MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, July 6th 2022 - 13:03 UTC



Scotland “undoubtedly” closer to an independence referendum

Wednesday, January 18th 2017 - 10:20 UTC
Full article 35 comments

First minister Nicola Sturgeon said that plans to take the UK out of the EU's single market brought a second Scottish independence referendum “undoubtedly” closer. She was speaking after Prime Minister Theresa May outlined her government's thinking on Brexit. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • The Voice

    Wee Crankie throwing toys around again. Not much sympathy from my Scotch pals with whom I shall be meeting up with at the weekend. In truth Crankie's support on exiting the UK just isn't there.

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Fidel_CasTroll

    But it is, and they will leave.

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • DemonTree

    @The Voice
    How many of your Scottish friends voted to stay in the EU? If it was less than 6/10, then they aren't typical. You don't choose your friends at random, so they are not a reliable guide to the population.

    Unfortunately it is probably impossible for May to come to any kind of compromise that Sturgeon would accept, especially as independence was always the aim for the SNP anyway; Brexit is just a good opportunity for them to push it through.

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Clyde15

    If she did call for and get another referendum there is no guarantee that she will get the result that she wants. Then what ?

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Wait a while and hold a third one, I imagine. How much control does the Scottish Parliament have over what children learn in school? Oder 1001's education certainly seems to have made him keen on independence.

    How are you anyway? You haven't been posting for a while.

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    The Voice must hide his anti Scottish opinions from his Scottish pals...I'm sure if they were aware of them they would shower him with kisses...Glasgow style...

    Nothing has changed since the first inderef...opinion wise, with folk that I know...the Nats are still Nats and welcome any excuse for inderef2...
    Everyone else can see there is no possibility of Scotland getting a separate welcome into the EU without rUK...
    Conversion to the Euro, land borders with rUK, separate tariffs with their largest trading partner...
    Where are the benefits...?
    She should explain clearly to the Scottish electorate what would be the position of an Independent Scotland, not part of the EU or the UK, based on facts and not what deals she thinks she could get...
    Call the SNP's bluff, she wouldn't survive a second defeat...

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    DT None, they are not typical, but they know what the sentiment there is having lived there all their lives. Several have said they will leave Scotland if it ever becomes independent. One, a hotelier has moved his business HQ to England as a precaution. All polls show that there is less support for independence now than there was at the last referendum. The only reason many voted SNP after the last ref was that the SNP was more effective at getting more out of Westminster than the useless dinosaur Scottish Labour Party that had ruled the roost for years and got practically nothing. Many who vote SNP don't actually support independence they just want Salmond and Sturgeon as Westminster bashers.

    I will know more about present sentiment next week.

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    His friends opinions are somewhat biased...a hotelier would be totally reliant on English custom as most visitors to Scotland are English...
    I bet his friends are actually English living in Scotland...

    The Voice's second hand opinions are less than worthless...

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Fidel_CasTroll


    What Tree said. That is the beauty of yes or no politics. If you get no, you keep trying 20 times until you get the one yes.

    That is exactly what the Eurosceptics (I hate that word), did. For 4 decades plus fighting and all they needed was just one “yes”. Same with Scotland, that is why the United Kingdom won't last much longer. All they need is one “yes” and it's lights out.

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Voice

    To be clear my beef is with scroungers of any nationality, not with Scots. I get ribbed by my Scotch friends and I give as good as I get. There is agreement though, we all dislike the sort of nauseating big mouthed agressive bullying showoff Scot as personified by Stinks Parrot. Anyway both the Parrot and Clyde agree with my second hand opinion so the Parrot is saying their opinions are worthless too? :-) Confused - me too?

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    I just got fed up with the continual moaning. back biting, pseudo -Trolls and all the intellectual experts propounding their prejudices as irrefutable facts. I also noticed that I was getting as bad in the insult dept. as some of the more vociferous and sarcastic Argie. posters

    The discussions seem pointless-I know roughly what each poster is going to say as soon as I see their pseudonym. In the case of this topic, I was correct.

    Time to take stock and do something more interesting

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • LEPRecon

    @Fidel the troll

    As opposed to the pro-europeans who ACTUALLY kept forcing vote after vote after vote until the people voted the 'right' way. That isn't democracy, that isn't the rule by the people, that is the unelected bureaucrats forcing THEIR beliefs and 'vision' on people who don't want it. But you've never understood the meaning of democracy, have you?

    As for Ms Sturgeon she isn't offering the Scottish independence at all. She's offering them independence from the UK and servitude to a bunch of unelected officials in the EU who will DICTATE what the Scottish should do and think and say. At least as part of the UK they get their say in the way things are run. That's never going to happen in Europe.

    Whether the Scottish decide to stay in the UK or leave it, the Scottish Nazi Party aren't offering the people freedom...only slavery.

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Voice

    Wha sae base as be a slave...

    We are all slaves to one Government or another...
    With the Nationalists it's all about choosing your poison...
    I must admit... I've never heard Continental Europeans deriding Scotland...

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    I can totally understand, I'm glad you just got bored of the site and weren't ill or something. It's a shame there are so many trolls here scaring away the reasonable posters.

    @The Voice
    So your friends are not representative at all. I grew up in and am living in England, and I have met more Leave voters on here than in real life. Their experience doesn't prove anything more than mine did.

    While it's true that plenty more Scots voted for the SNP than voted for independence, the current UK government has amply demonstrated its complete incompetence at campaigning. I doubt they could even convince anyone that water is wet at this point, so I'm not feeling too optimistic about another referendum.

    Neither have I, though I have seen plenty deriding Britain since the referendum. I should think Scotland voting to stay in would tend to inspire sympathy from other Europeans too.

    And the EU is not a state (yet). Scotland as a country would have more independence as part of the EU than as part of the UK, though there would be other disadvantages.

    Agree the Europhiles are just as bad with the repeated referendums though, it's one of the more objectionable aspects of the EU.

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    It's the disadvantages I'm not keen on...
    The Euro and borders being the main ones, there is no way England would allow Euro Nationals to traipse over the border at will...

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Yeah, it would be a hell of a lot more inconvenient being independent if Scotland was in the EU and the rest of the former UK out. No guarantee of open borders, definitely no freedom of movement. What would happen to the many Scottish people living and working in the rest of the UK, and the many people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland working in Scotland?

    I know that signing up to the Euro is compulsory for new EU members, is joining Schengen also obligatory? I'm pretty sure all the new members have joined, but they probably actually wanted to.

    Anyway, May has said she wants to keep the open border with Ireland, but I don't see how that is possible if we leave the Customs Union. It would be a huge smuggling route. The effect of Brexit on NI really should be getting more attention IMO.

    Jan 18th, 2017 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • EscoSesDoidao

    Everyone watch this space. another Independence Referendum for Scotland in 2018-19 IMO.
    Immediate entry in to the EU? Not a problem -

    As far as currency goes once we are Independent? Various options, and the Scot Gov will roll out one prior to this next Indyref.

    Jan 19th, 2017 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    It only takes one country to object to a Scottish entry in the EU out of 28...
    Spain has already said it would...
    Also...If... as was suggested in the article Scotland left rUK before the UK has left the EU don't you think rUK would still have a veto...?
    Natsoverscotland is all IF's and Ands....for the gullible....

    Jan 19th, 2017 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • EscoSesDoidao

    Voice. Spain did not say it would object to an Independent Scotland entering the EU, - That is an old yoon misinfo, - Show me where Spain say it will try to veto an 'Independent Scotland'?

    Meanwhile here are some options we have for currency after indy.

    Jan 19th, 2017 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    You are right Spain has never said that...
    ..but the UK would still have a veto if Scotland left the UK first...rUK would still be a member and Scotland wouldn't...

    Jan 19th, 2017 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • EscoSesDoidao

    Voice, well, I guess we'll see soon enough either way. Meanwhile I meant to post this earlier.
    It's the various options for the Scottish currency. Download the doc at the bottom left.

    Jan 19th, 2017 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • brasherboot

    Sturgeon sounds more and more like the Argies .

    Jan 20th, 2017 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LukeDig

    One can only hope UK gets divided in as many pieces they divided South America to bring her to its knees

    Jan 20th, 2017 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    I suppose it's pointless to ask you, but what on earth you are talking about?

    Jan 20th, 2017 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Go for it..., you bonnie ging Albann fury...!

    Mr. DemonTree...
    Mr. LukeDig is talking about past British Imperial ingerence in South Americans affairs...
    Like they did in North America, Central America, Africa, Middle East, Asia, Oceania and a couple of other small places that escape my memory at the moment....

    Jan 21st, 2017 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    And when was South America brought to its knees, exactly? Fidel_CasTroll is always telling us how Britain failed at invading Argentina, and I don't think British Guyana played any major role in the history of the continent. So what Imperial interference are you talking about?

    Jan 21st, 2017 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LukeDig


    The “heroes” that “liberated” South America received guns, money and a sea interdiction (so that spain could not disembark troops). In exchange, or lets say the truth, under threat, SA had to be divided in many artificial governments, because the brits did not want to repeat what happened in USA and not create another superpower...

    In the following decades allí governments became addict to english “loans”, and the only country that dared to be free, Paraguay, was utterly destroyed by order of the brits and under documented threats of bankrupting the countries that did not cooperate with the massacre

    Jan 21st, 2017 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Didn't the new governments in SA mostly follow the same borders as the old Spanish Viceroyalties, which they established because poor communications in those days made it really impossible to govern the whole continent from one place? What exactly did Britain do to prevent the newly liberated countries uniting? As far as I know the only country Britain had a hand in creating was Uruguay, which was being fought over by Argentina and Brazil.

    As for the loans, weren't they mostly taken out by various corrupt leaders, and not used for their intended purpose? And they were given by private banks in London, not by the UK government. I guess things haven't changed so much in this area actually. :(

    But the Paraguayan war was started by Paraguay, and had very little to do with Britain. The massacre that followed was due to López forcing his people to keep fighting a guerrilla war even after they were already defeated, until he was finally killed in action himself. And Paraguay only still exists as a country because Brazil refused Argentina's offer to split the whole country between them. Instead, Paraguay was forced to cede large areas of land to each.

    Jan 21st, 2017 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

                          “bonnie ging Albann fury...!”

    I prefer...wee ginger dug....

    Jan 21st, 2017 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree...
    What nice innocent stories you tell...
    Anglos always being the well intentioned party...
    Always the murky foreigners fault. (Dagos, Indians, Chinese, Abos, Zulus or whatewer)
    Resisting Anglo “Civilization”and attacking them poor Engrish that only wanted a bit of “Free Trade”...
    You poor, misunderstood small Engrish sausages...

    Mr. Voice
    Show some respect..., lad.
    She is, after all, your First Minister... ;-)

    Jan 21st, 2017 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    When did I ever say Anglos were always the well intentioned party? If you asked about India, for example, I would agree that Britain used divide and conquer tactics, and the treatment of most of the peoples in the colonised countries was disgraceful.

    South America was one of the continents least affected by British Imperialism though, and I don't see why we should take the blame for things we didn't do, as well as all the things we did. Which part of my 'stories' was incorrect?

    Jan 21st, 2017 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree

    You say...:
    “South America was one of the continents least affected by British Imperialism though, and I don't see why we should take the blame for things we didn't do.......”

    I say...:
    And yet here we are...
    ... Discussing the Malvinas Islands Issue + some 12 million more square Km. of Southern Hemisphere territory craved by the pathetic remnants of the British Empire in its last sick death rattles...

    Jan 21st, 2017 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Must you be so melodramatic? We were discussing whether Britain had ever brought South America to its knees, not the ownership of some smallish islands several hundred kilometres away from the mainland.

    And I notice that although you have protested a lot, you still haven't actually disagreed with anything I said above about the history of SA.

    Jan 21st, 2017 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LukeDig

    @demontree the war was not started by Paraguay. Paraguay placed protectionist economic barriers in order to industrialize itself. The brits did not like at all that, so they forced the invasion, its all there in the records of the Foreign Office, there are many letters from the English ambassador in Buenos Aires threatening to screw Argentinas economy if they did not cooperate.

    Some long time later an argentinian senator went desperate over Argentinas dependence and the corruption the brits brought to the governments so much that he killed himself in the parliament...

    Jan 23rd, 2017 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Didn't Paraguay declare war on Brazil because Brazil was interfering in the civil war in Uruguay, and later on Argentina because Argentina wouldn't let the Paraguayan army travel through it's territory in order to reach Uruguay? How could Britain force Paraguay to declare war and attack other countries?

    Do you have a link to these letters threatening Argentina's economy, or even mentioning them? I've been looking online but I can't find anything. The great majority of English language sources just dismiss the theory, saying there is no evidence for it at all; I think it's only popular among Latin American historians.

    Also what is the name of this senator that killed himself in parliament? I found two that committed suicide (Leandro N. Alem and Lisandro de la Torre), but not in the Congress, and one who was murdered there (Enzo Bordabehere, who may have been mistakenly killed by someone aiming for de la Torre). But no one who fits your description.

    Jan 23rd, 2017 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!