The SNP are Opportunistic Scum @theSNP @NicolaSturgeon #IndyRef2

… the SNP and Scotland are not the same thing …

I am a unionist … but I am a democrat above all else … if Scotland wanted to leave the UK, then it is undeniably right that they should leave … Yet now demonstrably is not the time for another referendum.

I’ve lost all respect for the Scottish National Party. They are acting like opportunistic, hateful scum. None-the-less, I still 100% respect the idea of Scottish Independence; let’s not conflate the SNP and Scotland, as if they were the same thing, even though Sturgeon and her motley crew keep trying to blur the distinction.

I want to be clear about something.

Yes, I am a unionist and believe that the four nations of the UK are better off together. However, I am a democrat above all else. And even though it would break my heart, if Scotland wanted to leave the UK, then it is undeniably right that they should leave, although I would bid them adieu with a tear and a friendly handshake. See my posts about the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum for more about my views.

But now demonstrably is not the time for another referendum. SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon talks about the “democratic outrage” of not being allowed to hold another independence reference by 2018-2019. But I think the only outrage is her behaviour and that of other SNP top brass.

Let’s get real.

  1. The official logic of a 2018-2019 Scottish Referendum is that Scotland will remain in the EU if it leaves the UK before the UK leaves the EU. However, this “logic” is horseshit and has been repeatedly shot down by everyone in the EU. The United Kingdom has membership of the EU, and Scotland would not inherit the UK’s membership. Therefore, Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU even if it seceded from the UK but the rest of the UK remained in!
  2. Scotland knew that there would be an EU referendum and therefore knew that if it voted to remain in the UK, there would be the very real possibility that that would mean leaving the EU. Therefore, material circumstances haven’t changed in quite the way the SNP claim.
  3. It is plainly absurd for any Scottish Independence Referendum to be held before (1) we had left the EU, and (2) before the dust had settled. The SNP said this referendum was once in a lifetime; what, the lifetime of a gerbil? Wait for the UK to leave, and for the dust to settle, and then the Westminster government should be totally open to a new referendum.
  4. I wonder, though, if the SNP would be pressing for a second referendum in 2018-2019 if Scotland had voted to leave the UK… you know, just to make sure — after all, Brexit means circumstances have changed…
  5. The UK got opt-outs, and Sweden et al joined way back when. Any new member of the EU would have to adopt the Euro. Sorry, but that’s a fact. An “independent” Scotland in the EU would also be in the Euro.
  6. I still cannot grasp the fundamental logic of the SNP position, in any case: being 8% of the population of the UK, with 9% of the seats in the Commons, and one of four member states, is worse than what would be 1% of the population of the EU, with around 1.6% of the seats, and one of 28 member states…!!? This smacks of serious anti-English bias in the SNP leadership (not amongst members, though, who are mostly just patriotic Scots, not English-haters).

In short, the Scots are a nation and not a county of England — as Alex Salmond absurdly recently claimed is the opinion of those against doing IndyRef2 in the SNP’s timeframe of 2018-2019. And thus, they have absolutely the moral right to another referendum. Luckily, the UK government is more enlightened than, say, the Spanish government, and we’re happy to give a binding referendum to Scotland. But this timeframe of 2018-2019 is absurd. It is political opportunism. Let’s wait until the next parliament. If there is wide enough support for another referendum, then let’s crack on with Indy Ref 2!

© 2017 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/JMGMGAzWY2_0pSOjbb.xWA–/aD0xMTUyO3c9MjA0ODtzbT0xO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/http://media.zenfs.com/en_uk/News/skynews/472583032-1-2048×1152-20160625-011514-005.jpg

Advertisements

Normal Service to be Resumed Shortly!

channel-test-image

To all the people who read my blog for dieting stuff, for my posts about languages, or talk about religion or films, I apologise for the current over-saturation of EU Referendum stuff! I hope you understand that this vote is truly historic and therefore warrants a bit of air time! Normal service will resume soon!

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://walbrookdiscovery.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/channel-test-image.jpg

Indy Ref 2: Reasonable Timeline @Vote_Leave #TakeControl #VoteLeave #Brexit

JS88315028

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland vote 51.9% to LEAVE the EU, and 48.1% to REMAIN. But as you’ll probably be aware, England and Wales voted to LEAVE with 53.4% and 52.5%, but Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to REMAIN with 55.8% and 62%. As far as England is concerned, eight of its nine regions* voted to LEAVE; London was the odd one out. (All details can be found here)

Nichola Sturgeon is now saying the Scottish Parliament will try to block Brexit. I do not believe that this is legally possible, but it would certainly be an outrageous and totally unacceptable proposition. Particularly given that Scotland voted only two years ago to remain in the UK even though everyone was perfectly well aware that the UK might vote to LEAVE the EU two years later.

However, there is a valid point here. Namely, that maybe Scotland and the rest of the UK are diverging politically, and that a second independence referendum for Scotland might need to happen.

But what would the timescale of that be?

The SNP would surely wish to strike while anger is high. However, that seems unreasonable. Indeed, a proposal for a second Indy Ref anytime soon is demonstrably wrong: immoral, yes, but also self-servingly opportunistic, demonstrative of not caring for the UK or even Scotland, but only for one’s own ideology.

Firstly, it isn’t proper to have Indy Ref 2 before we have left the EU. After all, the electorate would not be informed on what an independent UK would entail. That sets Indy Ref 2 back 2-3 years due to the two year negotiation period after Article 50 has been triggered — and it doesn’t have to be triggered immediately.

Secondly, that would take us to 2018/2019. Parliament runs till 2020. Surely it makes sense to allow Parliament to end.

Thirdly, indeed, surely it makes sense for the UK to elect its first post-EU, newly independent government. We must see how an independent UK is to be governed. That means we must allow for at least one full parliament as an independent nation. That takes us through to 2025.

Fourthly, it is probably wise to allow two or three parliaments to pass so that we can settle into a pattern. After all, the first parliament that we elect may well be reactionary. This takes us to 2030-2035.

In short, the earliest it seems reasonable to hold Indy Ref 2 is in about 15-20 years time. That’s not me, as a British Unionist, delaying. Let’s lance the boil! If we need to split, let’s split! But I just can’t see how it is reasonable, let alone constitutionally or politically sensible, to hold Indy Ref 2 anytime soon.

*The EU developed NUTS 1 statistical regions of England.

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/indy-ref-2-poll-says-8289832#S5SLVrMPUvEYCsBI.97

The EU Referendum and Scottish Independence @vote_leave #TakeControl #Brexit #EUReferendum #indyref2 #indyref

indyref2

There has been much talk in the EU referendum that a vote for leave would trigger a second Scottish independence referendum. Why? The logic is that support for the EU is highest in Scotland (leave is currently polling at a mere 17%). Indeed, the idea of a second Scottish independence referendum makes sense; if the majority of the UK, and a majority of the other constituent nations, voted for leave, but a clear majority in Scotland voted remain, this would indeed legitimately raise the question of whether the UK still worked for Scotland (if indeed it ever did). Certainly, Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP, is fond of raising this point.

As a unionist, yet someone who is strongly for leave, this worries me.

However, two points are worth making.

  1. The SNP’s position is incoherent. On one hand, they persist in calling for independence from the UK (actually, methinks, from England; I reckon the SNP would be happy for Scotland to carry on alongside the other Celtic nations). They say Westminster is too far away and removed from the affairs of Scots, and that being an independent nation would enable politicians in Scotland to much better represent the people of Scotland. Their logic: how could a population of a mere five million make its voice heard in a larger nation of some 65 million? Yet at the same time, the SNP equally firmly persists in the notion that being integrated within the EU, a far larger polity with some 508 million people!, would lead to better representation for the Scottish people. I simply cannot get my head round this, and I have never heard a truly convincing argument for how this makes any sense.
  2. What if a majority of England votes for leave, but the UK as a whole votes remain? Does England then get an independence referendum to leave the UK? I suspect, from anecdotal evidence, that the percentage of Englishmen wanting to leave the UK is higher than the number of Scots who do!

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/14/brexit-golden-opportunity-nicola-sturgeon-nightmare