Scottish nationalists set for record majority, boosting independence push

[RuamRudy]

36 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Disenfranchising 559 MPs representing 90% of the UK electorate.

 

'Interesting' version of democracy.

 

But then we are back to the perennial question - should the people of Scotland continue to endure a situation they feel is unsatisfactory because it will upset the people of the neighbouring country? Should divorce be banned because the spouse being divorced might feel aggrieved? 

[youreavinalaff]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

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

 

 

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. 

At the same time, removing the link where one party dominates the other?

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

At the same time, removing the link where one party dominates the other?

 

Ah, sorry - I wasn't referring to political parties in my first sentence but, rather, distinct geographic entities.

[youreavinalaff]

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Ah, sorry - I wasn't referring to political parties in my first sentence but, rather, distinct geographic entities.

Of course you weren't. That's because, in the case of a land slide for SNP, you won't care about dominance because it is in your favour.

 

England this and England that. Tories this and Tories that. All @#$%# really. You don't like it so feel it shouldn't happen. Simple.

 

 

[safarimike11]

On 1/14/2021 at 6:12 PM, Hi from France said:

The whole brexit referendum compelling argument was the right to self-determination (and freedom from "foreign shackles").

 

 

This fits quite well the right of Scots to determine their future. And I find Brexiteers a bit hypocritical to deny this right to the Scots, obviously the situation is completely different since they had their Independence referendum 6 years ago.

 

By then, the threat was "if you vote for independence you'll be out of the EU". Now it's the very opposite: independence will allow the closer relations to the EU that Brexit has denied.

 

Very probably not to become a EU member or use the € right away, but it would be quite quick to rejoin the European Free Trade Association nations and access the single market

Without supporting one side or the other, the fact that Scotland voted to remain in the EU (in the EU referendum of June 2016 - by 55% to 45%) means that - as you said - things have changed (since the Scottish Independence referendum of September 2014) so I believe they should be able to hold another Scottish Independence referendum.

With regard to Scotland joining the EU, as things stand now, Spain would veto it; reason being that they would never allow (and wouldn't want to encourage) the possibility of independence for Catalonia - but I'm sure a lot of people are already aware of this.

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, safarimike11 said:

Without supporting one side or the other, the fact that Scotland voted to remain in the EU (in the EU referendum of June 2016 - by 55% to 45%) means that - as you said - things have changed (since the Scottish Independence referendum of September 2014) so I believe they should be able to hold another Scottish Independence referendum.

With regard to Scotland joining the EU, as things stand now, Spain would veto it; reason being that they would never allow (and wouldn't want to encourage) the possibility of independence for Catalonia - but I'm sure a lot of people are already aware of this.

 

I think that a lot of people are also aware of the many Spanish statements which have confirmed that if Scotland secedes from the UK in a legal manner then they would have no objection to it joining the EU. 

[RuamRudy]

30 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Of course you weren't. That's because, in the case of a land slide for SNP, you won't care about dominance because it is in your favour.

 

England this and England that. Tories this and Tories that. All @#$%# really. You don't like it so feel it shouldn't happen. Simple.

 

 

 

Hmmm I am afraid that your point is escaping me...

[Phulublub]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Disenfranchising 559 MPs representing 90% of the UK electorate.

 

'Interesting' version of democracy.

No more or less than any disenfanchisement of all MEPs in the lead up to Brexit.  Sauce for the goose...

 

PH

[RayC]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

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

 

But the other party isn't '1'; Based on the referendum and recent opinion polls, the figure varies between .45 and .6.

 

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

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. 

 

That may be how governments effect change for which they have authority, but that it is not how the separation of a sovereign state is enacted.

 

By definition, two (or more) parties are involved. Unfortunately, you refuse to acknowledge that the party represented by the Westminster parliament has any role to play in this process.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Phulublub said:

No more or less than any disenfanchisement of all MEPs in the lead up to Brexit.  Sauce for the goose...

 

PH

 

Absolute tosh.

 

How on earth were MEPs disenfranchised?  They didn't have the political authority or legitimacy to prevent the UK holding a referendum on its' membership of the EU.

 

[Phulublub]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Absolute tosh.

 

How on earth were MEPs disenfranchised?  They didn't have the political authority or legitimacy to prevent the UK holding a referendum on its' membership of the EU.

 

In exactly the same way that Westminster cannot prevent Scotland holding a referendum. Oh.

 

PH

[RayC]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

But then we are back to the perennial question - should the people of Scotland continue to endure a situation they feel is unsatisfactory because it will upset the people of the neighbouring country?

 

No. But let's phrase it another way. Should an issue upon which < 10% of the existing electorate are likely to be allowed to vote, dictate the political order for a sovereign state of +/-50m voters just because +/- 2.5m people consider it a priority?

 

The process for holding referendums - and, if necessary, dealing with any subsequent divorce - has opportunity costs for the whole of the UK. For that reason, Westminster has to be involved in - and agree to - the process.

 

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Should divorce be banned because the spouse being divorced might feel aggrieved? 

 

Yes. If the spouse being divorced is excluded from the process.

[RayC]

17 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

In exactly the same way that Westminster cannot prevent Scotland holding a referendum. Oh.

 

PH

 

"Legally, the UK Parliament remains sovereign, meaning that the Scottish devolved institutions derive their authority from UK statute, not the Scottish people." 

 

The UK institutions do derive their authority from the UK electorate. The UK did not - and never did - derive its authority from Brussels/ Strasbourg when it was a member of the EU, so there is no equivalence.

 

You're welcome.

 

Sourcehttps://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/blocking-second-scottish-independence-referendum

 

[Phulublub]

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

The process for holding referendums - and, if necessary, dealing with any subsequent divorce - has opportunity costs for the whole of the UK. For that reason, Westminster has to be involved in - and agree to - the process.

Similarly for costs for the EU.  But that is not the reason Westminster has to be involved in the process at all.

 

PH

[RayC]

3 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

Similarly for costs for the EU.  But that is not the reason Westminster has to be involved in the process at all.

 

PH

 

Again your analogy is flawed. The EU quite rightly played little - if any - part in the UK EU referendum process until after the result: The significant financial and opportunity costs borne by the EU occured because of the result, not the process.

 

However, a referendum on Scottish independence is a different matter. The process - especially the timing - of any referendum will have opportunity costs for the UK. Therefore, how can it be just to exclude the Westminster government from a role in defining the process?

 

[sidgy]

22 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

22 hours 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

Nope not helping. i cannot see the 57 countries you stated left Englands colonial rule, did you actually read the link you posted, the bulk of which are the names of settlements (not countries) in N.America which were to eventually to gain independence from, youve guessed it...Britain. In fact,after reading it twice, i cannot see even one country which freed itself from English Colonial rule but a few from British colonial rule, so sorry, no cigar

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

"Legally, the UK Parliament remains sovereign, meaning that the Scottish devolved institutions derive their authority from UK statute, not the Scottish people." 

 

The UK institutions do derive their authority from the UK electorate. The UK did not - and never did - derive its authority from Brussels/ Strasbourg when it was a member of the EU, so there is no equivalence.

 

You're welcome.

 

Sourcehttps://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/blocking-second-scottish-independence-referendum

 

 

 

Wrong. In Scotland the people are sovereign. Its in Scottish law.

Now I get where you are coming from with your "Its not up to you Scots to decide its up to the whole UK" but its an asinine line of argument.

In the same way the rest of the EU did not get a vote on Brexit.

So for once just accept that this is nothing to do with the English and you dont get to dictate what happens.

When the SNP are voted into Holyrood in May with a commitment in its election manifesto to hold a referendum on independence then thats what the people of Scotland want. Thats democracy.

Or are you saying it would have been OK for Cameron to win the Westminster election on a promise of an EU referendum and then not delivered on his promise?

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, sidgy said:

Nope not helping. i cannot see the 57 countries you stated left Englands colonial rule, did you actually read the link you posted, the bulk of which are the names of settlements (not countries) in N.America which were to eventually to gain independence from, youve guessed it...Britain. In fact,after reading it twice, i cannot see even one country which freed itself from English Colonial rule but a few from British colonial rule, so sorry, no cigar

 

So ever since Scotland was sold out by the toom tabards its been an equal partner in the union?

Dont make me laugh.

If it was an equal partner (as the UK was in the EU) we would not need a section 30. Hence Scotland became part of the English empire. Yes you changed the name of the company but the company remained the same.

So keep believing you are going to convince a majority in Scotland they want to remain in the union while telling them they are not allowed to leave.

Its working well so far. 

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Again your analogy is flawed. The EU quite rightly played little - if any - part in the UK EU referendum process until after the result: The significant financial and opportunity costs borne by the EU occured because of the result, not the process.

 

However, a referendum on Scottish independence is a different matter. The process - especially the timing - of any referendum will have opportunity costs for the UK. Therefore, how can it be just to exclude the Westminster government from a role in defining the process?

 

 

In simple terms because its none of your business. In the same way you would have told the French or Germans Brexit is none of their business. There are economic costs to them because of Brexit.

Economic costs were never a factor for Brexiteers in any event.

It was all about taking back control. Sovereignty. And about two dozen other meaningless slogans. 

[sidgy]

16 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So ever since Scotland was sold out by the toom tabards its been an equal partner in the union?

Dont make me laugh.

If it was an equal partner (as the UK was in the EU) we would not need a section 30. Hence Scotland became part of the English empire. Yes you changed the name of the company but the company remained the same.

So keep believing you are going to convince a majority in Scotland they want to remain in the union while telling them they are not allowed to leave.

Its working well so far.

Im not beleiving i am trying to convince anyone of anything,  so please stop putting words in my mouth, i believe it is up to the people of Scotland to decide their future and so could you tell me where i have said anything to the contrary.

Personnally, and just my opinion, not set in stone or anything, i would say a fair compromise would be Indyref2  in about 2023-24 after the aftermath of brexit and covid has hopefully been dealt with, certainly not this year as some are suggesting as im sure a lot of potential Yes voters would agree.

I  did however call you put on your total fabrication about 57 countries and "English" colonism, i wonder if you are aware of the fact that some of those colonies in N.America and that went on to gain independence from the "British" were in fact Scottish colonies.

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

[safarimike11]

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I think that a lot of people are also aware of the many Spanish statements which have confirmed that if Scotland secedes from the UK in a legal manner then they would have no objection to it joining the EU. 

Sorry, my mistake; the 2016 vote in Scotland was 62% to 38% (in favour of remaining in the EU).

[Rookiescot]

15 minutes ago, sidgy said:

Im not beleiving i am trying to convince anyone of anything,  so please stop putting words in my mouth, i believe it is up to the people of Scotland to decide their future and so could you tell me where i have said anything to the contrary.

Personnally, and just my opinion, not set in stone or anything, i would say a fair compromise would be Indyref2  in about 2023-24 after the aftermath of brexit and covid has hopefully been dealt with, certainly not this year as some are suggesting as im sure a lot of potential Yes voters would agree.

I  did however call you put on your total fabrication about 57 countries and "English" colonism, i wonder if you are aware of the fact that some of those colonies in N.America and that went on to gain independence from the "British" were in fact Scottish colonies.

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

 

Its not up to anyone except the Scots to decide when they want another referendum. If they vote for it in the Holyrood elections then they are surely entitled to hold one. Something I am sure as a Brexiteer who believes in democracy you would agree with no?

I note you made no rebuttal about the fact that Scotland is not an equal partner in the union and instead prefer to split hairs about the name of the English empire and Scotlands role before we were subsumed into it by the toom tabards.

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

No. But let's phrase it another way. Should an issue upon which < 10% of the existing electorate are likely to be allowed to vote, dictate the political order for a sovereign state of +/-50m voters just because +/- 2.5m people consider it a priority?

 

The process for holding referendums - and, if necessary, dealing with any subsequent divorce - has opportunity costs for the whole of the UK. For that reason, Westminster has to be involved in - and agree to - the process.

 

 

Yes. If the spouse being divorced is excluded from the process.

 

The decision to divorce is for one half of the marriage alone. How that divorce is managed is the bit where the negotiations start. 

[sirineou]

19 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Its not up to anyone except the Scots to decide when they want another referendum. If they vote for it in the Holyrood elections then they are surely entitled to hold one. Something I am sure as a Brexiteer who believes in democracy you would agree with no?

I note you made no rebuttal about the fact that Scotland is not an equal partner in the union and instead prefer to split hairs about the name of the English empire and Scotlands role before we were subsumed into it by the toom tabards.

Brexiteers are happy to tell you that you should not trust your fate on some faceless autocrat in Brussels , but you should trust your fate on some faceless autocrat in London.

Because faceless autocrats in London are way better than  faceless autocrats in Brussels. 

[youreavinalaff]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The decision to divorce is for one half of the marriage alone. How that divorce is managed is the bit where the negotiations start. 

Exactly right. Scotland negotiated a referendum with Westminster. They decided not to divorce.

 

[Rookiescot]

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Exactly right. Scotland negotiated a referendum with Westminster. They decided not to divorce.

 

So we are now married for ever?

Is that some Sharia law or something?

[sharksy]

On 2/18/2021 at 1:38 PM, sidgy said:

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

Revisionist much? 

Not true. The Gambia has fairly recently rejoined the Commonwealth.
Oops, looks like I quoted you incorrectly somehow.  Apologies

[sidgy]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

ts not up to anyone except the Scots to decide when they want another referendum. If they vote for it in the Holyrood elections then they are surely entitled to hold one. Something I am sure as a Brexiteer who believes in democracy you would agree with no?

Never said it was,in actuall fact if you read what i wrote i said it is up to the people of Scotland,

 

im not a brexiteer, again can you point to where i have said i was?

 

 

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

I note you made no rebuttal about the fact that Scotland is not an equal partner in the union and instead prefer to split hairs about the name of the English empire and Scotlands role before we were subsumed into it by the toom tabards.

 

so calling you out  for making stuff up is spliting hairs?  OK 

 

 

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

So we are now married for ever?

Is that some Sharia law or something?

No. Cannot be as you were offered the choice of a divorce. You turned it down.

[RuamRudy]

Well, looks like Johnson is so keen to save the union that... he puts his latest concubine in charge. I wonder what other key policy areas are looked after by his other mistresses.