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

[sandyf]

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

Cherry picking to prove a point, doesn't prove anything. Have you got a recent up to date poll?

Talk about cherry picking, you now want to ignore the referendum result.

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Talk about cherry picking, you now want to ignore the referendum result.

So you are suggesting that because the Scots voted by 62% in 2016 to remain in the EU that means today they want to leave the UK, is this what your telling me Sandy?

[Rookiescot]

34 minutes ago, vogie said:

Now I am no expert on this RR but would you say there are voters in Scotland that are not being represented by their respective parties.

The SNP secured 48 seats with 1.25million voters.

The Labour Party secured 1 seat with just under half of what the SNP received, as the chart explains, same with the Tories only 6 seats won with 692,939 votes.

The SNP needed 25,000 votes to win one seat, whereas the Tories needed 115,000 votes to win one seat?

 

Look at the votes per seat for the conservatives and labour. 

Kind of undermines your argument.

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Look at the votes per seat for the conservatives and labour. 

Kind of undermines your argument.

Yes I've looked, "The SNP secured 25,882 per MP, while it took 115,489 votes to elect each Conservative, 65,854 for the Liberal Democrats and a whopping 511,838 votes per Labour MP." 

Does that not seem strange to you, a tad disproportionate?

 

[cleopatra2]

17 minutes ago, vogie said:

Yes I've looked, "The SNP secured 25,882 per MP, while it took 115,489 votes to elect each Conservative, 65,854 for the Liberal Democrats and a whopping 511,838 votes per Labour MP." 

Does that not seem strange to you, a tad disproportionate?

 

The votes per seat does not reflect the actual vote process. 

Taking Scotland as per your example more people when presented with a choice chose am SNP candidate to represent their constituency.

Simply agregating all the parties vote and then dividing by the number of seats won is absurd.

if we was to use this as a measure of democratic representation the Green Party would in the majority with over 800,000 votes per seat.

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

The devolved administrations have accused the UK government of taking major Brexit decisions on a unilateral basis and failing to take account the majority remain vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland – and their objections have fallen on deaf ears.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/sewel-convention-has-been-broken-brexit-reform-now-urgent

Unfortunately you can't please all of the people all of the time. It took 3.5 years for the government to defeat the remain establishment in the HoC. Would you expect them to argue with the devolved administrations for another 3.5 years, 5 years, 10 years?  I mean, it's not like the devolved administrations are going to support any form of Brexit. 

We just need to move on. 

[CG1 Blue]

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

As you say, it was a GE, not an independence referendum. There are independence supporters in both Labour and Tory camps (I am not so sure about LD) and, perversely, there are, apparently, a small number of SNP supporters who voted to stay in the UK in 2014. Politics is not cleanly defined along party lines. 

You may be right, but I haven't seen the polls showing a clear desire for Scottish independence. 

 

I think the SNP are using Brexit to seize the moment. With the majority of Scots being pro-EU they see this as their only chance. With England and Wales having effectively taken Scotland out of the EU against their will. They're playing on the fact that Scots are angry about this. 

 

The SNP don't want to wait another 5 years just in case the UK (inc Scotland) does ok out of Brexit.  Because then the chances of an independence vote would be even slimmer. 

[melvinmelvin]

the term vassal states come to mind

 

England unilaterally decides what is fair/good/democratic/suitable/ok for the vassals.

 

[nauseus]

23 hours ago, TheDark said:

When the Big Ben Bongs, UK is out. 

 

Big Ben represents quite well the whole Brexit process. To get changes done in England, takes years and a lot of money. Meanwhile, during the suspension of Big Ben's ability to inform people, the crows have nested and multiplied on top of the parliamentary structures. 

 

May the Big Ben Bong again.

 

 

 

 

Someone has to crow now that the remainers have had to stop.

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, vogie said:

So you are suggesting that because the Scots voted by 62% in 2016 to remain in the EU that means today they want to leave the UK, is this what your telling me Sandy?

Like you, and everyone else, I have no idea if the majority would actually vote to leave the UK or not.

If 52% was considered an overwhelming mandate for brexit, then 62% must be a compelling reason to ask the question again.

As pointed out by the Institute for Government, Westminster is "Deaf" as far as Scotland is concerned. The manifesto pledge has been carried out so it will be up to the Scottish parliament to decide the next move.

There is every chance that Bojo is deliberately trying to antagonise Scotland into making a move that he cannot be blamed for, would certainly suit him for Scotland to be out of the way.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Unfortunately you can't please all of the people all of the time. It took 3.5 years for the government to defeat the remain establishment in the HoC. Would you expect them to argue with the devolved administrations for another 3.5 years, 5 years, 10 years?  I mean, it's not like the devolved administrations are going to support any form of Brexit. 

We just need to move on. 

Are you trying to say that if the conservatives had taken control of the Scottish parliament they would not have supported brexit,

or do you mean that if the conservatives had taken control it would no longer be a devolved administration.

You are certainly right on one thing, Scotland needs to move on and decide for itself the way forward.

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Like you, and everyone else, I have no idea if the majority would actually vote to leave the UK or not.

If 52% was considered an overwhelming mandate for brexit, then 62% must be a compelling reason to ask the question again.

As pointed out by the Institute for Government, Westminster is "Deaf" as far as Scotland is concerned. The manifesto pledge has been carried out so it will be up to the Scottish parliament to decide the next move.

There is every chance that Bojo is deliberately trying to antagonise Scotland into making a move that he cannot be blamed for, would certainly suit him for Scotland to be out of the way.

Please don't go all paranoid on me Sandy, Boris is trying to antagonise Scotland, perleeeeaase.

 

 

If 52% was considered an overwhelming mandate for brexit, then 62% must be a compelling reason to ask the question again.

Let's not forget you were part of the 52%, it was a UK referendum.

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by vogie

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

You may be right, but I haven't seen the polls showing a clear desire for Scottish independence. 

We all know how reliable polls are, there is only one poll that would count.

The Scottish government is not demanding independence just asking that the people of Scotland be given the opportunity to choose.

It is only the twisted view of Westminster that in light of present circumstances they do not have a valid case.

There is a fundamental difference between Scotland and England, Scotland accepted freedom of movement and England did not, only the naive would think that is ever going to change.

[sandyf]

13 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

Let's not forget you were part of the 52%, it was a UK referendum.

 

I was not part of your 52%

Brexiteers refuse to accept that the referendum was fundamentally flawed and should never have been held in the first place. There is no other union in the world that holds a referendum across different nations. Of course we realise the English do not recognise Scotland as a nation and just impose their will as they see fit.

The UK got away with the only 2 other national referendums because the result was decisive. The 3rd was a different matter, with a contentious result is has highlighted the consequences of such an exercise.

Despite what the brexiteers want to think, there is no rosy future for the UK, a sad sate of affairs that they alone voted for.

[vogie]

21 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I was not part of your 52%

Brexiteers refuse to accept that the referendum was fundamentally flawed and should never have been held in the first place. There is no other union in the world that holds a referendum across different nations. Of course we realise the English do not recognise Scotland as a nation and just impose their will as they see fit.

The UK got away with the only 2 other national referendums because the result was decisive. The 3rd was a different matter, with a contentious result is has highlighted the consequences of such an exercise.

Despite what the brexiteers want to think, there is no rosy future for the UK, a sad sate of affairs that they alone voted for.

Despite what the SNP thinks, there will be a rosy future for our UK, it is just so sad that so many people wish that not to happen as they would hate to be proven wrong. 

But untill you have a majority of the Scots wanting another referendum (I don't need to remind you of the result of the first one) you havn't got a leg to stand on. Always somebody elses fault.

But first you must honour the promise that both Sturgeon and Salmond gave to the Scottish people, once in a lifetime and generation statement.

[nauseus]

35 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I was not part of your 52%

Brexiteers refuse to accept that the referendum was fundamentally flawed and should never have been held in the first place. There is no other union in the world that holds a referendum across different nations. Of course we realise the English do not recognise Scotland as a nation and just impose their will as they see fit.

The UK got away with the only 2 other national referendums because the result was decisive. The 3rd was a different matter, with a contentious result is has highlighted the consequences of such an exercise.

Despite what the brexiteers want to think, there is no rosy future for the UK, a sad sate of affairs that they alone voted for.

A repeat of the 1975 referendum had to be run the same way. The very result of the 2016 referendum is enough to show that it was required and long overdue. What should never happened in the first place was the UK entry into the EEC without a referendum first.

 

The English certainly do recognise Scotland as a nation. But how is it that ALL of the Scottish people that I know are pro UK before being pro EU?? The future for the UK, whatever it is, is at least in our hands now. 

 

 

 

 

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

But how is it that ALL of the Scottish people that I know are pro UK before being pro EU??

And there we have a definitive analysis of the situation.

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, vogie said:

But first you must honour the promise that both Sturgeon and Salmond gave to the Scottish people, once in a lifetime and generation statement.

A delusional interpretation that only exists in the heads of brexiteers.

 

[Laughing Gravy]

6 hours ago, sandyf said:

Brexiteers refuse to accept that the referendum was fundamentally flawed and should never have been held in the first place.

A bit like those who know that the UK people were consistently lied to joining the EEC but they like to pretend that didn't happen. in fact we are in this situation all because of that huge lie by Heath and then snowballed by Major and Blair. Remainers never even address that and I have never heard anyone explain the justification for that lie. Other than to trick the good people of the UK.

 

What a great organisation the EEC and now EU are. Having to trick and lie to get people to vote for them. Thankfully the UK people  could see that regardless of all the lies we were told if we would leave. Thanks George Osborne and Mark Carney.

[vogie]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

A delusional interpretation that only exists in the heads of brexiteers.

 

Fact can never ever be interpreted as delusion, oh, only in the heads of remainers.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

And there we have a definitive analysis of the situation.

Not an analysis but a question (hint - signified by the question mark at the end). 

[billd766]

On 1/23/2020 at 11:27 PM, Jip99 said:

 

 

Ask not what my Kingdom can do for me. ask what can I do for my Kingdom....

 

 

I disagree with your conclusion, I think the history - and relationship, is strong.

 

 

Nevertheless, I bow to the voice of the people - if it is strong and deep, not just loud. Brexit has proved how divisive issues can be - and how marginal. In future any such referendums should require a minimum majority of 60/40.  If the Scots were to vote in favour of independence with those sort of numbers then off ye go. Not something I want, but something I would respect.

I agree with you but I would like the vote extended to every Scots person and each voter to be the minimum voting age of 18 and on the electoral roll somewhere in Scotland.

 

At the last referendum that Scotland had on independence the voting age was lowered, I believe, to 16 and restricted to only those persons living in Scotland.

 

Hopefully whoever sets up the referendum will learn from the original Brexit and not make it a simple yes or no question. It should also have a pass/fail percentage of (chose your number here) and a section that says pass or fail another referendum will not be held for (chose your number here) of years.

[billd766]

On 1/24/2020 at 4:42 PM, melvinmelvin said:

the term vassal states come to mind

 

England unilaterally decides what is fair/good/democratic/suitable/ok for the vassals.

 

Would that also apply to the EU where EU as an entity decides what is fair/good/democratic/suitable/OK for the member states whether those states like it or not?

[CG1 Blue]

13 hours ago, sandyf said:

There is a fundamental difference between Scotland and England, Scotland accepted freedom of movement and England did not, only the naive would think that is ever going to change.

I think there are only about 200,000 EU migrants in Scotland, versus around 3.5 million in England. No wonder Scotland accepted free movement! 

[CG1 Blue]

13 hours ago, sandyf said:

Are you trying to say that if the conservatives had taken control of the Scottish parliament they would not have supported brexit,

or do you mean that if the conservatives had taken control it would no longer be a devolved administration.

You are certainly right on one thing, Scotland needs to move on and decide for itself the way forward.

No, I'm saying even if the devolved parliaments object to the Brexit deal, what do you expect the UK government to do - carry on debating it for another few years? The devolved parliaments are never going to agree a deal, so we as a United Kingdom have to move on or face a never ending game of ping-pong. 

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

Would that also apply to the EU where EU as an entity decides what is fair/good/democratic/suitable/OK for the member states whether those states like it or not?

sure,

but by and large - EU does not work that way

 

the general MO is that concerned memeber states have already said YES to the treatment they enjoy/suffer

 

pretty much like the way in which UK has said explicitly yes to all they perceive as awfull with EU

UK has actively built the terrible EU - don't forget that

much of what you dislike with EU is pretty much your fault

 

 

 

[TheDark]

5 hours ago, billd766 said:

Would that also apply to the EU where EU as an entity decides what is fair/good/democratic/suitable/OK for the member states whether those states like it or not?

Actually not. EU is kind of co-operative body of European nations, for which European countries have assigned some of the most boring and often most demanding tasks to do on behalf of the member states. 

 

Boring example being working to settle all the boring specifications, which are deemed good for the people of the community. 

 

Demanding example being doing trade and other deals between EU member states and other nations or entities. This is where EU's collective power is very important. Even the really big players like China or USA, can not ignore what European nations want, when they are speaking with common voice through EU. 

 

Naturally there is a lot and a lot more negotiations internally between different EU nations, before the collective front towards for example China and USA is formed and showed in the negotiations.

 

EU entity speaks with one voice, to express power, when in talks with outsiders. That one voice has been negotiated internally, between many nations, all making compromises, long before the negotiations outside have started. 

 

 

[SheungWan]

On 1/24/2020 at 1:55 PM, nauseus said:

Someone has to crow now that the remainers have had to stop.

And it is not going to be the Hard Brexiteers who were demanding a no-deal exit with the EU.

[candide]

6 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

sure,

but by and large - EU does not work that way

 

the general MO is that concerned memeber states have already said YES to the treatment they enjoy/suffer

 

pretty much like the way in which UK has said explicitly yes to all they perceive as awfull with EU

UK has actively built the terrible EU - don't forget that

much of what you dislike with EU is pretty much your fault

 

 

Exactly. The UK has been particularly influencial in promoting a liberal economic agenda, supporting the accession of Eastern European countries, and accelerating the free movement of workers from these countries.

[TheDark]

I don't know how others understand what is being a vassal, for me it's being a kid, adopted by by neighbours for the feel of duty, not love. 

 

Being tolerated, yet not be allowed to really live and flourish.

 

In a way Scotland is a vassal state under England. England simply, by it's far larger population, dictates how the Scottish people should live their lives. That's not fair, yet it's acceptable as long as England's way and values are on par with Scottish ones. That used to be the case, but it is no longer the case. 

 

UK never was a vassal state of EU. UK was one of the equal countries, which hold the power in one of the most powerful unions in the world. UK as whole, gave all that for becoming independent country. Isolated country.

 

If Scotland wishes to try to find its way to live and flourish, then Scotland should be not only allowed to do so, but encouraged to try to do so. The flame is there already.