UK PM Johnson cannot keep Scotland in union against its will: Sturgeon

[Denim]

Who wants to keep Scotland in the union ???? Not the average man Englishman in the street. Only politicians care.

 

If they want a free and independent country the English would love to let. them have it. Same applies to Northern Ireland. 

 

We are not the problem. They need to get the voters in those places to vote for it.

 

If there are too many there that won't vote to leave then agitate to have English voters decide. We will vote for what those living there won't.

 

Not saying this out of malice but rather a desire to see as many people happy as possible , both English and Scottish etc.

 

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, vogie said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the EU should have a say in the UK leaving them. Scotland is part of the UK (snip)

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK should have a say in Scotland leaving them.

UK is part of the EU ...

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

And over 2 million votes for remaining in our Union. No contest!

Nonsense - it was a General Election, not an independence referendum. 

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Nonsense - it was a General Election, not an independence referendum. 

Which ever way you want to spin it, over 2 million Scots voted to remain in our Union, whilst only 1.25 million voted for the SNP, this is a fact.

[vogie]

17 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK should have a say in Scotland leaving them.

UK is part of the EU ...

Only fair to let you know Steven I have blocked you as it's like debating with a 5 year old.

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

Which ever way you want to spin it, over 2 million Scots voted to remain in our Union, whilst only 1.25 million voted for the SNP, this is a fact.

You are very mistaken if you think that independence supporters on vote for the SNP. There are Scots Tories for Yes, Scots Labour for Yes, Green Party is totally pro indy. When we have indyref2 you will see.

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, Scot123 said:

How easy they forget their own campaign where they promised labour voters in Scotland to vote for them and they would back Labour in Westminster so they picked up the Labour vote. I was SNP for 30+ years then Red Pilled after the referendum and started researching the SNP. I now hate them with venom. They have defaced my flag their hatred and ignarance is disgusting and blaming Westminster for the mess you have made of the country while screaming for independence (one of two words they need to read the meaning of the other word nationalism) while telling Westminster they are not ready for more devolved powers. As of today I will wear a Union Jack on my clothes (ordered yesterday) just to say F you. 90% of Scottish Veterans I know are very proud Brit/Scots. 

For a 30 year SNP veteran, you seem very bitter. It is almost as if you think that the destination is actually the SNP rather than independence. Can you provide evidence of the hatred you mention? If you were backing the party for 3 decades, did you passively sit back and allow all this hatred you mention to flow unimpeded or did you partake in it? Why did it take you 30 years to read the meaning of the two words you mention? What did these words mean to you when you were a supporter?

 

Look, I am definitely not saying that I don't believe a single word of what you wrote, it's just that it seems a bit... strange.

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Just for the record and in case you missed it. They did and voted to remain.

 

So now we have that straight I hope the EU will do the same for all the countries in the EU.

But just like Brexit, the winning side was built on lies, whether it being 'the only way to remain in the EU is to remain in the UK' to telling pensioners that they would lose their pensions in the event of a Yes vote.

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, dabhand said:

The 'once in a generation' remark was contained in the Scottish Government White Paper of November 2013. Stated by Alex Salmond in his position as First Minister of Scotland. 

Throwaway remark? Hardly.

 

Totally a throwaway remark of the 'once in a blue moon' variety. If you think it has any legal bearing whatsoever, then fine, but be aware people will look at you and shake their heads slowly. 

[RuamRudy]

11 hours ago, vogie said:

You conveniently saying it is a throwaway remark, doesn't make it so.

 

The former First Minister claimed he had not used the phrase “once in a lifetime” in a 2014 television interview to describe the vote and insisted he had instead said it was the “opportunity of a lifetime.”

However, footage and an official transcript of the interview showed he did use the “once in a lifetime” phrase when asked whether he would pledge not to “bring back another referendum” if the nationalists lost.

Speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr on the Sunday before the September 2014 vote, Mr Salmond said: "In my view this is a once in a generation - perhaps even a once in a lifetime - opportunity."

Fine - but in my view it wasn't. My view is no less valid than his, however as it appears in legal document, our personal views are irrelevant, just like that throwaway remark.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Fine - but in my view it wasn't. My view is no less valid than his, however as it appears in legal document, our personal views are irrelevant, just like that throwaway remark.

As you are a fanantical pro indy2 supporter I wouldn't expect you to say anything else RR, you are a decent person, but what went wrong Rudy?

[Jip99]

The SNP is a bit of a joke really - 45% of the vote but 81% of the seats.

 

I don’t buy RR’s assertion that there are loads of Tories who want independence...... Boris has no appetite for another referendum so nationalists have one real choice.... SNP or bust.

 

SNP gets less than 32% of the electorate, Indyref1 polls 38% of the Scottish electorate.  for independence 
 

Makes Boris’ mandate look pretty strong.

[david555]

O.K. good news , let's hope it get voted , so progress can be made , staying in neutral gear is not helping anyone

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/16/brexit-boris-johnson-plan-set-to-be-put-before-mps-on-friday

Brexit: Boris Johnson's plan set to be put before MPs on Friday

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

So being consistent it is not UK's decision to leave the EU but the EU's.

 

the cases are not directly comparable,

 

you are juggling apples and  cabbages

 

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

not a wise comment in my view, cases are not directly comparable,

 

you are juggling apples and  cabbages

 

And why would that be please? Imo there are differences, but they are comparable.

[melvinmelvin]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And why would that be please? Imo there are differences, but they are comparable.

 

EU is a treaty based coop between sovereign states.

NI SCOTLAND WALES are not sovereign states, except when it comes to sports.

 

The legal integration in EU has grown overtime but is still far far less than in UK.

The EU member states still have quite some legal freedom and can shape their societies

as they feel fit:

 

NHS type stuff, pensions, labour laws, justice system, taxation, education,

not to mention culture which is very important in forming societies, currency (for the old members)

among a heap of other areas are pretty much in the hands of the members to form

as they fancy,

the integration has gone a lot further in the UK

 

and a very important difference,

EU has an agreed and written procedure for how to discontinue membership, unlike UK

 

 

 

[Rookiescot]

Not sure you British Nationalists are thinking this through.

 

Johnson (who is generally despised in Scotland) is going to tell Scotland NO you are not allowed to leave?

 

Pretty much the greatest recruitment drive the SNP could ever hope for.

You guys only have one hope. Give the section 30 and pray. 

I would wish you luck but...... meh.

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

EU is a treaty based coop between sovereign states.

NI SCOTLAND WALES are not sovereign states, except when it comes to sports.

 

The legal integration in EU has grown overtime but is still far far less than in UK.

The EU member states still have quite some legal freedom and can shape their societies

as they feel fit:

 

NHS type stuff, pensions, labour laws, justice system, taxation, education,

not to mention culture which is very important in forming societies, currency (for the old members)

among a heap of other areas are pretty much in the hands of the members to form

as they fancy,

the integration has gone a lot further in the UK

 

and a very important difference,

EU has an agreed and written procedure for how to discontinue membership, unlike UK

 

 

 

Yes, those are valid reasons. As said, there are differences but they are comparable.

Except for the first of these differences none explain why the nation's left should have a voice in the will of the nation leaving. They are merely practical issues, culture an emotional one. But of course this whole issue is emotional in stead of rational, look at the argumentation. You're the first to come with any sort of rationale against.

[david555]

32 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Not sure you British Nationalists are thinking this through.

 

Johnson (who is generally despised in Scotland) is going to tell Scotland NO you are not allowed to leave?

 

Pretty much the greatest recruitment drive the SNP could ever hope for.

You guys only have one hope. Give the section 30 and pray. 

I would wish you luck but...... meh.

 

Detailed how it works 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17593573.section-30-what-is-it-how-does-it-work-and-can-scotland-hold-another-referendum-without-it/

[JulesMad]

Go Scotland, go! Leave the sinking ship called UK ????

[melvinmelvin]

 

 

pals

 

[david555]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

 

pals

 

Both election winners.... 

[melvinmelvin]

5 minutes ago, david555 said:

Both election winners.... 

 

yes,

and using their victories for conflicting purposes . . .

 

 

[david555]

18 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

yes,

and using their victories for conflicting purposes . . .

 

 

Yes.., but... but …. he started it ….! ????  And she took the advantage ..

 

BTW …. what lines those plotters were drawing there , is that green line not Adrians wall...?? LOL...

[puipuitom]

4 hours ago, Jip99 said:

The SNP is a bit of a joke really - 45% of the vote but 81% of the seats.

 

I don’t buy RR’s assertion that there are loads of Tories who want independence...... Boris has no appetite for another referendum so nationalists have one real choice.... SNP or bust.

 

SNP gets less than 32% of the electorate, Indyref1 polls 38% of the Scottish electorate.  for independence 
 

Makes Boris’ mandate look pretty strong.

That's where you British choose for: the winner takes it all.

So, imagine; Brexit now 4 %, Greens 5%, Lid Dem 10%, Labour 26 %, Cons 27%, SNP 28 %= All others get nothing, SNP gets the seat. This times 48 = minority of the public votes, but.. by far the mayority of the seats.

[puipuitom]

5 hours ago, david555 said:

just talking about the rumors from both sides what could be ….as not simple those trade negotiations as already needed 3 years for only  a witdraw agreement which is even not yet passed by the HOC.

So… that's the problem of the British / English. Why AGAIN a extention to give to the British ? Simply… OUT !  1 Jan 2021 import duty in accordance with WTO-rules on all imports into the EU. And a Schengen visa. Ask teh Thais how simple to get ! 

[puipuitom]

5 hours ago, vogie said:

It had nothing to do with the EU, I know they would liked to have total control over us, they were not happy with trading they wanted total control, we escaped a regime we should never have joined. Your last sentence makes no sense to me.

Per definition it is IMPOSSIBLE the EU could ever have 100% control over any member state, as the most important decision body, the EU council, ( with Michel as successor of president Tusk) formed by the heads of government of each EU member state, so in this case the PM of the UK has to agree.

The EU Commission ( a kind of ministers), with a member from each EU member state, can only fill in what the EU council already decided. Their president, Ursula von der Leyen succeeded Juncker.

ONLY in the EU parliament a majority could overrule then 75 British members. Only.. The EU Parliament does not have so much power.

With the referendum of  June 5, 1975  the British voted with 67,23% to join the then EEC. The Losbon treaty was ratified by the British parliament ( the elected HoC 11 March 2008) as the appointend HoL - 18 June 2008) , see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon

 

When you British are going to learn your own history ?

 

[puipuitom]

6 hours ago, vogie said:

Are you on the Advocaat again Puipuitom, why do you talk in riddles, why do you ask "which 2 million votes" The 2 million that voted to remain in our Union which nearly doubles the Scots that voted for the SNP.

Maybe your English half-warm beer troubled your thinking more as my advocaat on my icecream, but:

The SNP won 48 seats after securing 45% of the votes - 8.1% more than in the last general election in 2017, when it won 35 seats. see https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50766014 . When 1,242,380  votes = 45,0% of all, my simple calculation gives the other 55% = 1.518.460 votes and NOT 2 million. Also not teh double of the SNP voters. That does NOT mean al these 1.5 mln voted for a British United Kingdom, but only the step to the SNP was "a bridge too far". ( jast as a vote for the Cons is NOT equal to.."we want a (hard) Brexit ". 

That only 45% of the votes give according the British voting system a 81% of the seats, is something I can not imagine ever happening in Netherlands. Not even after 10 bottles of advocaat. see  http://stukroodvlees.nl/als-nederland-britse-kiesstelsel-zou/  ( 2017 situation)  

Our VVD should then have 109 out of the 150 seats, the PVV (of Geert Wilders) 15 seats, CDA 8, D66 7.

With the one head, one vote: VVD: 33, PVV 20, CDA 19, D66 19. 

 

Maybe you have to switch to… Advocaat ? 

[melvinmelvin]

37 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

Maybe your English half-warm beer troubled your thinking more as my advocaat on my icecream, but:

The SNP won 48 seats after securing 45% of the votes - 8.1% more than in the last general election in 2017, when it won 35 seats. see https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50766014 . When 1,242,380  votes = 45,0% of all, my simple calculation gives the other 55% = 1.518.460 votes and NOT 2 million. Also not teh double of the SNP voters. That does NOT mean al these 1.5 mln voted for a British United Kingdom, but only the step to the SNP was "a bridge too far". ( jast as a vote for the Cons is NOT equal to.."we want a (hard) Brexit ". 

That only 45% of the votes give according the British voting system a 81% of the seats, is something I can not imagine ever happening in Netherlands. Not even after 10 bottles of advocaat. see  http://stukroodvlees.nl/als-nederland-britse-kiesstelsel-zou/  ( 2017 situation)  

Our VVD should then have 109 out of the 150 seats, the PVV (of Geert Wilders) 15 seats, CDA 8, D66 7.

With the one head, one vote: VVD: 33, PVV 20, CDA 19, D66 19. 

 

Maybe you have to switch to… Advocaat ? 

 

Tricky (and somewhat pointless) to follow such election surgery, elements easily get blurred 

when looked at through Advocaat, its way to sweet.

Looking at the same election surgery elements through whisky brings a certain degree of clarity to the matter.

 

Foggy island enjoys an antique election system that can yield some odd results now and then.

It favors large/strong political parties (maybe suitable for empire builders).

 

At any rate as being said in Yorkshire; the system is as it is - same same with results,

any juggling of numbers from dissection will not change that.

 

Provided that there is a clear majority in Scotland for leaving the UK;

More interesting (me thinks) would be to look at why the PM, cabinet and Westminster oppose it.

Any reason popping above the Advocaat surface?

 

(I can see one possible justification for rejection, I am pretty sure that it is different from what UKers

 on TVF would market as justification. BJ has his reasons, I am sure, maybe more in line with what

 I consider.)

 

 

[Laughing Gravy]

11 hours ago, david555 said:

Because it is fun to see a 18 century parliament bickering.....

But without J. Bercow I think not so much fun any more 

The best thing Bercow is not there the horrible little man who was biased and self centered. Why don't you invite him to your own parliament.