Just now, NiceGuyEddy said:

I disagree. It is incorrect to say that the selling point was to stay in the EU. There was a lot more at stake than EU membership and as far as I can rememeber the Scottish electorate were well informed of all of the possible consequences their vote would have.

The truth of the whole matter is that the losing side cannot accept that they lost and will look for any excuse to try and change that. The EU argument is just convenient for them at this particular time.

It was not a 'once-in-a-lifetime' (unless the nationalists lost, then we'll have another every few years until we win) referendum.

How do you come by your conclusion?  Do you have personal experience of what was being talked about in the run up to 2014? 

 

I do, and it was one of the major points.

 

It was undoubtedly not a major point for some of the more extreme SNP members or supporters but, for many, many Scots and non-Scots who voted to stay in the Union it was most certainly front and centre.  I was one of them.

 

PH

 

 

13 minutes ago, vogie said:

"You told us that oil was gonna be £1 million a barrel, you can now buy a barrel for a tenner doon the Barras.????????????

 

 

 

Ah good old manky jaiket. Think that might have been his third of fourth appearance on question time as a "member of the public in the audience" 

Still not as good as this guy though.

 

https://youtu.be/JpPSz7IDjEk

3 hours ago, Phulublub said:

Well....since James VI became James I on unification of the crowns. Elizabeth should actually be Elizabeth I, not II.....not that that answers your question, but is a microscopically small example of how England is seen to dominate the Union.

 

PH

Incorrect. Her title, one of them anyway, is Queen of England. She is the second queen of England to be named Elizabeth. Hence the name Elizabeth II.

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Incorrect. Her title, one of them anyway, is Queen of England. She is the second queen of England to be named Elizabeth. Hence the name Elizabeth II.

Is it?  Source please.

 

PH

57 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

Is it?  Source please.

 

PH

history. 

6 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

history. 

So you have no source then.  Me, I would look at her Coronation Oath to start with and work from there. 

 

But if we are going by history, I CAN show you some links that show Scotland as an independent Country.  Which it was, unlike the current Monarch, who has never been Queen of England.

 

PH

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Ah good old manky jaiket. Think that might have been his third of fourth appearance on question time as a "member of the public in the audience" 

Still not as good as this guy though.

 

https://youtu.be/JpPSz7IDjEk

 

Compared to some on TVF, this guy seems quite sane... 

2 hours ago, Phulublub said:

So you have no source then.  Me, I would look at her Coronation Oath to start with and work from there. 

 

But if we are going by history, I CAN show you some links that show Scotland as an independent Country.  Which it was, unlike the current Monarch, who has never been Queen of England.

 

PH

I believe you are correct.  Queen of the United Kingdom, etc. etc. or Queen of Great Britain (whose existence is from 1707) is one post, not Queen of England, Queen of Scotland and Queen of Wales... she is the Queen of the United Kingdom under one constitution.  The post of Queen of Canada (and probably Australia) would be separate titles/posts (independent of the United Kingdom). 

3 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

I believe you are correct.  Queen of the United Kingdom, etc. etc. or Queen of Great Britain (whose existence is from 1707) is one post, not Queen of England, Queen of Scotland and Queen of Wales... she is the Queen of the United Kingdom under one constitution.  The post of Queen of Canada (and probably Australia) would be separate titles/posts (independent of the United Kingdom). 

 

5 hours ago, Phulublub said:

So you have no source then.  Me, I would look at her Coronation Oath to start with and work from there. 

 

But if we are going by history, I CAN show you some links that show Scotland as an independent Country.  Which it was, unlike the current Monarch, who has never been Queen of England.

 

PH

I agree and apologise for confusing a term that I had heard many times, likely used affectionately, with a true title.

 

May I just add, the Coronation oath also contained the part "Elizabeth II". A term disputed only by the Scots. Not a problem I wouldn't have thought. When/If the Scots gain independence they won't want the Queen, will they? President Sturgeon?

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

I agree and apologise for confusing a term that I had heard many times, likely used affectionately, with a true title.

 

May I just add, the Coronation oath also contained the part "Elizabeth II". A term disputed only by the Scots. Not a problem I wouldn't have thought. When/If the Scots gain independence they won't want the Queen, will they? President Sturgeon?

Thank you.  Would that everyone could acknowledge when they mispoke.

 

I have no idea if an independent Sctoland would want to continue with a monarch as Head of State.  If they did, and QE were still on the throne then, similar to Aus, Canada etc, then I think she would probably be "Queen Elizabeth of Scotland". 

 

If Scotland went the way of the US, and the SNP formed the frst Government, and Sturgeon still headed the SNP, then she would indeed likely be President.  I think it more likely that, after a sucessful independnce vote, the SNP would splinter.

 

If along the lines of Eire, then a non-political, largely ceremonial President would most unlikely to be Sturgeon.

 

PH

12 hours ago, Phulublub said:

So you have no source then.  Me, I would look at her Coronation Oath to start with and work from there. 

 

But if we are going by history, I CAN show you some links that show Scotland as an independent Country.  Which it was, unlike the current Monarch, who has never been Queen of England.

Frankly I have no idea what you're conspiracy theory is Queen Elizabeth II is related to Queen Elizabeth I who wasn't given 1st (I) until Queen Elizabeth II was to become Queen of England. 

19 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The selling point was stay in the UK to stay in the EU - leave and you have to start outside of the EU...  Scotland as a whole voted to stay in the EU... Therefore, it is only fair to ask Scotland to decide now that the UK has left...  If Scotland were truly sovereign in the UK Union... they would not have to ask to hold an official referendum.   Things change, and as a consequence an opening was made for the sovereignty question to come up again... If not for Brexit, it truly would have been a once in a generation referendum... but those are the breaks... now it is time to live with them.

 

If this argument is accepted - and imo it has validity - it means that Scottish independence is no longer a 'stand alone' issue; it has to be coupled with an intention to rejoin the EU.

 

Therefore, the referendum question would have to be something like: 'Should Scotland be an independent nation AND apply for membership of the EU?'

5 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Frankly I have no idea what you're conspiracy theory is Queen Elizabeth II is related to Queen Elizabeth I who wasn't given 1st (I) until Queen Elizabeth II was to become Queen of England. 

Unlike James I, who was so designated on the Union of the crowns, being, although James VI or Scotlnad, the first of that name of the United Kingdom. 

 

The two Elizabeths are probably little or no more related than you or I; QE2 is most certainly not a direct descendent of QE1. You are aware the QE1 had no offspring, right?  I think their nearest common ancestor is QE1's grandfather, Henry VII.  Not that it matters, or has any bearing whatever on my point.

 

PH

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

If this argument is accepted - and imo it has validity - it means that Scottish independence is no longer a 'stand alone' issue; it has to be coupled with an intention to rejoin the EU.

 

Therefore, the referendum question would have to be something like: 'Should Scotland be an independent nation AND apply for membership of the EU?'

 

The question will be whatever the elected representatives of the Scottish people decide it to be. 

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

If this argument is accepted - and imo it has validity - it means that Scottish independence is no longer a 'stand alone' issue; it has to be coupled with an intention to rejoin the EU.

 

Therefore, the referendum question would have to be something like: 'Should Scotland be an independent nation AND apply for membership of the EU?'

 

Separate issue.

When independent Scotland should then have a referendum on what we want our future to be.

We could ask several questions in one go and proceed according to the results.

Such as.

Do you want to join the EU?

Do you want to have the Queen as head of state?

Do you want to join NATO?

Do you want to send Johnson a tupperware box full of haggis poop?

Do you want the tupperware box back?

On 2/17/2021 at 5:39 PM, Rookiescot said:

Of the 57 (?) countries that have freed themselves from Englands colonial rule not a single one of them has asked to come back.

Now I wonder why that is.

Englands colonial rule? Are you saying that Scotland had no part to play in colonialism as part of the UK?

Revisionist much? 

On 2/17/2021 at 2:25 PM, RuamRudy said:

On 2/17/2021 at 1:55 PM, RayC said:

 

and that justifies and/or excuses this 'antipathy'?

 

'Antipathy'? Xenophobia? I'd suggest 'Same, same but same' in this context.

 

Not at all, but I think that sometimes it is worth trying to understand the reasons behind such behaviour. I am not making excuses, but sometimes inward reflection is not a bad thing. 

AKA victim blaming ?

14 minutes ago, sidgy said:

Englands colonial rule? Are you saying that Scotland had no part to play in colonialism as part of the UK?

Revisionist much? 

 

Scotland became part of Englands colonial rule because the toom tabards sold Scotland out for English gold.

There were riots on the streets of Scotland for months because of it.

What happened as "part of the UK" was not my point.

But you knew that.

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Scotland became part of Englands colonial rule because the toom tabards sold Scotland out for English gold.

There were riots on the streets of Scotland for months because of it.

What happened as "part of the UK" was not my point.

But you knew that.

Relevence please to what i posted.

You stated 57 countries had freed themselves from Englands colonial rule. Im asking you if it was Englands colonial rule or the UKs of which Scotland was and still is a part.... but you knew that

12 minutes ago, sidgy said:

Relevence please to what i posted.

You stated 57 countries had freed themselves from Englands colonial rule. Im asking you if it was Englands colonial rule or the UKs of which Scotland was and still is a part.... but you knew that

 

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

 

Happy to help.

18 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The question will be whatever the elected representatives of the Scottish people decide it to be. 

 

Are you including MPs at Westminster within your scope?

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Are you including MPs at Westminster within your scope?

 

Probably not, because Westminster legislates at a UK level. This will be an initiative instigated by the Scottish Parliament so should be defined by the Scottish Parliament with oversight from the Electoral Commission. 

16 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Separate issue.

When independent Scotland should then have a referendum on what we want our future to be.

We could ask several questions in one go and proceed according to the results.

Such as.

Do you want to join the EU?

Do you want to have the Queen as head of state?

Do you want to join NATO?

Do you want to send Johnson a tupperware box full of haggis poop?

Do you want the tupperware box back?

 

If they are separate issues what is the justification for holding another referendum less than a decade after the last one?

 

I thought of another use for your Tupperware boxes. You can use them to collect completed ballot papers on the weekly independence referendum. Ballot sheets could be distributed at Scottish sports events, the cinema, theatre, etc. Democracy in action. Let's not worry about the effect on the rest of the UK, Scotland can come and go as it pleases. There will have to be an interim solution during lockdown, of course.

 

 

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Probably not, because Westminster legislates at a UK level. This will be an initiative instigated by the Scottish Parliament so should be defined by the Scottish Parliament with oversight from the Electoral Commission. 

 

We are rerunning our discussion circa p.45 where my points went largely unanswered.

 

Presumably, this includes the timing of any referendum? Westminster is expected to divert time and resources to the independence issue as and when Holyrood says so? Effectively, a body which represents 9% of the UK population dictating UK policy discussion. Not very democratic.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

We are rerunning our discussion circa p.45 where my points went largely unanswered.

 

Presumably, this includes the timing of any referendum? Westminster is expected to divert time and resources to the independence issue as and when Holyrood says so? Effectively, a body which represents 9% of the UK population dictating UK policy discussion. Not very democratic.

 

Indeed it is the perennial question. It has been referred to previously in these threads as the tail wagging the dog; if anything else, it highlights the dissatisfactory arrangements within the UK for the devolved nations that they are, ultimately, behoven to the whims and fancy of the majority body for fundamental decisions. 

41 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

If they are separate issues what is the justification for holding another referendum less than a decade after the last one?

 

I thought of another use for your Tupperware boxes. You can use them to collect completed ballot papers on the weekly independence referendum. Ballot sheets could be distributed at Scottish sports events, the cinema, theatre, etc. Democracy in action. Let's not worry about the effect on the rest of the UK, Scotland can come and go as it pleases. There will have to be an interim solution during lockdown, of course.

 

 

 

It will be up to an independent Scotland to decide when and if it holds referendums. Thats the beauty of independence. We make our own decisions and do not have things foisted on us by a foreign country.

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Are you including MPs at Westminster within your scope?

 

Probably not, because Westminster legislates at a UK level. This will be an initiative instigated by the Scottish Parliament so should be defined by the Scottish Parliament with oversight from the Electoral Commission. 

I think they should be included.  All 58 of them

 

PH

41 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Indeed it is the perennial question. It has been referred to previously in these threads as the tail wagging the dog; if anything else, it highlights the dissatisfactory arrangements within the UK for the devolved nations that they are, ultimately, behoven to the whims and fancy of the majority body for fundamental decisions. 

 

Perennial question .... and unsolvable? 

 

Another perennial question concerns periodicity? For how long does the result of a referendum retain validity? Perhaps, this is more easily solved: Simply agreed to the period before the vote.

 

27 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

I think they should be included.  All 58 of them

 

PH

 

Disenfranchising 559 MPs representing 90% of the UK electorate.

 

'Interesting' version of democracy.

40 minutes ago, RayC said:

Perennial question .... and unsolvable? 

 

Perfectly solvable - remove the link where one party dominates the other. 

 

41 minutes ago, RayC said:

Another perennial question concerns periodicity? For how long does the result of a referendum retain validity? Perhaps, this is more easily solved: Simply agreed to the period before the vote.

 

 

I would suggest that as we live in a dynamic world, the validity remains as long as the electorate want it to. In this case, they can elect a party which explicitly campaigns on a referendum platform. If said party win, then the mandate is granted. That is how all governments enact significant change.