Scotland must be given new independence vote - Sturgeon

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, vogie said:

How come it's second in terms of importance, because you say so? It cannot possibly work, you'll have two goverments pulling in opposite directions and never the twain shall meet.

I saw a Survation poll recently but am unable to locate it now stating that in terms of priorities that separation is about 7th on the list, but in your leaders eyes it is number 1 priority, she was put on this earth to separate the Scots from the English. 

 

Are you seriously trying to say that the SNP manifesto played no part in the election results?

Maybe you think polls are more accurate than people getting elected.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, crobe said:

The main argument against a new Scottish referendum is the quote from Alex Salmond - leader of the SNP at the time of the last referendum in 2014 that it would be a "once in a generation opportunity"

This is cited by many of the people against a new referendum - and they also point to the fact that it was over 40 years between the two referenda on Europe (joining the European Common Market in 1974 and leaving the EU in 2016).

The arguments for a new referendum in 2016 were the many changes in the structure and the relationship with the EU over the previous years which had changed the balance of sovereignty between the parties.

The Scottish argument is also that Brexit is a similar constitutional change made after the Scottish referendum.

 

In the speech from Alex Salmond where the quote of generational opportunity is cited,  he refers to the "eighteen-year gap between the devolution referenda held in 1979 and in 1997 as an example of the generational opportunity." 

18 years is also the voting age in the UK, so it could be argued that every 18 years there is a whole "generation" which has yet to vote on that specific issue.

 

It is therefore not a question of "if" Scotland should be allowed a new referendum, but only of "when" - 40 years, 18 years or less.

 

My own personal view is that at least 10 years should be the minimum time between such similar referenda - and so a vote in 2024 could be a compromise, once the Scottish people have seen the effects of Brexit play out and a new UK general election has been held.

 

 

It is telling that the only consistent argument against independence is a throwaway remark that had no legal or procedural implications whatsoever, and bore no significance at all until 2 years after the event. If you listen to the unionist politicians north of the border, even they fail repeatedly to offer a coherent and consistent narrative to shore up that sinking ship, but fall back on that 'once in a generation' quip as their main defence. 

 

I keep hearing this 'wait to see what Brexit bring' nonsense as if, as a country, we are all going to say en-mass that we suddenly see it as something positive. We were massively unconvinced in 2016, and the subsequent years of incompetence, lying and corruption by successive Tory administrations in this regard have done nothing to change anyone's mind. England can bask in the glory of its Brexit as much as it likes - we want nothing to do with it. 

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, teatree said:

I think you need to distinguish between two different definitions of what country means.

 

The UK is a country.  Technically speaking.  It has a capital (London) and its goverenment is elected by the constituants of whole of the UK and represented at Westminster.  THIS IS THE SOVEREIGN STATE.  

 

England, NI, Scotland and Wales are also countries individually but not in the same sense.  It is more of a culural and ethnic sense of the word.  Individually these countries may have some devolution but they are still underneath the UK. So no, individually they are not sovereign states.  The sovereign state is the UK.

 

Sayimg that Sturgeon should have unilateral rights to declare independence is like saying  the Lomdon Assembley should have the same rights to declare an independent London city state.  No, they are both part of the UK governmemt at Westminster (you know the UK as a country in the 1st definition above, the one connected with law) and must 1st seek approval from the UK parliamemt.

A total of 63 "countries" have broken free of Westminster domination.

Why shouldn't it be 64?, apart from the fact that Bojo hasn't got the bxxxx to tell the queen.

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

 

Your last paragraph is incorrect, she does have the right of UDI although it would be a risky move, but not without precedent. The UK formally supported the UDI by Kosovo in 2008.

 

A unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the state from which it is seceding. The term was first used when Rhodesia declared independence in 1965 from the United Kingdom (UK) without an agreement with the UK.

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

[vogie]

35 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

It is telling that the only consistent argument against independence is a throwaway remark that had no legal or procedural implications whatsoever, and bore no significance at all until 2 years after the event. If you listen to the unionist politicians north of the border, even they fail repeatedly to offer a coherent and consistent narrative to shore up that sinking ship, but fall back on that 'once in a generation' quip as their main defence.  

 

I keep hearing this 'wait to see what Brexit bring' nonsense as if, as a country, we are all going to say en-mass that we suddenly see it as something positive. We were massively unconvinced in 2016, and the subsequent years of incompetence, lying and corruption by successive Tory administrations in this regard have done nothing to change anyone's mind. England can bask in the glory of its Brexit as much as it likes - we want nothing to do with it. 

It is telling that the only consistent argument against independence is a throwaway remark that had no legal or procedural implications whatsoever, and bore no significance at all until 2 years after the event.

But it wasn't "just a throwaway" remark now was it (unless you are in denial of course), it was also written down in the Edinburgh Agreement and signed by no less than Salmond and Sturgeon. You are moving the goal posts so much that the football pitch is now resembling a field.

 

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

Quote

 

It is therefore not a question of "if" Scotland should be allowed a new referendum, but only of "when" - 40 years, 18 years or less.

Why would a sovereign nation need someone’s permission for a referendum or for independence? So that’s the real question here: Does the UK want to continue treating its members like colonies or will it start acting like a democracy?
 

Of course, we know the answer.

 

After Brexit, you have now two unions competing, with the EU offering much more clout, better benefits, the freedom to leave anytime, and no Brexiteers and their incompetence and lies. Same as the Soviet states had to force their people to stay, the UKSSR is keeping its member states as prisoners to prevent its failing club from collapsing. But eventually that will happen.  

 

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by welovesundaysatspace

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

It is telling that the only consistent argument against independence is a throwaway remark that had no legal or procedural implications whatsoever, and bore no significance at all until 2 years after the event.

But it wasn't "just a throwaway" remark now was it (unless you are in denial of course), it was also written down in the Edinburgh Agreement and signed by no less than Salmond and Sturgeon. You are moving the goal posts so much that the football pitch is now resembling a field.

 

 

Is it? Are you sure of that? Would you bet your house on it? I suggest you actually read it before posting such wholly incorrect statements. So, as for being in denial - yes, I am in denial when it comes to incorrect statements being touted as fact. 

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Is it? Are you sure of that? Would you bet your house on it? I suggest you actually read it before posting such wholly incorrect statements. So, as for being in denial - yes, I am in denial when it comes to incorrect statements being touted as fact. 

What part of "decisive" is so dificult to understand, after all what can't speak can't lie.

[KarenBravo]

Why is it that many Sottish independence supporters remind me of Trump supporters?

[RuamRudy]

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

What part of "decisive" is so dificult to understand, after all what can't speak can't lie.

 

Talk about changing the goalposts - now you are totally reinventing the game after the match is concluded.

 

I repeat what I stated: 'once in a generation' was a throwaway remark that had no legal or procedural implications. You retorted with:

 

30 minutes ago, vogie said:

But it wasn't "just a throwaway" remark now was it (unless you are in denial of course), it was also written down in the Edinburgh Agreement and signed by no less than Salmond and Sturgeon.

And, when challenged, not only have you failed to back up your claim but you have actually proven me correct. Then in a remarkable display of chutzpah, you even try to suggest that I was wrong.

 

15 minutes ago, vogie said:

What part of "decisive" is so dificult to understand, after all what can't speak can't lie.

 

What part of 'decisive' is contained in 'once in a generation'?

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Why is it that many Sottish independence supporters remind me of Trump supporters?

I don't know. Could it be because critical analysis is not your strong point?

[vogie]

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Talk about changing the goalposts - now you are totally reinventing the game after the match is concluded.

 

I repeat what I stated: 'once in a generation' was a throwaway remark that had no legal or procedural implications. You retorted with:

 

And, when challenged, not only have you failed to back up your claim but you have actually proven me correct. Then in a remarkable display of chutzpah, you even try to suggest that I was wrong.

 

 

What part of 'decisive' is contained in 'once in a generation'?

I have never known a SNP member/follower to be wrong yet, why should it be any different now.????

 

Your interpretation of a "throwaway remark is generally the reserve of SNP members/followers only.

 

And for the members on here that have not yet decyphered the SNP code. We the Scots mean..... We the SNP, and when Westminster is used, it means the English.????

Edited July 31, 2020 by vogie

[KarenBravo]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I don't know. Could it be because critical analysis is not your strong point?

That's it! Both don't do critical thinking. Thanks!

[welovesundaysatspace]

18 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Why is it that many Sottish independence supporters remind me of Trump supporters?

Why is it that you remind me of a Trump supporter? 

[transam]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Talk about changing the goalposts - now you are totally reinventing the game after the match is concluded.

 

I repeat what I stated: 'once in a generation' was a throwaway remark that had no legal or procedural implications. You retorted with:

 

And, when challenged, not only have you failed to back up your claim but you have actually proven me correct. Then in a remarkable display of chutzpah, you even try to suggest that I was wrong.

 

 

What part of 'decisive' is contained in 'once in a generation'?

You are in denial chap.....Even a half brain dope like me can understand the wording in that agreement. You really should get over it, the same as the Brexit losers....Move on..

[transam]

Just now, welovesundaysatspace said:

Why is it that you remind me of a Trump supporter? 

You are from the USA....?..

[welovesundaysatspace]

Just now, transam said:

You are from the USA....?..

I’m from Space. ❤️ 

[KarenBravo]

9 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Why is it that you remind me of a Trump supporter? 

Because I'm useless at golf?

[transam]

6 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I’m from Space. ❤️ 

Think all farangs are in LOS......????

[RuamRudy]

44 minutes ago, vogie said:

I have never known a SNP member/follower to be wrong yet, why should it be any different now.????

 

We are not infallible, but when you post such easy to refute statements, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. 

 

45 minutes ago, vogie said:

Your interpretation of a "throwaway remark is generally the reserve of SNP members/followers only.

 

Your insistence of it being enshrined in some sort of agrement is... WRONG. It is solely the preserve of those who are thrashing about wildly trying to find any tiny little chance of a retort. 

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

We are not infallible, but when you post such easy to refute statements, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. 

 

Your insistence of it being enshrined in some sort of agrement is... WRONG. It is solely the preserve of those who are thrashing about wildly trying to find any tiny little chance of a retort. 

I totally understand, if you admit that the Edinburgh Agreement says "definitive" and "a result that everyone will respect" your arguments will go down the pan. Again I understand.

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

I totally understand, if you admit that the Edinburgh Agreement says "definitive" and "a result that everyone will respect" your arguments will go down the pan. Again I understand.

But the chain of comments with which I was involved were in relation to the statement 'once in a generation'. The only overlap between that statement and those you are sticking by is the word 'a'. If it makes you feel victorious, I concede - both statements had similarities in that they both contained the word 'a'. 

[transam]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

But the chain of comments with which I was involved were in relation to the statement 'once in a generation'. The only overlap between that statement and those you are sticking by is the word 'a'. If it makes you feel victorious, I concede - both statements had similarities in that they both contained the word 'a'. 

????............I must give you 8 out of 10 for effort though......????

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

What part of "decisive" is so dificult to understand, after all what can't speak can't lie.

Where in that agreement does it say "Once in a generation?".

[evadgib]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I love it when economically illiterate people from another country try to explain the finances of my own. Scotland has no deficit. None whatsoever. It is a total impossibility for it to have one. Your statement of the contrary indicates just how little you understand about what you post. 

 

Our desire to remain in the EU was greater than our desire to remain in the UK. That was 2014 - the desire former has remained strong, the appeal of latter is crumbling by the day. 

???????????????????????????? was never IN the ????????!

[crobe]

4 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

I can see your 10 years minimum view

but

where does seen Brexit effects

and new UK GE come into it?

 

Just a question of timing.

It is now impossible for a new referendum vote to be held in Scotland prior to the exit of the UK from the EU on 31st December 2020 due to the logistics of organising a vote and agreeing the ballot question. Therefore Scotland will have already left the EU - along with the rest of the UK - before any new vote could be taken. It would seem sensible to then see the ramifications of the Brexit decision which could have a pronounced effect on the way in which people would vote.

 

There will be elections held in Scotland in May 2021 which may, or may not, give further impetus to the SNP cause, but the granting of a referendum under section 30 of the UK law means that it is unlikely that the current UK government with its majority will accede to this within this parliament which comes to an end in May 2024.

 

As the current parliament cannot bind a future parliament it would seem sensible that a new referendum date should therefore be 2024 at the earliest.

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, crobe said:

Just a question of timing.

It is now impossible for a new referendum vote to be held in Scotland prior to the exit of the UK from the EU on 31st December 2020 due to the logistics of organising a vote and agreeing the ballot question. Therefore Scotland will have already left the EU - along with the rest of the UK - before any new vote could be taken. It would seem sensible to then see the ramifications of the Brexit decision which could have a pronounced effect on the way in which people would vote.

 

There will be elections held in Scotland in May 2021 which may, or may not, give further impetus to the SNP cause, but the granting of a referendum under section 30 of the UK law means that it is unlikely that the current UK government with its majority will accede to this within this parliament which comes to an end in May 2024.

 

As the current parliament cannot bind a future parliament it would seem sensible that a new referendum date should therefore be 2024 at the earliest.

If, as is expected, the SNP dominate the 2021 Holyrood elections standing on a manifesto promise to demand a new referendum, would you be comfortable with Westminster denying that? What if they took 100% of the votes? Would you still be comfortable with such a refusal?  

[welovesundaysatspace]

52 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Where in that agreement does it say "Once in a generation?".

It is written in the same invisible ink that only Brexiteers read which also wrote on the referendum ballot paper that “no deal is ok, BRINO is not”. 
 

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by welovesundaysatspace

[crobe]

34 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

If, as is expected, the SNP dominate the 2021 Holyrood elections standing on a manifesto promise to demand a new referendum, would you be comfortable with Westminster denying that? What if they took 100% of the votes? Would you still be comfortable with such a refusal?  

You assume that I am not in favour of a vote - I am far from being comfortable with a refusal by the UK government but it has been the statements from the current prime Minister that he would not grant a section 30 notice within this parliament.

 

My own views on independence referenda are the following:

I think the UN council resolutions of the 1950s on self-determination which were the basis for dismantling colonialism post-war should be equally applied to any contiguous grouping within a country or dominated by a foreign country which can show support for such a change.

I therefore support the right of the Scottish government for a referendum if they can prove they have popular backing, I would also similarly support such a constitutional question in Catalonia, Kosovo, Taiwan, Macau, Papua or any other similar territory.

 

The problem is how Governments have used social engineering in the past, and currently still so so - for example - Russian agitation and somewhat dubious claims for the vote in Crimea, and are now agitating for independence (i.e, secession and joining Russia) for enclaves in Ukraine, Moldova and Estonia, but forcefully put down any secessionist movement in the Caucasus. China also uses social engineering and mass relocations to try to negate any secession in Tibet or Xinjiang.

 

It could be said that the British did the same 300 years ago in Northern Ireland and the Falklands - so some care has to be taken when looking at what is the current status.      

[melvinmelvin]

29 minutes ago, crobe said:

You assume that I am not in favour of a vote - I am far from being comfortable with a refusal by the UK government but it has been the statements from the current prime Minister that he would not grant a section 30 notice within this parliament.

 

My own views on independence referenda are the following:

I think the UN council resolutions of the 1950s on self-determination which were the basis for dismantling colonialism post-war should be equally applied to any contiguous grouping within a country or dominated by a foreign country which can show support for such a change.

I therefore support the right of the Scottish government for a referendum if they can prove they have popular backing, I would also similarly support such a constitutional question in Catalonia, Kosovo, Taiwan, Macau, Papua or any other similar territory.

 

The problem is how Governments have used social engineering in the past, and currently still so so - for example - Russian agitation and somewhat dubious claims for the vote in Crimea, and are now agitating for independence (i.e, secession and joining Russia) for enclaves in Ukraine, Moldova and Estonia, but forcefully put down any secessionist movement in the Caucasus. China also uses social engineering and mass relocations to try to negate any secession in Tibet or Xinjiang.

 

It could be said that the British did the same 300 years ago in Northern Ireland and the Falklands - so some care has to be taken when looking at what is the current status.      

 

at least a new angle of addressing the issue

 

bringing up this POT (piece of text) from the 50s, I'm not familiar with that POT but my guess is that it

probably was mainly intended for sorting Africa, ME and SEA, I might be wrong though

 

applying that POT, today, to Spain and UK raises some eyebrows  in legal circles I would guess

hmm, Texas and California out of USA - next

 

when things surface this way one would normally ask/study what was the lawmakers intention at the time

 

 

 

[vogie]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:45 PM, Nigel Garvie said:

I very rarely meet unionists, but I'm sure there must be some reasonable ones about.

I'm sure you're correct, there maybe even some really nice ones if you look hard enough.

On 7/30/2020 at 1:45 PM, Nigel Garvie said:

The Scottish, with the exception of a few hotheads that you find in any society, definitely do not hate the English. The DNA evidence now is that we are all totally intermingled, in fact a bunch of mongrels. I am one, my Dad (Also one!) was born and brought up in Leeds, and served in a Yorkshire regiment through WW11. 

 

You know what I might even be more Scottish than you, my grandfather was born in the Gorbals in 1898, when he left I'm not sure but he enlisted with the DLI in West Hartlepool in 1915, (found his records on the DLI website.) He came out a RQMS and lived the rest of his life out in the North East.

 

On 7/30/2020 at 1:45 PM, Nigel Garvie said:

The Scottish, with the exception of a few hotheads that you find in any society, definitely do not hate the English. The DNA evidence now is that we are all totally intermingled, in fact a bunch of mongrels. I am one, my Dad (Also one!) was born and brought up in Leeds, and served in a Yorkshire regiment through WW11. 

Double click, sorry.

On 7/30/2020 at 1:45 PM, Nigel Garvie said:

However, no amount of ranting about politics from any point of view, will ever disguise that there are huge cultural differences that go way beyond whisky, and kilts. Scots egalitarian social views have more in common with the Nordic countries than with England. 

I think we are more alike than you give credit for.

Edited July 31, 2020 by vogie