UK election result 'blew away' argument for second Brexit vote: Labour's Starmer

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Still fighting the last referendum eh?

If you are so confident then lets have another referendum and you can kill off independence for the next 50 years.

Nah. That's what you said last time. You'll have to wait.

 

[Rookiescot]

35 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Nah. That's what you said last time. You'll have to wait.

 

Nope.

We will not wait.

And there is nothing liar Johnson or all you Brexiteers can do about it.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Nope.

We will not wait.

And there is nothing liar Johnson or all you Brexiteers can do about it.

Calm down dear! Name calling doesn't help your cause, just because you didn't get the answer you want (SNP) this time. You have had a referendum given to you and you lost, referendums are meant to last a generation as Alex Salmon said. Not only that as you very well know referendums are not legally binding, most of the Scots are very happy with our Union, but unfortunately the SNP wishes to impose their will against the unionists in Scotland, that is not democracy, go with the majority and you will have a more peacefull life.

[RuamRudy]

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

Calm down dear! Name calling doesn't help your cause, just because you didn't get the answer you want (SNP) this time. You have had a referendum given to you and you lost, referendums are meant to last a generation as Alex Salmon said. Not only that as you very well know referendums are not legally binding, most of the Scots are very happy with our Union, but unfortunately the SNP wishes to impose their will against the unionists in Scotland, that is not democracy, go with the majority and you will have a more peacefull life.

Not true Vogie. Although it depends upon how you define 'Scots', the fact is that most people who were born in Scotland and voted in 2014 actually voted to leave the union. The vote was swayed towards remain by those who were born elsewhere.

 

The UK hasn't become a better place to live since 2014; quite the contrary in fact, so I am pretty confident that not only are you wrong when you state that most Scots were happy with the union in 2014, but your statement is even further from the truth now. 

[vogie]

17 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Not true Vogie. Although it depends upon how you define 'Scots', the fact is that most people who were born in Scotland and voted in 2014 actually voted to leave the union. The vote was swayed towards remain by those who were born elsewhere.

 

The UK hasn't become a better place to live since 2014; quite the contrary in fact, so I am pretty confident that not only are you wrong when you state that most Scots were happy with the union in 2014, but your statement is even further from the truth now. 

You don't think that people living in Scotland should have a right to vote and to determine their futures, maybe non born Scots should be rounded up and repatronised to their own country of origin or even ghettoised. Of course I know you personally would never think like this, but I think it is a road we should not go down.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

You don't think that people living in Scotland should have a right to vote and to determine their futures, maybe non born Scots should be rounded up and repatronised to their own country of origin or even ghettoised. Of course I know you personally would never think like this, but I think it is a road we should not go down.

 

 

Not at all and I am wholly certain that you never intended to suggest otherwise. Everyone who resides in and contributes to Scotland should, in my opinion, have an equal say in how the country is managed and run, even if their opinions are contrary to mine.

 

But I was pointing out that you were incorrect in your statement, and I think it is important to recognise that fact. For example, a significant number of EU voters in 2014 would have voted no not out of love for the union but for fear of having to leave an independent Scotland outside the EU. Wholly academic, of course, because the sum of all parts forms the whole. 

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Calm down dear! Name calling doesn't help your cause, just because you didn't get the answer you want (SNP) this time. You have had a referendum given to you and you lost, referendums are meant to last a generation as Alex Salmon said. Not only that as you very well know referendums are not legally binding, most of the Scots are very happy with our Union, but unfortunately the SNP wishes to impose their will against the unionists in Scotland, that is not democracy, go with the majority and you will have a more peacefull life.

How do you know what most Scots want unless you ask them?

[Rookiescot]

For all the Brexiteers and democracy nay sayers. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp8aTvVqE7I

 

Knock yourselves out guys.

[Rookiescot]

[sandyf]

On 1/15/2020 at 12:37 PM, jayboy said:

There was never a lifetime or any other kind of block.There was a general view it was a once in a generation matter, but it's true this has been overtaken by events.I don't know why some keep harping on about this pointlessly.It reminds me of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

It may come as a surprise but courts do not pay much attention to a general view.

Make no mistake, the Scottish government will harp on, much the same as the brexiteers. 

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

That is incorrect, there is no such statement in the white paper, it doesn't even appear in the Preface or the Introduction.

Surprisingly, the white paper starts at Page 1, about 18 pages before that there is an untitled introductory note that contains the following paragraph. Alex Salmond has acknowledged this as a personal comment prior to the official and signed Preface and it can not be considered part of the document.

 

"If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others."

https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0043/00439021.pdf

 

Maybe someone can point out where the word "referendum" appears.

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

On 1/15/2020 at 12:37 PM, jayboy said:

 

It may come as a surprise but courts do not pay much attention to a general view.

Nor should they.But for the time being Boris will use this "understanding" as one of the reasons for denying a second referendum.But I agree it will soon be difficult perhaps impossible for him to do so.

[vogie]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

How do you know what most Scots want unless you ask them?

They have been asked.

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

It may come as a surprise but courts do not pay much attention to a general view.

Make no mistake, the Scottish government will harp on, much the same as the brexiteers. 

The latter will vanish in a fortnight's time; to be replaced by the term 'rejoiners' as previously explained.

[Monomial]

35 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That is incorrect, there is no such statement in the white paper, it doesn't even appear in the Preface or the Introduction.

Surprisingly, the white paper starts at Page 1, about 18 pages before that there is an untitled introductory note that contains the following paragraph. Alex Salmond has acknowledged this as a personal comment prior to the official and signed Preface and it can not be considered part of the document.

 

"If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others."

https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0043/00439021.pdf

 

Maybe someone can point out where the word "referendum" appears.

 

Seems obvious to me. "Opportunity" refers to the vote. In other words, the vote allows you to take one of 2 paths, thus the meaning of a "different path".    So are you saying that there is another kind of "vote" that is not a "referendum"?  Unless you are planning on reenacting Bravehart, the only possible meaning I can see for vote is a referendum on independence so you can make your own decisions about Scotland.

 

Whether it was part of the document or a personal comment by its author, it is clear that it was considered to be a "once in a generation" choosing of paths.

[melvinmelvin]

54 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Nor should they.But for the time being Boris will use this "understanding" as one of the reasons for denying a second referendum.But I agree it will soon be difficult perhaps impossible for him to do so.

 

re BJ's refusal,

how long is a generation in Westminster speak? Or D10 speak for that matter?

 

 

[bannork]

When is the report on Russian intereference in the 2016 Brexit referendum going to be released by the government?

[jayboy]

13 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

re BJ's refusal,

how long is a generation in Westminster speak? Or D10 speak for that matter?

 

 

20 to 25 years

[Rookiescot]

15 minutes ago, jayboy said:

20 to 25 years

So Johnson said it was a once in a generation opportunity regarding the last general election.

Does this mean we cant have another general election for 20 to 25 years? 

[evadgib]

53 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So Johnson said it was a once in a generation opportunity regarding the last general election.

Does this mean we cant have another general election for 20 to 25 years? 

<can't be bothered>

Edited January 16, 2020 by evadgib

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

20 to 25 years

Is that in a document somewhere? The only official guidance I have seen re: a generation is the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which sets out a generation as 7 years. 

[jayboy]

24 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Is that in a document somewhere? The only official guidance I have seen re: a generation is the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which sets out a generation as 7 years. 

To be honest I don't think there is one correct answer.IMO 7 years is a bit short and 25 a bit long.Essentially it means quite a long time and since it's completely non binding, is it worth agonizing about?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51120175

[TheDark]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

To be honest I don't think there is one correct answer.IMO 7 years is a bit short and 25 a bit long.Essentially it means quite a long time and since it's completely non binding, is it worth agonizing about?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51120175

We marry for life, until death do us apart. 

 

Yet many, perhaps most, marriages end before that once in a lifetime commitment is over. 

 

When situations change, the original deal becomes invalid, it's often best to reevaluate where we are at and act accordingly. That reevaluation happened with Britain leaving one union. It changed the whole marriage between Britain and Scotland. 

 

It's fair to allow Scotland to ask it's country's citizens, what they want to do and with whom they wish to continue their journey. 

[Rookiescot]

3 hours ago, evadgib said:

<can't be bothered>

Can't actually come up with a rebuttal is what you meant to say.

[sandyf]

On 1/16/2020 at 5:07 PM, Monomial said:

Whether it was part of the document or a personal comment by its author, it is clear that it was considered to be a "once in a generation" choosing of paths.

So like Bojo you think a personal comment should be legally binding on the nation.

 

In the last few days the sale of a King Edward crown was described as a once in a generation opportunity. Are we to take it another one cannot be sold for a generation.

If ad lib remarks were fixed in law, we would be looking through the ditches.

[sandyf]

On 1/16/2020 at 9:08 PM, TheDark said:

We marry for life, until death do us apart. 

 

Yet many, perhaps most, marriages end before that once in a lifetime commitment is over. 

 

When situations change, the original deal becomes invalid, it's often best to reevaluate where we are at and act accordingly. That reevaluation happened with Britain leaving one union. It changed the whole marriage between Britain and Scotland. 

 

It's fair to allow Scotland to ask it's country's citizens, what they want to do and with whom they wish to continue their journey. 

Exactly, the outcome may well be the same as 2014 but it is up to the people of Scotland to make the choice.

 

The reality is that the EU could never support Scottish independence as long as the UK was a member of the EU, that is about to change.

The UK signed up to the UN charter.

 

While the UN Charter serves as a kind of world Constitution and article 103 is unmistakable in stipulating that the Charter prevails over all other treaties, the political narrative does not always conform to this legality. There is a degree of “fragmentation” in international law, which States invoke self-servingly to apply international law selectively, violating general principles of law -- not by accident, but deliberately and calculatingly, just to see whether they can get away with it. 

 

Even though self-determination has emerged as a jus cogens right, superior to many other international law principles, including territorial integrity, it is not self-executing.  There have been many legitimate claimants to the right of self-determination who have seen their right denied with impunity by occupying powers.

https://academic.oup.com/bybil/article-pdf/48/1/443/6704778/48-1-443.pdf

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Exactly, the outcome may well be the same as 2014 but it is up to the people of Scotland to make the choice.

The people of Scotland have made that choice, unfortunately the SNP doesn't like the choice they have chosen. 

[Kwasaki]

On 1/6/2020 at 9:54 AM, webfact said:

it is important for all of us, including myself, to recognise that the argument about leave and remain goes with it," Starmer said

Which should of happened at the time after the referendum.

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

The people of Scotland have made that choice, unfortunately the SNP doesn't like the choice they have chosen. 

Scotland made the choice on the basis of being part of two unions, but you like many others think they know better.

Every chance if the situation remained the same the outcome would remain the same, however the situation is not the same so the people of Scotland have every right to reconsider their position.

Neither you nor anyone else has any idea if brexit has altered public opinion in Scotland, and there is only one way to find out.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Scotland made the choice on the basis of being part of two unions, but you like many others think they know better.

Every chance if the situation remained the same the outcome would remain the same, however the situation is not the same so the people of Scotland have every right to reconsider their position.

Neither you nor anyone else has any idea if brexit has altered public opinion in Scotland, and there is only one way to find out.

The SNP wanted out even before the Brexit referendum and I have no doubt that if the EU referendum had been reversed, the SNP would still have hankered after another referendum and another and another. So in that respect it made no difference, it just gave the SNP an even bigger stick to beat the rest of the UK with.

But a generation is not long to wait for your indy2, 25/30 years is neither here nor there in the respect of referendums.