nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scottish independence

Faye McAleer

Would you be in support of a politico-economic union and formal international intergovernmental cooperation between the three Gaelic nations, (united) Ireland, (independent) Scotland and the Isle of Man similar to Benelux?

The Benelux cooperation has served as a model for the EU, and is basically an EU lite, comprising a customs union and a parliament as well as shared resources.

This could work between the three Gaelic nations and when we get reunification and the Scottish get independence, I think it is something good that should be created.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sam Russell

20silkcut wrote: »

On That 3.17 figure , does that mean 3.17 years remaining expectancy ?

It means that of 100 people of her age living today, in 3.17 years, 50 would have died from all causes, while 50 would still be alive.

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

If we're being morbid, no. Based on her nationality, age and gender, median life expectancy today is 3.17 years. Her chance of hitting 100 is only about 1 in 5. She gets bonus points because her mother lived to be 101 and because she has enjoyed excellent medical care all her life, but loses points because her father died at 56. Overall, these factors help, but they're not likely to raise her chances of hitting 100 from 1 in 5 to more than 1 in 2.

If she makes it to 97 she has a 1 in 3 chance of seeing 100; at 98 she has (nearly) a 1 in 2 chance. If she's alive on her 99th birthday, however, then she'll have a 2 in 3 chance of seeing her 100th birthday.

For a British man aged 72, median life expectancy is 13.22 years. Plus, Charles would get more bonus point than his mother, because both his parents have lived to a very advanced age. He'd have to be very unlucky not to outlive his mother.

On That 3.17 figure , does that mean 3.17 years remaining expectancy ?

Water John

The Scot Indy movement simply say that this isn't about the monarchy and that the Queen would remain Head of State until the Scots if or when decide otherwise in the future.

Peregrinus

pixelburp wrote: »

Not by age is what I meant; I phrased it wrong. Phillip passed aged 99, she's currently 95. Statistically, Elizabeth is likely to hit her centenary . . . .

If we're being morbid, no. Based on her nationality, age and gender, median life expectancy today is 3.17 years. Her chance of hitting 100 is only about 1 in 5. She gets bonus points because her mother lived to be 101 and because she has enjoyed excellent medical care all her life, but loses points because her father died at 56. Overall, these factors help, but they're not likely to raise her chances of hitting 100 from 1 in 5 to more than 1 in 2.

If she makes it to 97 she has a 1 in 3 chance of seeing 100; at 98 she has (nearly) a 1 in 2 chance. If she's alive on her 99th birthday, however, then she'll have a 2 in 3 chance of seeing her 100th birthday.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Her mother lasted over the century, so she might well, and she might actually live longer than her mother. The real question is will her eldest son outlive her, or will he predecease her.

For a British man aged 72, median life expectancy is 13.22 years. Plus, Charles would get more bonus point than his mother, because both his parents have lived to a very advanced age. He'd have to be very unlucky not to outlive his mother.

Sam Russell

Her mother lasted over the century, so she might well, and she might actually live longer than her mother. The real question is will her eldest son outlive her, or will he predecease her.

pixelburp

Sam Russell wrote: »

She has outlasted her husband.

Not by age is what I meant; I phrased it wrong. Phillip passed aged 99, she's currently 95. Statistically, Elizabeth is likely to hit her centenary, but one imagines there can't be anything over a decade more of her reign.

If anything, weaponising Liz might simply highlight to Scots the upheaval a new monarch might cause in the UK. Doubt it'll be a full blown succession crisis but it may get ugly. It'll be fascinating if nothing, a true "generational" event, as Johnson has tried to frame the Indy vote.

breatheme

Sam Russell wrote: »

She has outlasted her husband.

In the "outliving him" sense, yes. In the "living longer than him" sense, no.

Linguistic ambiguity strikes again.

Sam Russell

pixelburp wrote: »

Notwithstanding the possible BS of the article, I'm not sure I'd pin my hopes of maintaining a cuddly relationship within the UK on a 95-year-old monarch who is likely to throw open the succession question soon enough (not trying to be harsh but it does seem likely, despite her access to top tier medicine and statistical likelihood to outlast her husband)

She has outlasted her husband.

pixelburp

Notwithstanding the possible BS of the article, I'm not sure I'd pin my hopes of maintaining a cuddly relationship within the UK on a 95-year-old monarch who is likely to throw open the succession question soon enough (not trying to be harsh but it does seem likely, despite her access to top tier medicine and statistical likelihood to outlast her husband)

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be fair to the Queen, this is a Daily Mail report, so it could be a steaming pile of horse manure from beginning to end.

The Queen is a well known horse woman, even at her age, and so her being associated with horse manure should not be a surprise to anyone.

Peregrinus

To be fair to the Queen, this is a Daily Mail report, so it could be a steaming pile of horse manure from beginning to end.

PommieBast

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It doesn't surprise me they're willing participants as I can't imagine Scotland would tolerate the Windsors for very long in the event of it going independent.

From memory some major Scottish landowners were/are members of the royal family, and as a result the SNP was originally formed out of a republican movement. Could have got wires crossed though..

Mr.Nice Guy

So much for staying neutral on political matters. The monarchy seemingly will be part of Johnson's so-called 'love bombing'.

https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1396374108670148609

It doesn't surprise me they're willing participants as I can't imagine Scotland would tolerate the Windsors for very long in the event of it going independent.

Larbre34

circadian wrote: »

I doubt many who voted for brexit know a single thing about crofting.

They didn't know much about EU membership either evidently.

bob mcbob

Water John wrote: »

Not sure how many crofters are left?

It is more the hill farmers that are at risk. One of the main areas for this is the Scottish Borders (the most Unionist part of the country). That is why Gove is so worried about this trade deal.

This article from 4 years ago highlights the fears for hill farming - all of which seem to be coming true.

First, it is highly unlikely the deeply indebted British state could afford to provide the same level of funding to hill farming as the broad shoulders of EU's CAP.

Second, the UK government, by inclination and to a great degree forced by circumstance, will follow an increasing neo-liberal approach to agriculture. Unlike the EU that is wedded to the idea of the family farm and sustainable food production, right wing hawks in Westminster will seek to divest public funding from farming and turn over food production and farming to the multinational corporate sector to compete with countries like Argentina, Brazil and of course the USA. In those countries, intensive farming systems that suppress and destruct nature predominate and have led to massive social and environmental problems.

Parts of the UK, especially southern and Eastern England could succeed following this model, but Scotland’s hill farming sector could not.

https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/15301380.fears-for-the-future-of-scottish-hill-farming/

Water John

circadian wrote: »

I doubt many who voted for brexit know a single thing about crofting.

Sadly, many farmers did vote for Brexit. They believed Michael Gove would look after them.

[Deleted User]

Larbre34 wrote: »

However many there are, I'm not sure Brexit was meant to see the last of them gone.

I doubt many who voted for brexit know a single thing about crofting.

Larbre34

Water John wrote: »

Not sure how many crofters are left?

However many there are, I'm not sure Brexit was meant to see the last of them gone.

Water John

listermint wrote: »

I'd assume the Scots will have a whole swathe of farmers now seriously examining this independence thing with the advent of the Australian trade deal knocking a huge blow to all farm sizes in Scotland more so the smaller ones.

Not sure how many crofters are left?

listermint

I'd assume the Scots will have a whole swathe of farmers now seriously examining this independence thing with the advent of the Australian trade deal knocking a huge blow to all farm sizes in Scotland more so the smaller ones.

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

What you're advocating there, GT89, is a referendum on English independence.

To which any self-respecting Scots, Welsh or Irish nationalist would say "Of course. If the English want an independence referendum they should have one. Why not? They don't need our permission."

But I think it says a great deal about the political reality in the UK that an English vote on whether the union between England and Scotland should be maintained is a vote by England on whether "to kick Scotland out". So long as English people think of England's place in the union in this way, that's a powerful reason why Scots, Welsh and Irish people are likely to prefer independence. Who want to be in a union with a country that thinks it not only does control your destiny, but has a right to do so?

It would be quite a scene for England to leave the UK.

I wonder how'd they'd feel about the rUK then!

Interestingly, legally speaking, all things staying as they are as of today, wouldn't they take Wales out with them? That would be some craic.

Peregrinus

GT89 wrote: »

Deleted post.

What you're advocating there, GT89, is a referendum on English independence.

To which any self-respecting Scots, Welsh or Irish nationalist would say "Of course. If the English want an independence referendum they should have one. Why not? They don't need our permission."

But I think it says a great deal about the political reality in the UK that an English vote on whether the union between England and Scotland should be maintained is a vote by England on whether "to kick Scotland out". So long as English people think of England's place in the union in this way, that's a powerful reason why Scots, Welsh and Irish people are likely to prefer independence. Who want to be in a union with a country that thinks it not only does control your destiny, but has a right to do so?

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

and there we go again.

Two Indian guys overstay their visa, The Glasgow office of the Border Agency tell them to leave, they refuse so Glasgow Immigration officers are sent to carry out the enforcement....

and it's all the fault of the English.

Like I said, if/when Sturgeon has to oversee this kind of enforcement if/when there is an independent Scotland, who will she blame then?

I'm genuinely wondering if you're even reading posts now. I was specific with my words. If you're going to keep fabricating points to dodge engaging with the ones I made, I'm not going to engage with your further.

[Deleted User]

pixelburp wrote: »

For double standards to apply, first your comparison must be both accurate, and apt.

You tried to draw a moral and legal equivalence between financially mobile peoples choosing to retire or move to Spain for their own pleasure, and illegal immigrants operating outside of system to travel to another country in desperation/hope (be it to escape persecution, poverty, or any host of negative consequences for staying in their original location). The two situations might be unified by the concept of migration - but not remotely by circumstance.

these are two Sikh guys from India, you'll have to give me a bit more details on how the Sikh community is oppressed and persecuted there. If yo find it, does it also include details on how the Sikh community celebrate Eid?

These guys, a father and son, came to the UK for a better life, I have no issue with that. I love seeing diversity within a community, it is actually one of the things I found difficult to adjust to in Ireland when I first moved here. But immigrants (and I include myself in that) have to register, they have to follow the rules and regulations for the country they are moving to, no matter what they think of them. That's just part and parcel of being an immigrant. If you don't, then you face the very real prospect of a knock on the door at 5am.

pixelburp wrote: »

I agree, in principle. Illegal immigrants ideally should be processed as quick as possible and if needed, deported. That's the humane thing to do and reading on those trying to live within the slow-grind of bureaucracy, it's hell having that Sword of Damocles over your neck for years. But that's governance for you; slow, unwieldy and as Windrush has shown, can have disastrous consequences.

People don't just live in limbo waiting to be processed either; and why I say cases should be treated contextually to their respective circumstance. It's not without reason America has had broad amnesties for long-term migrants living "illegally". People live lives, work jobs, do their best insofar as the system allows. They earned the right to be residency by graft, and the sweat of their brow, to be melodramatic.

I don't disagree, although I do believe the Windrush thing was a completely different set of circumstances and is a clear example of why the UK needs a national ID card. It would have resolved all the problems faced by those affected.

There is a lot of support for immigrants in the UK, not just from charities either, the system gives a lot of support. When I went with my wife to Slough Job Centre to get her NI number, we could have had a translator to assist in any of about nine different languages, the forms and assortment of leaflets detailing the process similarly were available in a number of languages you would struggle to understand what more could be done. I really can't see why anyone with a bonafide claim to remaining in the UK would not go through the process.

pixelburp wrote: »

And hey; maybe these two in Glasgow did all this. Maybe they didn't. The community felt strongly enough to believe the former but I'm not so glib as to think Immigration is a cut and dry issue. Or naive to think political influence doesn't dictate application either.

maybe they were just two guys who chanced their arm and overstayed their visa, maybe they were heads of an international crime gang, we have no idea. That is why I am amazed the first minister decided to completely undermine a service she aspires to lead, so quickly and so categorically.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

and there we go again.

Two Indian guys overstay their visa, The Glasgow office of the Border Agency tell them to leave, they refuse so Glasgow Immigration officers are sent to carry out the enforcement....

and it's all the fault of the English.

Like I said, if/when Sturgeon has to oversee this kind of enforcement if/when there is an independent Scotland, who will she blame then?

Come on now. That's preposterous.

[Deleted User]

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think you've conflated Scottish and English nationalism there.

English nationalism is chiefly ethnic in nature whereas Scottish nationalism is civic. In any case, Sturgeon will detail a policy and the voters can decide in the event that they secure another referendum.

and there we go again.

Two Indian guys overstay their visa, The Glasgow office of the Border Agency tell them to leave, they refuse so Glasgow Immigration officers are sent to carry out the enforcement....

and it's all the fault of the English.

Like I said, if/when Sturgeon has to oversee this kind of enforcement if/when there is an independent Scotland, who will she blame then?

ancapailldorcha

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It will be interesting come Indtyef2 time and what the SNP will be saying about immigration and the measures to curb illegal immigration.

She will have to thread lightly after yesterdays statement.

I think you've conflated Scottish and English nationalism there.

English nationalism is chiefly ethnic in nature whereas Scottish nationalism is civic. In any case, Sturgeon will detail a policy and the voters can decide in the event that they secure another referendum.

[Deleted User]

Christy42 wrote: »

Or she just disagrees with the immigration laws and how they are enforced as they stand as opposed to not wanting any immigration laws. Hence she was happy with a protest against the laws she disagrees with.

Those double standards apply to different cases...

It will be interesting come Indtyef2 time and what the SNP will be saying about immigration and the measures to curb illegal immigration.

She will have to thread lightly after yesterdays statement.

Christy42

Aegir wrote: »

It wasn't anything to do with Brit bashing, just an observation on people's double standards ( and crass assumptions as well, it would appear).

If someone is illegally in a country, then that country must have the right to deport them, otherwise what is the point of having immigration laws, why not just scrap visas, work permits etc and let everyone in.

This isn't just about keeping a few brown skinned people out, it is to keep people within the net. People outside of the system are more open to exploitation, as in the case of the Morecombe bay tragedy. To even suggest that an independent Scotland would do otherwise is rediculous and just confims my original statement that this was little more than a bit of popularism by the First Minister.

There are estimated to be between 600 and 800,000 undocumented immigrants in the UK, but of course Priti Patel personally selected these two to be picked up and questioned

Or she just disagrees with the immigration laws and how they are enforced as they stand as opposed to not wanting any immigration laws. Hence she was happy with a protest against the laws she disagrees with.

Those double standards apply to different cases...

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

Indeed it is a complicated discussion. Dawn raids on a cultural holiday are a great way to inflame tensions for an organisation that has had a pretty terrible track record in the last few years. Police can do their jobs only because of the consent of the people and PR is a pretty important part of their jobs. Any idiot should have known that this was a terrible way to fix the lack of trust in the Home office at the moment.

As far as I know they haven't been accused of anything more serious that would require a heavy handed approach. They seem pretty settled in the locality so I am not sure why all of this was required. What were they going to do? Flee the country?

If the Home Office has enough people who are pure of purpose and fairness how did Windrush become a thing?

Indeed one can level much criticism against this Tory government and the immigration policies they espouse. But where is the evidence that what happened yesterday is connected to Windrush? That this had anything to do with a lack of trust in the Home Office? That the immigration officers tried to inflame the local community? That was not simply an attempt to detain two illegal immigrants?

Anyone who reads my posts would know that I detest this particular Tory government. But it is too simple to immediately and automatically blame their nasty populism for every single event such as yesterday's. It's a bit like two legs good and four legs bad and if we do that then we are playing their game. They want polarisation. They want to eradicate truth and nuance.