The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

First topic message reminder :

Now it is official (and some guy with a green admin name has ruined the other thread) I shall put this here for you to discuss the referendum.

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Except Farage is fronting a different Leave campaign, which wasn't selected, (something which you celebrated) so, again, why should DC debate someone as irrelevant as Farage??

Eh? Farage is one of the main folk in the Grassroots Out campaign, which didn't get the designation over Vote Leave (something which I was heavily disappointed over, not celebrated).

Why should Cameron debate Farage - because Farage is the leader of the 3rd largest party in the UK; because Farage leads the only major party dedicated to leaving the EU; because Farage is the most prominent opponent of the EU in UK politics, whereas Cameron is one of the main defenders; because Cameron refuses to debate any of his fellow Tories, which rules out Gove/Boris/Hannan etc.; and because doing a question-and-answer session in the vicinity of Farage clearly indicates that Cameron feels a need to take on the UKIP leader, but he is only willing to take a half-measure, not a full one (presumably because he knows he would be decimated, just like Clegg x4).

DC debating Farge on ITV apparently. Quashes your argument if so.

He isn't, which was my exact original point.

http://news.sky.com/story/1694680/itv-denies-stitch-up-over-EU exit-debate

Haven't read the full article, but:

ITV has been accused of "effectively becoming part of the 'in' campaign" in the EU referendum after it was revealed Nigel Farage will take on the Prime Minister live on TV over EU exit.

Yes, I mentioned this earlier.

Duty281 wrote:http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/david-cameron-and-nigel-farage-to-take-part-in-live-eu-referendum-event-on-itv/

How did this once-great land produce a Prime Minister as pathetic as Cameron?

Too scared to debate Farage head-to-head, though happy enough to mock his name when he's far out of reach.

It's not a debate, it's a Q&A session similar to what Cameron/Miliband did in 2015.

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:BUT WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE SHAPE OF BANANAS????????

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INEVITABLE THIRD WORLD WAR IF WE LEAVE????????????????

Except no one mentioned the third world war before Boris did. All the Remain campaign said was that there hadn't been a war in Europe since WWII and that the EU was (at least partly) responsible for that. Something Boris himself used to agree with of course...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:BUT WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE SHAPE OF BANANAS????????

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INEVITABLE THIRD WORLD WAR IF WE LEAVE????????????????

Except no one mentioned the third world war before Boris did. All the Remain campaign said was that there hadn't been a war in Europe since WWII and that the EU was (at least partly) responsible for that. Something Boris himself used to agree with of course...

I was referring to Cameron's comments: "Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

"I would never be so rash to make that assumption."

I don't care what Boris thinks, says or does - he's a transparent oaf, who for some strange reason likes to compare himself to a warmonger and one of the worst Prime Ministers of all time.

Duty281 wrote:Yes, I mentioned this earlier.

Duty281 wrote:http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/david-cameron-and-nigel-farage-to-take-part-in-live-eu-referendum-event-on-itv/

How did this once-great land produce a Prime Minister as pathetic as Cameron?

Too scared to debate Farage head-to-head, though happy enough to mock his name when he's far out of reach.

It's not a debate, it's a Q&A session similar to what Cameron/Miliband did in 2015.

In which case I'm seriously confused what you're getting your knickers in a twist about?? He is going up against your hero, the man you say is best for the job and most likely to expose Remain.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Yes, I mentioned this earlier.

Duty281 wrote:http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/david-cameron-and-nigel-farage-to-take-part-in-live-eu-referendum-event-on-itv/

How did this once-great land produce a Prime Minister as pathetic as Cameron?

Too scared to debate Farage head-to-head, though happy enough to mock his name when he's far out of reach.

It's not a debate, it's a Q&A session similar to what Cameron/Miliband did in 2015.

In which case I'm seriously confused what you're getting your knickers in a twist about?? He is going up against your hero, the man you say is best for the job and most likely to expose Remain.

Nigel Farage is not my hero. And Cameron is not going up against him.

Cameron will be on for half-an-hour, take some questions from the audience, give some rehearsed answers, and bugger off. Nigel will do the same, though he'll probably go first.

That is not the same as them being on the stage together and Farage giving Dodgy Dave a bloody good verbal hiding.

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:BUT WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE SHAPE OF BANANAS????????

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INEVITABLE THIRD WORLD WAR IF WE LEAVE????????????????

Except no one mentioned the third world war before Boris did. All the Remain campaign said was that there hadn't been a war in Europe since WWII and that the EU was (at least partly) responsible for that. Something Boris himself used to agree with of course...

I was referring to Cameron's comments: "Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

"I would never be so rash to make that assumption."

I don't care what Boris thinks, says or does - he's a transparent oaf, who for some strange reason likes to compare himself to a warmonger and one of the worst Prime Ministers of all time.

So nothing about WWIII then. Just perfectly reasonable comments that just because we've had an unexpectedly long period of peace (in Europe) we shouldn't take it for granted.

But it's the Remain campaign who are in the business of scaremongering and hyperbole of course

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:BUT WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE SHAPE OF BANANAS????????

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INEVITABLE THIRD WORLD WAR IF WE LEAVE????????????????

Except no one mentioned the third world war before Boris did. All the Remain campaign said was that there hadn't been a war in Europe since WWII and that the EU was (at least partly) responsible for that. Something Boris himself used to agree with of course...

I was referring to Cameron's comments: "Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

"I would never be so rash to make that assumption."

I don't care what Boris thinks, says or does - he's a transparent oaf, who for some strange reason likes to compare himself to a warmonger and one of the worst Prime Ministers of all time.

So nothing about WWIII then. Just perfectly reasonable comments that just because we've had an unexpectedly long period of peace (in Europe) we shouldn't take it for granted.

But it's the Remain campaign who are in the business of scaremongering and hyperbole of course

Apart from the war in Kosovo, which most seem to have forgotten about.

The EU has had very little (if anything) to do with the peace that has existed on the continent (for the most part) since 1945.

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:BUT WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE SHAPE OF BANANAS????????

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INEVITABLE THIRD WORLD WAR IF WE LEAVE????????????????

Except no one mentioned the third world war before Boris did. All the Remain campaign said was that there hadn't been a war in Europe since WWII and that the EU was (at least partly) responsible for that. Something Boris himself used to agree with of course...

I was referring to Cameron's comments: "Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

"I would never be so rash to make that assumption."

I don't care what Boris thinks, says or does - he's a transparent oaf, who for some strange reason likes to compare himself to a warmonger and one of the worst Prime Ministers of all time.

So nothing about WWIII then. Just perfectly reasonable comments that just because we've had an unexpectedly long period of peace (in Europe) we shouldn't take it for granted.

But it's the Remain campaign who are in the business of scaremongering and hyperbole of course

Apart from the war in Kosovo, which most seem to have forgotten about.

The EU has had very little (if anything) to do with the peace that has existed on the continent (for the most part) since 1945.

Kosovo needed the Americans to kick ass as far as I seem to remember as the EU sat on its hands and prayed for Good Weather...again (Peace in our times Mark2)

But I'd go one step further.  What were the major wars in Europe about?

Territory, Power, Influence and Empire Building.  And let nobody tell me the 2nd World War wasn't about Empire building.

And so here we are - back to the future.  EU = Territory, Power, Influence and Empire Building.

QED

Duty281 wrote:
Apart from the war in Kosovo, which most seem to have forgotten about.

The EU has had very little (if anything) to do with the peace that has existed on the continent (for the most part) since 1945.

Seriously, you need to give up now. If you think the détente etc between Germany and France over the last 70 years has had nothing to do with the lack of wars in Europe, you need to go away and do some reading re. late 19th and early- to mid-20th century European history.

Re. Kosovo. Even Tito struggled to keep all that ethnic cr@p under control. In the past, alliances would have drawn Germany, France and Britain into that rubbish.

Wasn't the EU SPECIFICALLY established (in early form) in response to WW2 and preventing it happening again?

Nothing to do with anything 'Europe' obviously:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French-German_enmity#Post-war_relations

TopHat24/7 wrote:Wasn't the EU SPECIFICALLY established (in early form) in response to WW2 and preventing it happening again?

That's the reason we're given, yes. The glorious idea of European nations (initially 6, yes?) relying on trading with one another so war would never happen again.

The real reason for the formation of the EEC, later the European Union, was so that European nations would gradually integrate and form one super nation state: the United States of Europe, if you will.

If you look at the link below, you will see the idea for a European Parliament was first conceived in 1950:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

And the founding father of the European Union - Jean Monnet - wrote in 1952:

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

http://www.rense.com/general87/nationstates.htm

A superstate because a pretty good way of preventing war between countries is to amalgamate them into a united 'one'??

Pretty sure there hasn't been a civil war in the original 'United States' in at least a hundred years or so.....

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Wasn't the EU SPECIFICALLY established (in early form) in response to WW2 and preventing it happening again?

That's the reason we're given, yes. The glorious idea of European nations (initially 6, yes?) relying on trading with one another so war would never happen again.

The real reason for the formation of the EEC, later the European Union, was so that European nations would gradually integrate and form one super nation state: the United States of Europe, if you will.

If you look at the link below, you will see the idea for a European Parliament was first conceived in 1950:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

And the founding father of the European Union - Jean Monnet - wrote in 1952:

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

http://www.rense.com/general87/nationstates.htm

Are you sure you haven't quoted someone else and claimed that Monnet said it? From what I understand though he did agree with wanting a political union, he said nothing about doing it by stealth or deception. I don't think that's an accurate quote - it sounds like what a eurosceptic thinks about his intentions.

In 1943, Monnet became a member of the National Liberation Committee, the French government of De Gaulle in exile in Algiers, designated Commissaire à l'Armement.[8] During a meeting on 5 August of that year, Monnet declared to the Committee:

"There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty... The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation..."

TopHat24/7 wrote:Wasn't the EU SPECIFICALLY established (in early form) in response to WW2 and preventing it happening again?

We are but in a brief period of history and time.  Only 70 years have passed since the end of that war.
Nuclear weapons have since been loaded and aimed on borders around the world.  It's the threat that those weapons bring, AND the emergence of a much more immediate and observant media, that has kept war - in a sense - off the agenda in Europe.

Anyone that has lived through much of that period will realise that we've had periods since where tensions have risen dramatically.  Few seem to remember that apart from being a guy on Spitting Image, Ronald Reagan was also a pretty aggressive President in his earlier years in office, and many of us remember being fed a constant diet of 'how are we going to survive the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust' shows.  These were serious shows...and serious times.  Europe was virtually redundant in these last gasps of the Cold War but would have been the battleground had things kicked off.  What happens in the EU itself doesn't always determine whether or not war will come visit it.

Look at it another way - the further you go back in history, the more you pick up on the larger patterns.  There were 30 year wars, 100 year wars, even 300 year wars - recognised now by historians.  There were long pauses in these wars but restarts and outbreaks happened.  Who is to say the war in and for Europe still isn't ongoing?  Who is to say the 1st and 2nd WW were only breaths taken and that another one might be along sometime soon?  We've had treaties between Nations in Europe before.  They're worth nothing when torn and binned.

It's illogical to think the EU helped end all warlike thoughts amongst Europeans when the circumstantial evidence seems to suggest the impositions of the EU are certainly creating tensions of a warlike nature throughout Europe. And the Serbian conflict certainly showed that we can easily be as inhumane again if the right conditions exist.  

Ask a Greek what he thinks of the Germans, and what he thinks of their intentions?  You won't wait long before one of them tells you that they think the Germans never ended their war but are just taking what they want this time without needing weapons to do so.  Many of us have seen the Simon Reeve documentary?  Those tensions and feelings aren't exclusive to Greece.

TopHat24/7 wrote:In 1943, Monnet became a member of the National Liberation Committee, the French government of De Gaulle in exile in Algiers, designated Commissaire à l'Armement.[8] During a meeting on 5 August of that year, Monnet declared to the Committee:

   "There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty... The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation..."

Again theres nothing there that suggest stealth and deception - a lot of people want a unified Europe - if the majority wants it we'll get it. If not, we won't.

F*ck the Greeks.

TopHat24/7 wrote:F*ck the Greeks.

Yup, takes 4 years off your life but you've never been so satisfied.

Someone is doing his early auditions for a Primary Role in the New European Order!

Others of us are talking ourselves into early Political Prisoner camps

In the EU We Trust!

ShahenshahG wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:"There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty... The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation..."

Again theres nothing there that suggest stealth and deception - a lot of people want a unified Europe - if the majority wants it we'll get it. If not, we won't.

Juncker's a much better source of creepy sounding quotes:
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'"
"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back"
"There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties"

Yeah, he a transparent fool and an ineffective one but he would lock us in a heartbeat if he could. luckily there's no way in hell we would vote to join in the near future and he'll be dead before we'd ever be amenable to it. He can say all he wants but there will probably a sharp and sudden exit for many countries if they pushed too far.

"There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties"

?  He said that?

And people think it's all a lovely Disney trip to the Sweet Factory?  This place is becoming mad.  

What he's saying is that they are getting to a point in treaties that if people want out of a European Union, they'll have to fight their way out as groups of ...hmmm I assume they'll be called terrorists?...rather than citizens of sovereign nations?

No voting yourself out once it gets too Unified...as in tax harmonisation and...hmmm, a European Army?

Is this guy predicting our new European War?  

People tend to forget how Europe historically loves...loves...autocracy.  It knows much more about Autocracy than Democracy.  It's history is far more in tune with Kings, Queens, Empires and Dictatorships.

And we believe 70 years of quasi-democracy has destroyed all instincts to control by order, command and robust policing?

Seems Juncker thinks China is a better business plan for governance.  "Why ask the little people anything?  They know nothing and care less"

SecretFly wrote:He said that?

I think last year about Greece. You could put together a small book of stuff he's said that sounds like it was made up by Farage. He was talking about governments listening too much to national opinion just last week.
The people at the top of the European Parliament tend to be true believers, saw Guy Verhofstadt do an interview before the last European elections where he gave off the distinct impression that he didn't really believe in Euroscepticism; like it was all people that hadn't had the EU explained to them yet, or were deliberately misunderstanding it.

The dangerous bit is that they're the controllers.... and they think their peoples are too dumb to know enough about the complexity of big and needed things - like European Unity - to have a say in it.

Meanwhile, the chattering eejits in the Parliament - do their duty in pretending the 'people' matter.  

They talk and debate and none of them are on the executive, and they make grand speeches that nobody in Europe is listening to or interested in; and they have their little meals together and their drinks parties and their entertainment nights and their lovely generous expenses; and drink some more and wink at the beautiful MEP across from them or put a caring hand on the back of a handsome devil MEP, and they have their little secret affairs far away from their wives or husbands and get expenses for the rooms they use, and talk some more.. .......

....and all is perfect with the world.

"We ask you not to tell your peoples too much about what (doesn't) go on here please.  We must Unite for Peace.  It is the best thing we can do for Global Warming and the Whale.  Thank you, and your expenses for listening to my little speech will be fed through to your accounts instantly.  Hail Juncker!"

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/independent-sunday-mirror-may-2016-poll/

Summary of this poll's findings:

1) Boris has a huge lead over the PM when it comes to trustworthiness (45%-21%)
2) 'Which would be better for me' and 'national security' categories are very close
3) Leave has a huge lead over Remain on the topic of immigration (57%-25%)
4) Leave have a decent lead over Remain when it comes to trustworthiness (39%-24%)

If this poll is an accurate barometer, it's really difficult to see how Remain can win this referendum - particularly when you consider that Remain voters are far less likely to vote on the day than Leave voters.

Under 6 weeks to go.

The next President of the United States, Donald Trump, has rubbished any idea that the UK will be at the back of the queue for trade deals - although, having said that, even if we were at the back of the queue, it would still be an improvement on our current position!

Oh yeah, the UK would have added leverage in trade talks after it exits the largest common market on the planet.

Pr4wn wrote:Oh yeah, the UK would have added leverage in trade talks after it exits the largest common market on the planet.

Yeah but you're overlooking our strong manufacturing base and international reputation for efficiency!

The days of spin free politics have long gone assuming there ever was spin free politics.  How the ancient Greek philosophers condemned the empty rhetoric that allies itself with democracy that favours the demagogue over the reserved men / women of reason.

What I find disappointing is just how weak our politicians are, especially those wanting to persuade the masses that we have to stay "in".  Rather than spin and scare just provide the pros and cons and give an assessment of where the "European" project is heading.  Most of our politicians are career politicians who haven't really worked in the real world.

Pr4wn wrote:Oh yeah, the UK would have added leverage in trade talks after it exits the largest common market on the planet.

The UK has 64million people.  An educated, commercially savvy and enthusiastic people, people who like to shop a lot and buy lots of things, and that produce many of those things that other people like to buy.  They have serious connections in the entertainment world - across the world - from Hollywood to Bollywood - music, theatre, film, musicals, etc etc.  They are world leaders in many fields of science and reason and have the facilities in University terms to prove it.
They are the Primary English Speaking segment of the EU - very attractive to businesses from outside Europe that primarily deal in the English Language.... let's say the USA as an example.

Do you seriously think, that a State like that, sitting 21 miles from the European Continent, would not be ultra attractive to greedy companies greedy to sell all their wonderful toys and gadgets and foodstuffs etc to the UK's greedy population?  Do you really think greedy companies in Europe will studiously deny themselves the urge to do deals with such an attractive collection of 64 million potential customers for EU products and services...right on their doorstep?

Do you seriously think USA, Australia, Oriental companies etc, wishing to do productive and profitable businesses, would just bypass the UK on their way to talks with the EU?  "Sorry guys, we're no longer interested in you - there's nothing we want to buy from you or sell to you!  Good Day!   "

No, and if you have a careful read, I never even suggested that the UK would be bypassed.

But our leverage would be reduced. Of course it would. Talk about delusions of grandeur.

Look on the brightside.....Without this EU vote wally-head Boris may have been PM !!...

"Claudius" has definitely been exposed..

How would it be reduced?  They want something you have...you want something they have...negotiations then done that pleases all sides.

UKs slice, of anything, is UKs slice.  UK's slice of the EU, is UK's slice.  There is not extra benefits to be had in the UK by someone crowing about Poland's EU slice and suggesting that's also part of the UK slice.... ie, a bigger slice than the slice they'd have gotten on their own.

I say again - the UK has 'things' others want (namely and mainly direct access to that 64 million potential robust marketplace) and that is all any Nation needs to do business and negotiate.  

"You want to have a taste in our market and want us to make it easier for you by taking down a few barriers?  Hmmmm, yeah, doable - but look here, this is what we were thinking, we want to take a step here into your market....so???"

UKs slice of any global market is always UKs slice.  Actually, being in the EU does modify that somewhat in that then the UK has to use some of its distinct market value to subsidise other areas of Europe that on their own wouldn't have a sufficient market share.

Except access to the EU includes access to the UK as well as the rest. Which is more appealing than the expense of individual seperate trade agreements with each and every constituent state.

If not, why would the concept of a trade bloc every exist?

Why would there be an EU, an NAFTA, and ASEAN etc etc.......?

A trade bloc is a trade bloc...a trade bloc was the old EEC.  So okay, let's all decide to step a few paces backward and reinstate the old EEC?

No...can't do.

And why not?

The agenda is now different.  The EU is no longer just a Trade Bloc.

What is it?

:whistle:You don't need to know.  That's for us Bureaucrats to know.  But the Project is cooking nicely thanks.

So why are Canada and USA a single state by now?

Yeah, let's get back to a European Trade Bloc and bury the EU Parliament.  I'm all for that Tophat.  I'll join you on that bandwagon.

Pr4wn wrote:Oh yeah, the UK would have added leverage in trade talks after it exits the largest common market on the planet.

Well at the moment this nation can't instigate its own trade deals. By exiting the European Union - whom we are reliant on to negotiate free trade deals for us, and whom presently have not negotiated a free trade deal with the USA - we can at least have an element of control.

Britain on its own has no control....

At the moment it's part of a gang..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Britain on its own has no control....

At the moment it's part of a gang..

A gang which has taken its control.

Like a protection racket....

You aren't China or the US mate...

About time you exit boys realised that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Britain on its own has no control....

At the moment it's part of a gang..

You got that right. A gang of hobnailed bootboys.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You aren't China or the US mate...

About time you exit boys realised that.

Try telling some Midwestern desert (in more ways than one) states that they're US. The US has become a coastal community.

And China? Jan Claude is insulted by your lack of belief in his vision. He thinks we're well on the way.

States like Illinois aren't stupid enough to want to leave though..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:States like Illinois aren't stupid enough to want to leave though..

Has anybody been stupid enough to maybe ask a few of them recently?

The point is.... a massive United States project might appeal to some people's senses of power and wealth and influence and expensive yachts tied up next to beach side mansions................ but endemic to such structures, hidden away by the gloss and glass towers, is always quite breath-taking examples of sheer poverty.

In order for air to be pumped to one place, it has to be sucked from somewhere else. That model follows single entity structures quite methodically - and the bigger the entity the larger those spaces are.

This time last year weren't we all laughing at Scotland for wanting to leave the UK stating how it'd cripple the country if they did despite them being fed up of our rules affecting them?
Yet now we basically want to do a Scotland with the EU?

See your point but (said as someone who'll likely vote REMAIN) it's not quite the same as whilst the EU can be said to be economically beneficial to the UK, it sure as hell isn't bankrolling it, which was effectively the bulk of the argument with the sweaties.

Hero wrote:This time last year weren't we all laughing at Scotland for wanting to leave the UK stating how it'd cripple the country if they did despite them being fed up of our rules affecting them?
Yet now we basically want to do a Scotland with the EU?

You forget though that you were the 'EU' in that argument; - and Brexiters would recognise the similarities - any apocalyptic argument to cling on to Scotland was worth a shot.
How do Scotland feel after the vote? Cranking up the machine to have another shot at it again sometime in the future? Were they fully moved by the arguments of Armageddon? I don't think any commentator would suggest so.

Hero wrote:This time last year weren't we all laughing at Scotland for wanting to leave the UK stating how it'd cripple the country if they did despite them being fed up of our rules affecting them?
Yet now we basically want to do a Scotland with the EU?

Entirely different. The SNP's plan for independence was a complete joke, in economic terms.