General politics discussion thread

[HarmonicGenerator]

The case for a second referendum is extremely clear and reasonable. I don't want them to go but you can't deny that remaining a part of the UK within the EU was a very different proposition to remaining a part of the UK outside of the EU. The 2014 result was made redundant by the Brexit referendum.

Oh, I know that. I understand the reasoning behind this one completely. I would have been firmly against Scottish independence if I'd been able to vote in the 2014 ref, but this time I could be tempted the other way, and that's because of Brexit. It's a very valid reason because as you say, the circumstances have changed, a lot. But I do still feel it's a valid reason for what they would have found some other reason to do if it didn't exist. I was in Edinburgh on Brexit day and as soon as the result was out you heard talk of when the next indyref would be. If Remain had won, I'm fairly sure they'd have still found something to justify calling for another referendum. If this one goes the same way as the first one, I'm fairly sure they'll find something to justify doing a third one a few years down the line, and a fourth, and so on because if the Scottish National Party is the dominant party in Scotland, they're going to keep trying to get that one big thing they want until they get it.

 

Or to summarise, why I put that bit at the start of my post about how "if this one doesn't work".

Edited March 13, 2017 by HarmonicGenerator

[Van Dammer]

Isnt the idea that Scotland can gain independence and thus be invited as members into the EU quite far fetched? There's plenty of countries in the EU who wont want to give a whiff of encouragement to ideas of indepence by allowing a newly independent nation to gain membership.

 

On Sturgeon, its smart but its the only thing she could reasonably do. She wont be given permission for a referendum until atleast the end of negotiations, and that is a minimum of 2 years away. Even then unless she can put a guarantee of EU membership on the table, she cant really win as thats their only argument in all of this. The only positive outcome I can see for the SNP from this is that negotiations end well for the UK and they claim the pressure they applied was the reason for this. 

[FUM]

Scotland have been pretty much told by everyone who matters that they would be allowed in the EU if they were independent. They would have to go through the proper process but the country meets the membership criteria so it shouldn't be much of an issue.

[unfitfinlay]

 

The case for a second referendum is extremely clear and reasonable. I don't want them to go but you can't deny that remaining a part of the UK within the EU was a very different proposition to remaining a part of the UK outside of the EU. The 2014 result was made redundant by the Brexit referendum.

Oh, I know that. I understand the reasoning behind this one completely. I would have been firmly against Scottish independence if I'd been able to vote in the 2014 ref, but this time I could be tempted the other way, and that's because of Brexit. It's a very valid reason because as you say, the circumstances have changed, a lot. But I do still feel it's a valid reason for what they would have found some other reason to do if it didn't exist. I was in Edinburgh on Brexit day and as soon as the result was out you heard talk of when the next indyref would be. If Remain had won, I'm fairly sure they'd have still found something to justify calling for another referendum. If this one goes the same way as the first one, I'm fairly sure they'll find something to justify doing a third one a few years down the line, and a fourth, and so on because if the Scottish National Party is the dominant party in Scotland, they're going to keep trying to get that one big thing they want until they get it.

 

Or to summarise, why I put that bit at the start of my post about how "if this one doesn't work".

 

 

That's because the SNP's election manifesto specifically included the possibility of a second referendum if we voted to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK leaves.

 

I'd say it's a given that if we lose this time, it's done forever mainly because I think May will use the result as a mandate to roll back devolution.

 

Isnt the idea that Scotland can gain independence and thus be invited as members into the EU quite far fetched? There's plenty of countries in the EU who wont want to give a whiff of encouragement to ideas of indepence by allowing a newly independent nation to gain membership.

 

On Sturgeon, its smart but its the only thing she could reasonably do. She wont be given permission for a referendum until atleast the end of negotiations, and that is a minimum of 2 years away. Even then unless she can put a guarantee of EU membership on the table, she cant really win as thats their only argument in all of this. The only positive outcome I can see for the SNP from this is that negotiations end well for the UK and they claim the pressure they applied was the reason for this.

I wouldn't say so. The end of the U.K is in the best interests of the EU now - If we're better off by leaving then other countries will follow suit and the whole thing will be done. They can't (and never have been) able to make an official statement about Scotland's status until Westminster asks them to do so. There's plenty of positive signs though, such as a Spanish Government MEP saying that they wouldn't veto us, and Guy Verhofstadt has flat out said that Europe would want us. Unless we can come to a deal where we take the U.K's membership then we'd have to apply but it's not like we don't meet the criteria given that we are already EU members.

 

As an aside, EU membership is far from the only argument for Independence. Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has already conceded the 2020 election to the Tories (I know. She's shite) so it's going to be very hard for the Unionist side to frame it as anything other than "Independence vs Tory Rule". Not to mention that it took a series of desperate, last minute promises to swing the vote last time, none of which have really been fulfilled. I can't see us falling for that again. They might go for a "The EU isn't Independence" argument BUT all the major parties in the Scottish Parliament supported staying in the EU so I can't see that holding any water either.

 

To be honest, looking at the potential leaders of the "No" campaign, I'd say it's going to be very difficult for them to win.

[Polish Dad]

Pretty much the only strong argument is the financial one, with oil value dropping the Scottish economy would have even more trouble sustaining as I understand it.

[Teedy Kay]

Does Sturgeon still want the Nukes out of Scotland if independent?

 

If so, closing down the Clyde would be an absolute horror show for that region.

[MungoChutney]

Scotland have been pretty much told by everyone who matters that they would be allowed in the EU if they were independent. They would have to go through the proper process but the country meets the membership criteria so it shouldn't be much of an issue.

We'd likely need to agree to using the Euro though wouldn't we? Currency could end up a massive battle ground again. If France end up having an EU referendum then the waters look quite muddy.

 

I'm still Yes though.

[FUM]

 

Scotland have been pretty much told by everyone who matters that they would be allowed in the EU if they were independent. They would have to go through the proper process but the country meets the membership criteria so it shouldn't be much of an issue.

We'd likely need to agree to using the Euro though wouldn't we? Currency could end up a massive battle ground again. If France end up having an EU referendum then the waters look quite muddy.

 

I'm still Yes though.

Essentially you sign up to agree to use it at a future date but it's not a date that is set so it really doesn't mean fuck all. I can't remember the exact law or reason you need to do this but there's a loophole so it's not set in stone we would have to use the Euro.

[SpiritOfTheForest]

Does Sturgeon still want the Nukes out of Scotland if independent?

 

If so, closing down the Clyde would be an absolute horror show for that region.

 

I live in Helensburgh, the town right next to Faslane and that's naturally the predominant concern here in the local press. Presumably the plan would be the same as it was in the campaigning for the last referendum - that following nuclear disarmament the town would become the centre of the new independent Scottish navy. Obviously not as big a market for jobs than Trident provides but to be honest not having a prime nuclear target on my doorstep sits quite well with me. I'm 1000000% Yes.  

[Carbomb]

Thread resurrection, because this is a more general question regarding a hypothetical situation, rather than the election directly. It was mainly inspired by the discussion of FPTP vs. PR.

Is anyone on here (I'm thinking Gus, Lister, BomberPat and maybe Chest, but anyone else in the know would be appreciated) able to explain the advantages and disadvantages of the parliamentary and the congressional/presidential systems? Obviously, the UK's system is "organically grown", for want of a better phrase, so it most likely won't ever be reformed so drastically, but what sort of benefits would a congressional/presidential system confer if we were to adopt one?

Conversely, what sort of downsides to that system does retaining a parliamentary system prevent?

[JNLister]

I'd say there's three main differences:

1) With a parliamentary system, the PM is virtually always from the same party that has control of the parliament (insert Teresa May gag here.) With a presidential system, they may be from different political parties. Parliamentary is better if you want to be sure the PM has a good chance of regularly getting legislation through (insert Teresa May gag here, repeat where necessary.) Presidential is better if you like the idea they might have to negotiate.

Connected to that is the fact that with a Presidential system, the elections for President/legislature are often at different times, so you have a chance to strengthen/weaken the President mid-term without having to get rid of them. It also means the President has to be thinking about elections more often, which is good for accountability but bad if you think populism isn't necessary good politics.

2) Generally a President is for a fixed term whereas some Parliamentary systems allow for elections at a time of the government's choosing. The Presidential system is thus good if you think giving people a solid run at the job without having to worry about re-election is useful. On the downside, it can mean a lame duck period where they've lost their popularity/power/authority but there's no real way to replace them. If a PM is personally unpopular, there's usually the option for the party to replace them mid-term. (Most of the UK Prime Ministers in my lifetime took office mid-term rather than winning an election.)

3) Generally in Parliamentary systems the government/cabinet comes from elected MPs (and the odd Lord here.) In the US system at least, the cabinet is made up of people who aren't in the legislature. Again, that comes down to whether you think it's a good idea for people running government departments to have to think about being re-elected.

 

[Onyx2]

Please understand before reading this that Irish politics gets no time on English news. Even as someone who studied The Troubles at A-level I feel grossly underinformed. For obvious reasons it suddenly seems extremely relevant to know a little more about what's about to happen. 

DUP had been brought into sharp relief, sure. But how are Sinn Fein going to react to this? I know Gerry Adams has made a statement to contemplate the relationship, but what's the likely play here by them? 

Edited June 9, 2017 by Onyx2

[Sphinx]

What resources do you guys use to keep up with politics? What political sites should I know about? I visit different newspaper's websites and I tend to read The Economist and Newsweek (the e-magazines are free with my library which is pretty great), but wondered which others are good for news and analysis.

[gmoney]

Private Eye. 

[Devon Malcolm]

This is everything you will ever need to watch ever again.

https://twitter.com/FionaAdorno/status/872496695241822208