Scottish independence

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do not forget the economic war of the 1930s where Dev claimed the land annuities were the property of the Irish Gov, not the British Gov. The British Gov retaliated by stopping Irish imports, primarily of beef. As a result, the beef production ceased, and animals were culled. Then in 1939, when Britain needed the beef, there was none.

Britain was never a friend of Ireland, ever, and still is not. Queen Victoria was so overcome be grief when she heard of the famine in Ireland and the hardship of the starving, she donated £5 o help them. I think that says a lt.

Scotland should be aware of the perfidy displayed towards Ireland and should expect the same. Mind you, they just need to read their recent newspapers.

Nothing you cite here is capable of substantiating your claim that the UK was never a friend to Ireland, and is still not.

If only we could rid our whole country of this determined cynicism towards the UK, and see what a strong ally we have had in them for decades, and could have again.

Irish Ministers have recounted stories of Europen Council votes, were Irish votes were not required, but UK Ministers would approach their Irish counterpart to check to see if the Irish guy had suggestions or objections.

To ignore the political alliance we have with the UK, or to damage it in anyway, would be to follow the Brits down the same chest-thumping pit they've fallen into on Brexit -- squandering the political capital of the present to satisfy some nauseating ideal of life on another planet.

These are our neighbours and our most important trading partners. We have to get on with them, and we are their friends.

Sam Russell

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nothing you cite here is capable of substantiating your claim that the UK was never a friend to Ireland, and is still not.

If only we could rid our whole country of this determined cynicism towards the UK, and see what a strong ally we have had in them for decades, and could have again.

Irish Ministers have recounted stories of Europen Council votes, were Irish votes were not required, but UK Ministers would approach their Irish counterpart to check to see if the Irish guy had suggestions or objections.

To ignore the political alliance we have with the UK, or to damage it in anyway, would be to follow the Brits down the same chest-thumping pit they've fallen into on Brexit -- squandering the political capital of the present to satisfy some nauseating ideal of life on another planet.

These are our neighbours and our most important trading partners. We have to get on with them, and we are their friends.

On issues of common interest, yes they are our friends. When we have common interest with France re agriculture and fisheries, they are our friends. That is normal.

However when we wanted to repay the bail out loan early, they refused whereas the EU and the IMF agreed which reduced our interest payments. So our friends in the UK did not act in our interest (pun not intended).

The UK are not exactly working in Ireland's favour wrt to the border or with Brexit in general. In fact there are some in the UK Gov who cannot understand why we are not leaving with them.

There are lots of examples of how they think we should know our place and take our lead from them - they are not unquestioning allies of ours. In fact they are only allies when we agree with them.

However, they are unquestioning allies with the USA - even with Trump as President. When Trump told them to dump Huawei, they did.

I do not think cynicism covers it. The Germans, or at least Angela Merkel, remembers our support on the unification of Germany in the face of UK opposition. It is good to generate friends within the EU. The UK have shown themselves not to need friends in the EU - well that is the impression they are giving at the moment.

I think we are doing OK as it is.

pixelburp

Without diverging the thread away completely from the topic at hand, Brexit has been proof enough that Britain - well, England's - "friendship" has definite hard limits that do not necessarily extend into simple pragmatism with respect to Irish interests. Northern Ireland was never-ever part of the Brexit equation in the eyes of its most ardent supporters and even when confronted with the issue have been wilfully stubborn in ignoring its realities. All the while, once-off incidents such as Pritti Patel's snark about starving Ireland into cooperation a reminder that said friendship is tainted with the expectation of subservience when Britain demands. I'm not so naive to think the EU and its larger players haven't themselves leaned on Ireland to comply (see the ongoing question of Corpo. Tax rates), but theirs has a fundamental presumption of collaboration or compromise, not the "know your betters" attitude of the British political establishment.

As to Scotland, none of this will factor into the independence discussion of course, at least not in the mainstream press. The prospect of a "proper" political partnership of collaborating equals might entice the more contemplative voters - if it hadn't already in 2014 mind you so that demographic has already sailed. Otherwise it'll be a mixture of heady emotive narratives, alongside whatever shape the post CoVid / Brexit landscape looks like - and if England starts dragging Scottish interests into the gutter.

How Sturgeon crafts the narrative will be key here: IMO this is the biggest existential crisis the UK has faced since WW2 and while the Tories in England frustrate and betray a chaotic heart, the SNP merely need to show a steady, mature hand to persuade the holdouts that an independent Scotland would be in good hands. IMO it's as simple as that. Scottish authorities are not without criticism in regards to CoVid - but so has every government; if they can seem the least-worst among the UK it'll tell its own story to those thinking the UK is "better together"

Sam Russell

pixelburp wrote: »

Without diverging the thread away completely from the topic at hand, Brexit has been proof enough that Britain - well, England's - "friendship" has definite hard limits that do not necessarily extend into simple pragmatism with respect to Irish interests. Northern Ireland was never-ever part of the Brexit equation in the eyes of its most ardent supporters and even when confronted with the issue have been wilfully stubborn in ignoring its realities. All the while, once-off incidents such as Pritti Patel's snark about starving Ireland into cooperation a reminder that said friendship is tainted with the expectation of subservience when Britain demands. I'm not so naive to think the EU and its larger players haven't themselves leaned on Ireland to comply (see the ongoing question of Corpo. Tax rates), but theirs has a fundamental presumption of collaboration or compromise, not the "know your betters" attitude of the British political establishment.

As to Scotland, none of this will factor into the independence discussion of course, at least not in the mainstream press. The prospect of a "proper" political partnership of collaborating equals might entice the more contemplative voters - if it hadn't already in 2014 mind you so that demographic has already sailed. Otherwise it'll be a mixture of heady emotive narratives, alongside whatever shape the post CoVid / Brexit landscape looks like - and if England starts dragging Scottish interests into the gutter.

How Sturgeon crafts the narrative will be key here: IMO this is the biggest existential crisis the UK has faced since WW2 and while the Tories in England frustrate and betray a chaotic heart, the SNP merely need to show a steady, mature hand to persuade the holdouts that an independent Scotland would be in good hands. IMO it's as simple as that. Scottish authorities are not without criticism in regards to CoVid - but so has every government; if they can seem the least-worst among the UK it'll tell its own story to those thinking the UK is "better together"

I agree with that.

Sturgeon is a very able politician - streets ahead of any current English Tory, or Scottish Tory for that matter.

An independent Scotland will be in good hands if and when.

listermint

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nothing you cite here is capable of substantiating your claim that the UK was never a friend to Ireland, and is still not.

If only we could rid our whole country of this determined cynicism towards the UK, and see what a strong ally we have had in them for decades, and could have again.

Irish Ministers have recounted stories of Europen Council votes, were Irish votes were not required, but UK Ministers would approach their Irish counterpart to check to see if the Irish guy had suggestions or objections.

To ignore the political alliance we have with the UK, or to damage it in anyway, would be to follow the Brits down the same chest-thumping pit they've fallen into on Brexit -- squandering the political capital of the present to satisfy some nauseating ideal of life on another planet.

These are our neighbours and our most important trading partners. We have to get on with them, and we are their friends.

Some level of white washing there in spades.


They're friends they're aligned allies when needed but to be viewed always with the greatest suspicion.

If our politicians thought the way you did we'd be in la la land with absolutely insane levels of ignorance. Ripe for the picking.

A Dub in Glasgo

Well, I missed this the other day but it outlines one of the reasons why support in Scotland is edging to sustained majority for independence

For those that do not know, Pete Wishart is SNP MP for Perth who used to be in rock bands (early days Big Country then the Celtic rock band Runrig)

https://twitter.com/thecommongreen/status/1284203021480660992

eire4

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There were a lot of "voting advisors" there at the time and for some time later*

Ástandið (Icelandic: "the condition" or "the situation")
At its peak the population of foreign soldiers was equal to that of Icelandic men.

*a substantial US military presence remained in Iceland until 30 September 2006



But Scotland could learn from Iceland about keeping English boats out of it's waters

Haha yes good point indeed. They will need some help there with that no doubt.

eire4

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well, I missed this the other day but it outlines one of the reasons why support in Scotland is edging to sustained majority for independence

For those that do not know, Pete Wishart is SNP MP for Perth who used to be in rock bands (early days Big Country then the Celtic rock band Runrig)

https://twitter.com/thecommongreen/status/1284203021480660992

haha that is brilliant. Nice bit of fact as well I had no idea. I do quite like me some Big Country:)

mick087

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do not forget the economic war of the 1930s where Dev claimed the land annuities were the property of the Irish Gov, not the British Gov. The British Gov retaliated by stopping Irish imports, primarily of beef. As a result, the beef production ceased, and animals were culled. Then in 1939, when Britain needed the beef, there was none.

Britain was never a friend of Ireland, ever, and still is not. Queen Victoria was so overcome be grief when she heard of the famine in Ireland and the hardship of the starving, she donated £5 o help them. I think that says a lt.

Scotland should be aware of the perfidy displayed towards Ireland and should expect the same. Mind you, they just need to read their recent newspapers.

Im sure now the UK have left the EU the EU are going to show us that we are all good friends and equal with in the EU.

All countries will always put there own country first.

Edgware

Ireland wouldnt want to think that Scotland is going to be our great friend. Exam the antics of any British government towards Ireland over the last 200 years and you will find that there were plenty of Scottish influence in the Cabinet. Most Irish emigrants in Scotland are in favour of remaining as part of the Union. They remember well the Scottish establishment attitude to Irish emigrants

Sam Russell

Edgware wrote: »

Ireland wouldnt want to think that Scotland is going to be our great friend. Exam the antics of any British government towards Ireland over the last 200 years and you will find that there were plenty of Scottish influence in the Cabinet. Most Irish emigrants in Scotland are in favour of remaining as part of the Union. They remember well the Scottish establishment attitude to Irish emigrants

The Unionist in NI came from Scotland. They did not take their anti-Catholic attitudes from the air. Scotland is split as much as NI by religious bigotry. Rangers vs Celtic, and Hearts vs Hibbs are manifestations of it. Some towns are Catholic and some are protestant - like Portadown and Ballymens, contrasted with Newry and Derry.

The secret is to make Scottish independence non-sectarian - just Scottish nationalism - kilts not sashes.

bob mcbob

Edgware wrote: »

Ireland wouldnt want to think that Scotland is going to be our great friend. Exam the antics of any British government towards Ireland over the last 200 years and you will find that there were plenty of Scottish influence in the Cabinet. Most Irish emigrants in Scotland are in favour of remaining as part of the Union. They remember well the Scottish establishment attitude to Irish emigrants

No they weren't.

After analysing the 2014 vote, they found

Catholic ( no - 42.3% yes - 57.7%)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948

A Dub in Glasgo

Edgware wrote: »

Most Irish emigrants in Scotland are in favour of remaining as part of the Union. They remember well the Scottish establishment attitude to Irish emigrants

My experience in Scotland since I came here does not tally with your post

McGiver

Sam Russell wrote:

Czech and Slovak was a separation rather than an independence struggle.

This is not exactly correct. I lived through it.

Slovakia separated largely due to internal mostly non-manifested Slovak desire for independence in their national psyche, which was very aptly leveraged by a very vocal nationalist minority. Slovakia never existed as an independent Kingdom or country in the whole history of the "Slovak nation" apart from the Slovak Fascist Republic 1939 to 1944 (Nazi satellite), which was the first successful attempt to leverage their longing for nationhood.

In 1993 it was implemented as a separation but it was still based on an independence struggle. Most citizens didn't want this and if there was a plebiscite it would probably have been voted down.

The Czech politicians opted for this simply out of pragmatism, because the Slovaks, especially the nationalist minority were obstructive and increasingly toxic in the Federal Parliament and escalating their demands for about 2 years. First the "Hyphen War" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen_War) where they insisted on and fiercely fought for a hyphen/dash in "Czechoslovak Republic" (Czech-Slovak Republic), then their demands regarding the federal arrangement up to the suggestion of a confederation with two different currencies and other fantasy ideas, it was simply unworkable, toxic and going nowhere. Another reason was that Czech politicians wanted to implement deep economic reforms by using a shock therapy (immediate privatisation and liberalisation of the market) and there were hints that the Slovaks would slow this down as Slovak demography and economy was of a different structure and lagging behind the Czech economy which was much more industrial etc. Which proved to be true because after the independence it took several years of nationalist government nepotism and Balkan style mafia-like government behaviour to normalise their economic and political systems and implementing the economic reforms only in late 90s.

And another reason was that the Czech Kingdom with its two historical lands of Bohemia and Moravia existed essentially in the same borders from 950 to 1918. In 1918 when the experiment of Czechoslovakia was created, Slovakia was added to Bohemia and Moravia and despite linguistic and cultural proximity (Eastern Czech dialects blend into Western Slovak dialects - Czech and Slovak exist as a dialect continuum) this was completely unnatural and foreign territory from a historical perspective, so despite 70 years of association in Czechoslovakia, linguistic and family ties, it was somewhat easier to cede the Slovak territory as it historically never was a territory of the Czech state/Kingdom so there was no deep national attachment to it.

So the Czech politicians said "Look OK, it would be best if you went your way, let's scratch it and separate".

The difference in the Scottish case is that they have been integrated to UK for much longer and they can't really obstruct or demand anything because they're totally irrelevant in the Westminster system as the UK is not a federation. They are highly integrated yet powerless and this increases the nationalist support greatly in my opinion, they can always play the victim and use basically anything HMG does as an argument for independence. But if SNP wanted some clues on obstructions and political maneuvering they could learn from the Slovak nationalists a thing or two

Fr Tod Umptious

Edgware wrote: »

Ireland wouldnt want to think that Scotland is going to be our great friend. Exam the antics of any British government towards Ireland over the last 200 years and you will find that there were plenty of Scottish influence in the Cabinet. Most Irish emigrants in Scotland are in favour of remaining as part of the Union. They remember well the Scottish establishment attitude to Irish emigrants

You don't have to go back 200 years, you just need to go back to last year to see how Scotland is not exactly going to be our great friend.

The Rockall dispute in 2019 was driven by the SNP led Scottish government, not some right wing Tories in London.

If Scottish people want their independence then so be it, but don't try and convince me that it will be good for Ireland.

mick087

Scotland had a referendum and voted to stay in the UK. I don't really think if they voted tomorrow they would vote to leave.

The way forward for Scottish independence is to push for the English to vote on independence. I believe the English would vote for independence. I know its unlikely a British government would do so but times opinions change and once the question was out there like the Scottish question then there is chance.

The flip side is would we want an English, Scottish, Welsh, nationalist governments as close neighbours.

pixelburp

mick087 wrote: »

Scotland had a referendum and voted to stay in the UK. I don't really think if they voted tomorrow they would vote to leave.

The way forward for Scottish independence is to push for the English to vote on independence. I believe the English would vote for independence. I know its unlikely a British government would do so but times opinions change and once the question was out there like the Scottish question then there is chance.

The flip side is would we want an English, Scottish, Welsh, nationalist governments as close neighbours.

It's fair to say the world is a much different place in 2020 than it was in 2014; not least in the UK. One of the key pillars of the "Better Together" contingent was that leaving the UK would result in Scotland leaving the EU. So, yeah. 2 years later...

I don't pretend to have the pulse of the average Scot on the street, but I'm going to go ahead and suggest that Brexit alone coloured the conversation, blowing a lot of the arguments for staying in the union out of the water. Especially given Scotland was quite definitively against Brexit in the first place, having been persuaded going it alone would be economic suicide by the same people suddenly championing Blue Passports and giving Brussels what for. And Boris Johnson was the best gift to the Scottish Independence narrative in years, while Sturgeon has shown herself a canny leader in CoVid times.

I do agree on the English independence: this has been suggested before and have wondered myself how much of Brexit was a reflexive desire to establish an England that made its own laws, if not full independence. I'm not sure the English generally know what it is they want, but from the outside it does sometimes appear like having their own sovereignty would help.

Sam Russell

pixelburp wrote: »

It's fair to say the world is a much different place in 2020 than it was in 2014; not least in the UK. One of the key pillars of the "Better Together" contingent was that leaving the UK would result in Scotland leaving the EU. So, yeah. 2 years later...

I don't pretend to have the pulse of the average Scot on the street, but I'm going to go ahead and suggest that Brexit alone coloured the conversation, blowing a lot of the arguments for staying in the union out of the water. Especially given Scotland was quite definitively against Brexit in the first place, having been persuaded going it alone would be economic suicide by the same people suddenly championing Blue Passports and giving Brussels what for. And Boris Johnson was the best gift to the Scottish Independence narrative in years, while Sturgeon has shown herself a canny leader in CoVid times.

I do agree on the English independence: this has been suggested before and have wondered myself how much of Brexit was a reflexive desire to establish an England that made its own laws, if not full independence. I'm not sure the English generally know what it is they want, but from the outside it does sometimes appear like having their own sovereignty would help.

What is noticeable at the present time is that, because Covid is handled by the devolved assemblies, the amount of English rules and news briefings makes it sound that England is an independent country already.

This of course helps show a separate, independent, Scotland and how it would be.

pixelburp

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is noticeable at the present time is that, because Covid is handled by the devolved assemblies, the amount of English rules and news briefings makes it sound that England is an independent country already.

This of course helps show a separate, independent, Scotland and how it would be.

Exactly. Notwithstanding the restless discontent all democratic governments engender in their populous, CoVid has forced Scotland to behave as a cohesive sovereign unit. The SNP isn't without flaws, but Sturgeon has basically stepped up and behaved like a President / Prime Minister. By accident, Scots are getting a sneak preview of what independence would generally look like, given it has been Hollyrood dictating daily life rather than Westminster - with the latter arguably presenting itself as source of continuous, chaotic interference.

Independence may arrive manifest simply as a continuation of things before - rather than the seismic shift those in London might plead to nationalistic Scots. The die has already been cast in some ways.

CoVid is going to have a profound effect on the world's geopolitics, economy and culture - and one of those end results could be the dissolution of the UK union, starting in Edinburgh.

mick087

pixelburp wrote: »

It's fair to say the world is a much different place in 2020 than it was in 2014; not least in the UK. One of the key pillars of the "Better Together" contingent was that leaving the UK would result in Scotland leaving the EU. So, yeah. 2 years later...

I don't pretend to have the pulse of the average Scot on the street, but I'm going to go ahead and suggest that Brexit alone coloured the conversation, blowing a lot of the arguments for staying in the union out of the water. Especially given Scotland was quite definitively against Brexit in the first place, having been persuaded going it alone would be economic suicide by the same people suddenly championing Blue Passports and giving Brussels what for. And Boris Johnson was the best gift to the Scottish Independence narrative in years, while Sturgeon has shown herself a canny leader in CoVid times.

I do agree on the English independence: this has been suggested before and have wondered myself how much of Brexit was a reflexive desire to establish an England that made its own laws, if not full independence. I'm not sure the English generally know what it is they want, but from the outside it does sometimes appear like having their own sovereignty would help.

Scotland are out the EU, to rejoin the EU they must leave the UK First. They did have a vote and decided to stay in the UK. Yes you can argue that leaving the UK would mean leaving the EU hence they voted to remain in the UK. But they had referendum they had a choice and voted to stay in the UK.

It would be way to early for another Sottish referendum it be to close to call. If they lost another referendum so soon then that's it for another 50 years.

The way forward for Scottish independence is to get the English to vote on there own independence.

Personnelly i think it be crazy for the UK to break up but if Scotland want independence then the key is through a English vote.

bob mcbob

This is an interesting article from The Scotsman (a unionist newspaper). The journalist is Greek and has lived in Scotland for years.

He gives a good objective view of the situation.

From the article -

It was always unsustainable for more than 40 per cent of Scots to want to leave the UK, as they consistently have since 2014. Not only have Unionists failed to fix the roof, the building is in worse shape than ever, and it’s being rocked by Brexit and coronavirus storms.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/why-unionists-have-battle-save-uk-snp-paris-gourtsoyannis-2922760

pixelburp

mick087 wrote: »

Scotland are out the EU, to rejoin the EU they must leave the UK First. They did have a vote and decided to stay in the UK. Yes you can argue that leaving the UK would mean leaving the EU hence they voted to remain in the UK. But they had referendum they had a choice and voted to stay in the UK.

It would be way to early for another Sottish referendum it be to close to call. If they lost another referendum so soon then that's it for another 50 years.

The way forward for Scottish independence is to get the English to vote on there own independence.

Personnelly i think it be crazy for the UK to break up but if Scotland want independence then the key is through a English vote.

You say "they already voted" like elections or referenda are somehow binding in perpetuity; and as already said, the world has changed a huge degree. Not least the UK union being a now completely different beast. "Better Together" made a clear plea Scots should say "No" as it meant staying in the EU as a strong voice in Brussels. A mere 2 years later, that plea turned out to be a hypocritical empty promise. Compounded with a 2/3s vote to Remain; Scotland gets dragged out of the EU despite a desire to the contrary. Yes, independence would require entry discussions with the EU, but that would be their choice, their agency to do so.

Or not! if that be its wish. Hence full "independence", unlike getting dragged out of a political union in-spite of a clear majority saying otherwise - and a referenda 2 years prior that was arguably swung by the pragmatism of continued EU membership. A lot of Scots were sold a pup, as the saying goes.

Hell, did Scotland even see the "Devo Max" promised by London late in the day in 2014 as a way to shore up the Undecideds? I'm not sure that it did, or was it even ever promised as a real thing? Either way, since the 2014 election Scotland has found itself at the whim of Little Englander politics, and the now resting majority for Independence shows, again, that a lot has change. IIRC even prior to 2014 there was never a consistent majority.

Capt'n Midnight

The UK has left the EU.

The UK makes noise about the "special relationship"

The Scottish Whisky has had a 25% tariff since October imposed by the USA.


What concessions will the UK make on behalf of Scotland in a US trade deal ?

mick087

pixelburp wrote: »

You say "they already voted" like elections or referenda are somehow binding in perpetuity; and as already said, the world has changed a huge degree. Not least the UK union being a now completely different beast. "Better Together" made a clear plea Scots should say "No" as it meant staying in the EU as a strong voice in Brussels. A mere 2 years later, that plea turned out to be a hypocritical empty promise. Compounded with a 2/3s vote to Remain; Scotland gets dragged out of the EU despite a desire to the contrary. Yes, independence would require entry discussions with the EU, but that would be their choice, their agency to do so.

Or not! if that be its wish. Hence full "independence", unlike getting dragged out of a political union in-spite of a clear majority saying otherwise - and a referenda 2 years prior that was arguably swung by the pragmatism of continued EU membership. A lot of Scots were sold a pup, as the saying goes.

Hell, did Scotland even see the "Devo Max" promised by London late in the day in 2014 as a way to shore up the Undecideds? I'm not sure that it did, or was it even ever promised as a real thing? Either way, since the 2014 election Scotland has found itself at the whim of Little Englander politics, and the now resting majority for Independence shows, again, that a lot has change. IIRC even prior to 2014 there was never a consistent majority.

So how often should a referendum be held?

unfortunately there is always a losing side in a referendum.
I think stating Scotland being dragged out of the EU is a bit strong to be fair after all they voted to stay in The UK. Would another referendum so soon satisfy Scotland?

Yes the world has indeed changed since 2014 and will change again by 2026.

Maybe a referendum with a choice vote of 01 Full Independence 02 Stay In Uk 03 EU Membership but not at risk of leaving the UK.

I think its quite complex i don't think its a simple solution to fix.

But i would like to see a united Ireland vote English Welsh Independence vote.

Sam Russell

mick087 wrote: »

The way forward for Scottish independence is to get the English to vote on there own independence.

I assume you mean for England to get a vote on their own Assembly.

It is undemocratic on a number of levels that the Westminster Parliament sees itself as the Parliament for the UK and at the same time as the devolved Assembly for England.*

Essentially, since the English constituencies outnumber all the others, a majority of English MPs (the English Tories have a majority on their own currently) can dictate to Scotland whatever they want to enforce. This has been most recently in the Brexit return of powers to Westminster without any reference to the Scottish Assembly. They even forced a bill affecting cotland through without allowing a single Scottish MP to talk on the matter.

More behaviour like this just builds the push for full independence for Scotland.

*See the West Lothian Question..

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/boris-johnson-to-finance-study-into-northern-ireland-to-scotland-bridge-39388471.html

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is set to announce funding for a study to explore the viability of a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The Daily Record has reported that Mr Johnson will announce the plan as part of his visit to Scotland on Thursday.

...
It's understood the bridge study is part of the PM's £5bn "build, build, build" strategy to help the UK recover from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

The bridge, between Portpatrick and Larne, would span 28 miles and cost in the region of £20bn to build, with Mr Johnson previously estimating the cost at around £15bn.

It was only going to cost £3.5Bn back in 2007 :rolleyes:



If you want to know more google - Boris Garden Bridge

Because this announcement shows utter contempt for the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's a plan to waste public money to divert people from finding out about the other bridge that was a ‘reckless’ use of public money

BonnieSituation

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/boris-johnson-to-finance-study-into-northern-ireland-to-scotland-bridge-39388471.htmlIt was only going to cost £3.5Bn back in 2007 :rolleyes:



If you want to know more google - Boris Garden Bridge

Because this announcement shows utter contempt for the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's a plan to waste public money to divert people from finding out about the other bridge that was a ‘reckless’ use of public money

How many times in the last 6 years has this bridge been announced? Do they keep forgetting about Beaufort's Dyke?

The absolute state of the UK government at this stage.

Muahahaha

yeah that bridge is just a distraction tactic and Boris loves announcing big infrastructure projects knowing he will be well out of office before a single brick gets laid anyway.

They are already looking at huge cost overruns on HS2 and that is 'supposed' to eventually go up to Scotland sometime after 2040. No way would a Northern Ireland to Scotland bridge ever get built before that gets completed, if ever.

Sam Russell

If he wants to build a bridge, build one from Calais to Dover, which would be less that 28 miles and would take a lot more traffic. A bridge would allow trucks to drive across. Also, a train would not be on Irish gauge, so that limits it a bit.

The longest span in the world currently is just over 2 km. How long a span is needed to cross the Beaufort dyke?

Who wants to go from Larne to Portpatrick? From there it is a two hour drive to Glasgow, four hours to Manchester, and over 7 hours to London. Larne is an hour from Newry. Dublin to Newry is just over an hour with plenty of ferry routes.

Currently 60% of traffic from NI to UK goes through Dublin. Will a bridge change that?

Also, who gets to design it? A Tory donor no doubt.

cameramonkey

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nothing you cite here is capable of substantiating your claim that the UK was never a friend to Ireland, and is still not.

If only we could rid our whole country of this determined cynicism towards the UK, and see what a strong ally we have had in them for decades, and could have again.

Irish Ministers have recounted stories of Europen Council votes, were Irish votes were not required, but UK Ministers would approach their Irish counterpart to check to see if the Irish guy had suggestions or objections.

To ignore the political alliance we have with the UK, or to damage it in anyway, would be to follow the Brits down the same chest-thumping pit they've fallen into on Brexit -- squandering the political capital of the present to satisfy some nauseating ideal of life on another planet.

These are our neighbours and our most important trading partners. We have to get on with them, and we are their friends.

To repeat " there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests."


The UK is not our friend or our enemy just another country competing and defending their interests, if their actions coincides with ours they will pretend it is a friendly and sincere action done to help us. You just have to look at Brexit and the UK attempts to throw Ireland under a bus to understand that.
The Scots need to understand that they are a handy cog in the UK wheel but they are expendable when it comes to English hegemony. If they want to progress as a people they need an independent nation.

Muahahaha

yeah its farcical to even suggest it, NI to Scotland just doesnt have any kind of traffic volumes to justify such a mammoth cost. NI is just a small statelet anyway so its not like Scotland would get any kind of economic boom just because there is a bridge linking to it.

Its pie in the sky stuff from Boris but he always likes to be promising things he knows he wont be around to deliver.

Capt'n Midnight

BonnieSituation wrote: »

How many times in the last 6 years has this bridge been announced? Do they keep forgetting about Beaufort's Dyke?

The absolute state of the UK government at this stage.

It's not about Scotland, it's about diverting attention from Boris' incompetence.

There's over thirty bridges across the Thames in London, people have been putting bridges across that river since Roman times. But Boris spent way more than twice what it cost to build the Millennium bridge and there's nothing to show for it.


On a different note
The crossing between Portpatrick and the Islands off Donaghadee (30Km) is about 10Km shorter than to Larne. But it might not suit the Unionists to accommodate anyone south of Belfast.

A Dub in Glasgo

The bridge is a non-starter, everyone in Scotland knows that (well almost everyone)

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The bridge is a non-starter, everyone in Scotland knows that (well almost everyone)

Not just Scotland.

BonnieSituation

Muahahaha wrote: »

yeah that bridge is just a distraction tactic and Boris loves announcing big infrastructure projects knowing he will be well out of office before a single brick gets laid anyway.

They are already looking at huge cost overruns on HS2 and that is 'supposed' to eventually go up to Scotland sometime after 2040. No way would a Northern Ireland to Scotland bridge ever get built before that gets completed, if ever.

Whatever about announcing a big distraction like a bridge to Ireland from Scotland, it's the fact that it's the same announcement over and over. And inevitably the likes of the DUP and their followers will lap it up. Again.

BonnieSituation

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's not about Scotland, it's about diverting attention from Boris' incompetence.

There's over thirty bridges across the Thames in London, people have been putting bridges across that river since Roman times. But Boris spent way more than twice what it cost to build the Millennium bridge and there's nothing to show for it.


On a different note
The crossing between Portpatrick and the Islands off Donaghadee (30Km) is about 10Km shorter than to Larne. But it might not suit the Unionists to accommodate anyone south of Belfast.

I think you missed the point of my initial post.

I'm well aware as to why this would be announced but I'm asking, why is it this exact project which has been announced several times in the last decade as a so-called distraction. Even Boris brought it up as foreign sec iirc.

How the hell can something so idiotic keep being trotted out?

Water John

Because they're stupid and/or think everyone else is stupid.
This should be played as a reply, that would stop it being repeated;
Taliking Heads; You're on the Road to Nowhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQiOA7euaYA

Capt'n Midnight

BonnieSituation wrote: »

How the hell can something so idiotic keep being trotted out?

Because if they had proper journalism they wouldn't get away with cheap tricks.

It doesn't get within an asses roar of adding up.
A bridge to France across shallower water is priced at £120 Bn compared to £15 Bn to Ireland. And the distance across open water is similar in both cases thanks to shallow sandbanks.

But Boris knows all about bridge costs having wasted £53m on not building his garden bridge. The nearby Millennium bridge itself over budget at £18.2m to give some indication of the scale of waste.



Another news story :

Scotland has now gone 10 days without any Coronavirus deaths.

The rest of the UK had 61 deaths on Friday. All in England.

You all just need to believe harder. The union will support a bridge and the bridge will support the union. Symbiosis is the word of the day.

serfboard

I haven't seen any commentary on here about the fact that the Westminster Intelligence and Security Committee report said:

there is “credible open source commentary” suggesting Russia used influence campaigns during the [Scottish] independence referendum campaign in 2014.

Evidence of the claims in the report were redacted by the committee.

So, they are saying that it happened, but not producing any evidence. Wouldn't exactly stand up in court ...

Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Vlad seems to be a fan of the oul' disruptive Cyberwarfare, and why wouldn't he - it's cheap as chips to run, costing nothing compared to military hardware, and it seems to have quite a good return on investment.

Nicola Sturgeon isn't being drawn into giving the report too much credence though:

Nicola Sturgeon wrote:

I don’t think you can draw any conclusions from the three lines or thereabouts that the report has on the Scottish independence referendum.

Water John

Security briefings operate at diff levels of credibility, rarely would they say an absolute.

MaccaTacca

Just out of genuine interest, where does Ireland's love in for Scotland come from?

Irish people really seem to have a historical blip when it comes to the Scots and the Welsh.

Would have no interest in entering a trade alliance with them.

Over 50% of Scots (the ones who voted to remain part of the UK) would not consider Irish people to be their 'Celtic Brothers' yet we seem to think they love us.

Always find it weird that the English are always blamed and hated by us for historical events, when the Scottish meddled in our affairs just as much.

Sam Russell

MaccaTacca wrote: »

Just out of genuine interest, where does Ireland's love in for Scotland come from?

Irish people really seem to have a historical blip when it comes to the Scots and the Welsh.

Would have no interest in entering a trade alliance with them.

Over 50% of Scots (the ones who voted to remain part of the UK) would not consider Irish people to be their 'Celtic Brothers' yet we seem to think they love us.

Always find it weird that the English are always blamed and hated by us for historical events, when the Scottish meddled in our affairs just as much.

The Scots are divided by religion, just as NI is.

The nastiness that Britain visited on us was from the Tory element of their political masters - the 'toffs'. The British nation is more divided by their odd belief in class, and the 'upper classes' see themselves as better than anyone else - not just in Britain but the entire world. In fact they consider others should respect their betters - that is them.

There is also a very distinct North - South divide. For those that live in London and the South, the 'North' begins at the Watford Gap on the M1 (halfway to Birmingham). Birmingham is considered 'the Midlands' but it is only halfway up England and the Scottish border is halfway up the island of GB.

It's complicated.

McGiver

mick087 wrote:

So how often should a referendum be held?

When there is a significant change to the circumstances. Brexit and a chauvinist quasi-authoritarian regime are two significant changes to circumstances.

McGiver

Muahahaha wrote:

yeah its farcical to even suggest it, NI to Scotland just doesnt have any kind of traffic volumes to justify such a mammoth cost. NI is just a small statelet anyway so its not like Scotland would get any kind of economic boom just because there is a bridge linking to it.

In fact Scotland should prevent any bridges from the NI being built and burn any existing ones. Else the Ulster toxicity gets into Scotland. Nobody interested in that.

Larbre34

McGiver wrote: »

In fact Scotland should prevent any bridges from the NI being built and burn any existing ones. Else the Ulster toxicity gets into Scotland. Nobody interested in that.

I'm afraid that ship sailed centuries ago. But, it isn't as prevalent as Northern Ireland, still hope for them.

Larbre34

MaccaTacca wrote: »

Just out of genuine interest, where does Ireland's love in for Scotland come from?

Irish people really seem to have a historical blip when it comes to the Scots and the Welsh.

Would have no interest in entering a trade alliance with them.

Over 50% of Scots (the ones who voted to remain part of the UK) would not consider Irish people to be their 'Celtic Brothers' yet we seem to think they love us.

Always find it weird that the English are always blamed and hated by us for historical events, when the Scottish meddled in our affairs just as much.

Our affinity is with Gaelic and Catholic Scots. We had a a common enemy and a common experience. Not hard to see the empathy. Our Northern Ireland loyalist cousins are just as bound to the dissenters.

mick087

McGiver wrote: »

When there is a significant change to the circumstances. Brexit and a chauvinist quasi-authoritarian regime are two significant changes to circumstances.

Do you think Scotland would get a overhaul majority if there was another referendum?
I would say it would be very close.
Would it not be best to wait a few more years?

Sam Russell

Larbre34 wrote: »

Our affinity is with Gaelic and Catholic Scots. We had a a common enemy and a common experience. Not hard to see the empathy. Our Northern Ireland loyalist cousins are just as bound to the dissenters.

There is another division in Scotland between the highlands and lowlands - more division.

bob mcbob

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is another division in Scotland between the highlands and lowlands - more division.

Historically yes but not really any more - the highland clearances saw to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances