06-28/

Boris it would appear is also responsible for bringing No 10 into disrepute.....hardly surprising really.

Even a bike rider is a zoon politicon. ;)



:O: