SURVEY: Should Scotland seek independence from the UK?

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Parliament will decide.

Besides, it's clear that they don't want one for around 5 years. Perhaps they are smarter than I had given them credit for.

Yes the Scottish parliament will decide.

And a majority want a referendum WITHIN five years.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Parliament will decide.

Besides, it's clear that they don't want one for around 5 years. Perhaps they are smarter than I had given them credit for.

Thats the point, it should not be the british parliament. It should be the scottish parliament to decide.

They want a referendum whenever their elected representatives decide.

They may well vote to stay, but they should not be told they cannot vote by another country.

[RayC]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Or maybe they should have one whenever they want. Their country, up to them.

 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

And because of that major significant event scotland should decide what it wants without another country saying it cannot.

I agree that Brexit changes things, but - repeating a point that I have made before - if that is the criterion for holding another referendum, then the question of Scottish independence must be linked to rejoining the EU.

On the wider issue of how often a referendum should be held, you - and others - have continually stated that this is a matter solely for Scotland - presumably Holyrood? - to decide.  Notwithstanding the fact that referendums are disruptive and affect the other party - reason in itself why Westminster must be actively involved in the process including the timing  - this could be construed as anti-democratic: Take the following scenario:  1) Scottish nationalists hold an absolute majority after the next election 2) a referendum on independence is held later this year 3) the vote is to remain in the UK - unlikely in the circumstances, but make that assumption - for how long does that decision hold validity? Would you consider it appropriate to hold another referendum(s) before the next Scottish parliamentary elections? What about the democratic rights of unionists in these circumstances? Are they to be asked continuously to confirm their preference?

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, Foggy Mario said:

How can Scotland leave UK to then join EU where it will have far less say than it does now?

having to join a club of 27 countries where most are bigger and more influential than Scotland sounds an absurd idea.

That is for Scotland to decide.

[Sujo]

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I agree that Brexit changes things, but - repeating a point that I have made before - if that is the criterion for holding another referendum, then the question of Scottish independence must be linked to rejoining the EU.

On the wider issue of how often a referendum should be held, you - and others - have continually stated that this is a matter solely for Scotland - presumably Holyrood? - to decide.  Notwithstanding the fact that referendums are disruptive and affect the other party - reason in itself why Westminster must be actively involved in the process including the timing  - this could be construed as anti-democratic: Take the following scenario:  1) Scottish nationalists hold an absolute majority after the next election 2) a referendum on independence is held later this year 3) the vote is to remain in the UK - unlikely in the circumstances, but make that assumption - for how long does that decision hold validity? Would you consider it appropriate to hold another referendum(s) before the next Scottish parliamentary elections? What about the democratic rights of unionists in these circumstances? Are they to be asked continuously to confirm their preference?

It is mainly because of brexit that this is warranted.

If they vote to remain then it would take another major change to warrant another vote, or a reasonable length of time like a generation, that can be put into an agreement like NI did.

I doubt any party would ask for a referendum every few years without a significant event, that,in my view would be political suicide.

Though they could always do it the easy way. At their election they can add in a box to tick to say leave or remain. Would save on costs etc to do it at the same time.

I dont think westminster could stop them from doing that.

 

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Parliament will decide.

Besides, it's clear that they don't want one for around 5 years. Perhaps they are smarter than I had given them credit for.

Anyway your right wing extremist Brexiteer government has already torn up the act of union.

You see it states in several places in the act that the taxes and rules on trade should be the same for all parts of the UK.

As part of the UK Northern Ireland is now subject to different rules and tax. Ergo the act of union is now broken.

Ah Brexit. The gift that keeps on giving.  

[RayC]

54 minutes ago, Sujo said:

It is mainly because of brexit that this is warranted.

Agreed.

54 minutes ago, Sujo said:

If they vote to remain then it would take another major change to warrant another vote, or a reasonable length of time like a generation, that can be put into an agreement like NI did.

Once again, agreed.

54 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I doubt any party would ask for a referendum every few years without a significant event, that,in my view would be political suicide.

Three in a row. Agreed. I used an extreme example to illustrate a point.

54 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Though they could always do it the easy way. At their election they can add in a box to tick to say leave or remain. Would save on costs etc to do it at the same time.

I dont think westminster could stop them from doing that.

 

Ahh...   all good things come to an end.

I am not sure about the legality of posing the question, but the result almost certainly would not have legality unless Westminster agreed.

Irrespective of that, as a UK citizen I have a problem with Holyrood unilaterally dictating the UK's priorities, which would be the case if the process and timing of a referendum is left solely to the Scottish parliament.

I don't think that it is too contentious to suggest that the biggest challenges faced by the UK - which imo are also the top two priorities -  are dealing with the aftermath of 1) the pandemic and 2) Brexit. Imo doing so will be a full-time job, and anything else that can be delayed should be delayed including the question of Scottish independence. 

[Sujo]

27 minutes ago, RayC said:

Agreed.

Once again, agreed.

Three in a row. Agreed. I used an extreme example to illustrate a point.

Ahh...   all good things come to an end.

I am not sure about the legality of posing the question, but the result almost certainly would not have legality unless Westminster agreed.

Irrespective of that, as a UK citizen I have a problem with Holyrood unilaterally dictating the UK's priorities, which would be the case if the process and timing of a referendum is left solely to the Scottish parliament.

I don't think that it is too contentious to suggest that the biggest challenges faced by the UK - which imo are also the top two priorities -  are dealing with the aftermath of 1) the pandemic and 2) Brexit. Imo doing so will be a full-time job, and anything else that can be delayed should be delayed including the question of Scottish independence. 

Very good post. My view and your view is clear. Close but no cigar.

But i tip my hat to you for your post which was clear and concise on point. 

We may disagree a little on it but you have my respect for that reasoned argument.

[7by7]

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Your countrymen voted 55% Remain in 2014

Because of Brexit, the UK Scotland voted to remain a part of in 2014 no longer exists. 

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

and currently don't want another referendum.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19159508.scottish-independence-quarter-scots-support-indyref2-next-year-poll-suggests/

If that poll is an accurate expression of the opinion of the majority of Scotland's population, then you have nothing to fear from IndyRef 2.

So let's have it and get the issue done and dusted.

However, as I said to @vogie on Sunday: as I always say, the only poll which counts is the one at the ballot box.

If the parties supporting independence win a majority in the forthcoming election, will you finally agree that the Scottish people deserve another chance to decide whether or not to remain a part of the UK?

Vogie has so far declined to answer; will you do so?

[bkkcanuck8]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

Thanks for the clarification. Imo seven years seems too short a period in the absence of any other significant event e.g. Brexit.

And that tends to become the norm.... the party in power (if separatist) generally only calls for a referendum if they think there is a chance of winning and will not be a detriment.... Quebec has had two referendums - I believe 1980 and 1995 (49/51)....   The government can call them whenever it wants, but it only meant sense twice... probably because the sentiment ebbed or calling it two often would cause a backlash from the voters.  With Brexit and Bojo the Clown trying to help push the sentiment over the finish line... now is a very dangerous time for sovereignty -- but by no means does it make it likely - just possible at this point.

Edited March 16, 2021 by bkkcanuck8

[tebee]

10 hours ago, vogie said:

Just to clear things up, I am not suggesting anything, I am saying all this support for Scottish Nationalism is the result of a democratic vote and Scotland wasn't cheated out of anything as it was a UK vote, as soon as the remainers start recognising that fact they might be able to move on with their lives.

But the fact that it was a UK vote and the wishes of the Scottish electorate were ignore - it this not exactly the same reason that was given for the UK having to leave the EU?

Getting control back.  

[7by7]

6 hours ago, vogie said:

We have to carry papers at all time here in Thailand, did you not know and are you drifting away from the topic again?

Even Thai citizens have to carry their ID card at all times in Thailand.

The provisions in this Bill will only apply to a minority, not everyone.

[bkkcanuck8]

Just now, 7by7 said:

Even Thai citizens have to carry their ID card at all times in Thailand.

The provisions in this Bill will only apply to a minority, not everyone.

It would be more reasonable for everyone in the UK to have to carry ID... because how can you tell if one white person is legal and one is not... could be a European with an excellent ability to copy the UK accent (there are many - so accuracy of fringe ones is not as necessary)... 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

Thanks for the clarification. Imo seven years seems too short a period in the absence of any other significant event e.g. Brexit.

 I would agree, but the 7 years is a minimum period, not maximum. 

Brexit was, of course, a significant event and means the UK Scotland voted to remain a part of in 2014 no longer exists.

Had Scottish voters been told that would happen, I wonder if the result would have been the same.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

<snip> On the wider issue of how often a referendum should be held, you - and others - have continually stated that this is a matter solely for Scotland - presumably Holyrood? - to decide.  Notwithstanding the fact that referendums are disruptive and affect the other party - reason in itself why Westminster must be actively involved in the process including the timing

You do realise that same argument applies to the UK's EU referendum in 2016.

But I don't recall the EU being involved at all; let alone we needing their permission!

[vogie]

47 minutes ago, tebee said:

But the fact that it was a UK vote and the wishes of the Scottish electorate were ignore - it this not exactly the same reason that was given for the UK having to leave the EU?

Getting control back.  

The 2014 Referendum was a Scottish only vote and when I say Scottish only I mean selected Scots, the Scots living other than Scotland never had a chance to decide on the future of Scotland, however the SNP decided to also include 16 and 17 year olds for the first time, well 16 and 17 year olds might be good on playing Ghosts and Goblins but to decide the future of the country most people would say it was a big ask and again purely done by the SNP to give themselves a better chance of 'winning', but as history has proven their sneaky antics and untruths fooled no-one only themselves.

The EU referendum was a UK vote and a completely different kettle of fish, it was not a Welsh, Scottish, English or NI vote but a collective vote of our Island nation, we can't start going down the route of throwing teddy out of the cot because the vote didn't go the way we wanted tebee, now that would not be very democratic now would it.

But because we have left the EU it has certainly increased the sale of William Wallace T shirts across the water. Be realistic tebee the Scots want to remain in our union and some peoples bitterness will not change that one iota.

[bkkcanuck8]

36 minutes ago, vogie said:

The 2014 Referendum was a Scottish only vote and when I say Scottish only I mean selected Scots, the Scots living other than Scotland never had a chance to decide on the future of Scotland, however the SNP decided to also include 16 and 17 year olds for the first time, well 16 and 17 year olds might be good on playing Ghosts and Goblins but to decide the future of the country most people would say it was a big ask and again purely done by the SNP to give themselves a better chance of 'winning', but as history has proven their sneaky antics and untruths fooled no-one only themselves.

The EU referendum was a UK vote and a completely different kettle of fish, it was not a Welsh, Scottish, English or NI vote but a collective vote of our Island nation, we can't start going down the route of throwing teddy out of the cot because the vote didn't go the way we wanted tebee, now that would not be very democratic now would it.

But because we have left the EU it has certainly increased the sale of William Wallace T shirts across the water. Be realistic tebee the Scots want to remain in our union and some peoples bitterness will not change that one iota.

The EU referendum excluded those most affected by the referendum - so not much difference than the Scottish referendum.   It excluded long term expats in the EU taking advantage of the free movement clause of the Common Market.

[Rookiescot]

34 minutes ago, vogie said:

The 2014 Referendum was a Scottish only vote and when I say Scottish only I mean selected Scots, the Scots living other than Scotland never had a chance to decide on the future of Scotland, however the SNP decided to also include 16 and 17 year olds for the first time, well 16 and 17 year olds might be good on playing Ghosts and Goblins but to decide the future of the country most people would say it was a big ask and again purely done by the SNP to give themselves a better chance of 'winning', but as history has proven their sneaky antics and untruths fooled no-one only themselves.

The EU referendum was a UK vote and a completely different kettle of fish, it was not a Welsh, Scottish, English or NI vote but a collective vote of our Island nation, we can't start going down the route of throwing teddy out of the cot because the vote didn't go the way we wanted tebee, now that would not be very democratic now would it.

But because we have left the EU it has certainly increased the sale of William Wallace T shirts across the water. Be realistic tebee the Scots want to remain in our union and some peoples bitterness will not change that one iota.

The rules for the next referendum have to be the same as for the last one. If you had no objections back then there can be no objections now. You cannot start gaming the system to suit yourself. However much you want to.

The EU referendum was a UK vote. Other nations in the EU had no say. In a Scottish independence referendum the same rules apply. England, Wales and Northern Ireland get no say because its not up to them.

Did the UK get a say when Australia left? Or Canada? Or New Zealand? Malta?

No because its up to those countries do decide their future for themselves.

Now I understand you have this overwhelming desire to have a say but you cant.

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The EU referendum excluded those most affected by the referendum - so not much difference than the Scottish referendum.   It excluded long term expats in the EU taking advantage of the free movement clause of the Common Market.

It also prevented EU citizens living in the UK from voting. In Scotlands independence referendum EU citizens living in Scotland were allowed to vote.

 

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

The rules for the next referendum have to be the same as for the last one. If you had no objections back then there can be no objections now. You cannot start gaming the system to suit yourself. However much you want to.

The EU referendum was a UK vote. Other nations in the EU had no say. In a Scottish independence referendum the same rules apply. England, Wales and Northern Ireland get no say because its not up to them.

Did the UK get a say when Australia left? Or Canada? Or New Zealand? Malta?

No because its up to those countries do decide their future for themselves.

Now I understand you have this overwhelming desire to have a say but you cant.

Sometimes rookie I just despair at your replies. ????

[Rookiescot]

Just now, vogie said:

Sometimes rookie I just despair at your replies. ????

Why?

[RayC]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

You do realise that same argument applies to the UK's EU referendum in 2016.

But I don't recall the EU being involved at all; let alone we needing their permission!

It is not the same argument for the simple reason that the UK is a sovereign state whereas the EU is not.

Therefore, there was no constitutional requirement for the UK to seek the permission of the EU to hold the referendum or for Brussels to be involved in the process, although one would hope that Cameron kept Brussels informed throughout as a courtesy, and accommodated any requests that the EU may have had regarding dates to be avoided. (I have no idea if this happened in practice).

[Rookiescot]

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

It is not the same argument for the simple reason that the UK is a sovereign state whereas the EU is not.

Therefore, there was no constitutional requirement for the UK to seek the permission of the EU to hold the referendum or for Brussels to be involved in the process, although one would hope that Cameron kept Brussels informed throughout as a courtesy, and accommodated any requests that the EU may have had regarding dates to be avoided. (I have no idea if this happened in practice).

There was no need for the UK to get the permission of the EU because the EU would appear to be a far more democratic union than the UK is.

Is holding a sovereign nation in a union against its will OK?

[RayC]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 I would agree, but the 7 years is a minimum period, not maximum. 

Brexit was, of course, a significant event and means the UK Scotland voted to remain a part of in 2014 no longer exists.

Had Scottish voters been told that would happen, I wonder if the result would have been the same.

Sorry. I don't understand the point which you are making?

[RayC]

15 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

There was no need for the UK to get the permission of the EU because the EU would appear to be a far more democratic union than the UK is.

That is simply biased, subjective opinion.

I don't know how else to phrase this, so I'll repeat my previous post: There was no need for the UK to seek the EU's permission (to hold the Brexit referendum) for the simple reason that there was no legal requirement for it to do so. 

15 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Is holding a sovereign nation in a union against its will OK?

I am (almost) completely indifferent when it comes to Scotland remaining in the Union. However, this idea that England is somehow forcibly occupying Scotland is laughable.

Restating a position I thought I made clear in a previous post: I believe that the Brexit result is a legitimate reason to hold another referendum however, not on the terms and at a time solely dictated by the Scottish government.

It is undemocratic for the wishes of +/-2.5 million voters - rough, generous estimate of the likely number of SNP/ Scottish Green supporters - to be prioritized over those of the 47.6 million registered voters in the UK as a whole. Again, as I said previously imo there are more pressing matters for the UK government to deal with e.g. the aftermath of the pandemic and Brexit. Your priorities may be different.

[Rookiescot]

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

That is simply biased, subjective opinion.

I don't know how else to phrase this, so I'll repeat my previous post: There was no need for the UK to seek the EU's permission (to hold the Brexit referendum) for the simple reason that there was no legal requirement for it to do so. 

I am (almost) completely indifferent when it comes to Scotland remaining in the Union. However, this idea that England is somehow forcibly occupying Scotland is laughable.

Restating a position I thought I made clear in a previous post: I believe that the Brexit result is a legitimate reason to hold another referendum however, not on the terms and at a time solely dictated by the Scottish government.

It is undemocratic for the wishes of +/-2.5 million voters - rough, generous estimate of the likely number of SNP/ Scottish Green supporters - to be prioritized over those of the 47.6 million registered voters in the UK as a whole. Again, as I said previously imo there are more pressing matters for the UK government to deal with e.g. the aftermath of the pandemic and Brexit. Your priorities may be different.

And I will repeat my previous post. It would seem the EU is a far more democratic union than the UK is given the UK needed no-one elses permission to hold a referendum.

The timing of another referendum is surely down to those who will vote in it. After all the EU did not stipulate when the UK could hold its one.

Brexit and the pandemic were not of Scotlands making. Indeed the mishandling of both can be laid squarely at the feet of the incompetent right wing English nationalist government in Westminster. 

Now given how the rest of the EU were allowed no say or vote in Brexit why should the rest of the UK have an input into Scottish independence? Brexit has and will continue to have an impact on other EU nations but thats somehow ok? It was a UK only matter? But Scottish independence is the business of everyone?

Pure hypocrisy.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

<snip> The 2014 Referendum was a Scottish only vote and when I say Scottish only I mean selected Scots, the Scots living other than Scotland never had a chance to decide on the future of Scotland

So how would you have determined who living outside of Scotland could and could not have voted?

2 hours ago, vogie said:

<snip> however the SNP decided to also include 16 and 17 year olds for the first time, well 16 and 17 year olds might be good on playing Ghosts and Goblins but to decide the future of the country most people would say it was a big ask

Similar arguments have been presented every time the franchise has been extended, from the first Reform Act in 1832 onwards.

BTW, in the UK 16 and 17 year olds are legally able to marry and are old enough to fight and die for this country. But you consider them too immature to vote!

[RayC]

3 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

It would be more reasonable for everyone in the UK to have to carry ID... because how can you tell if one white person is legal and one is not... could be a European with an excellent ability to copy the UK accent (there are many - so accuracy of fringe ones is not as necessary)... 

Never understood the antipathy in the UK towards ID cards, but I guess that a conversation for another thread.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Why?

Because the english think they have a right to tell other countries what they can do.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

It is not the same argument for the simple reason that the UK is a sovereign state whereas the EU is not.

Therefore, there was no constitutional requirement for the UK to seek the permission of the EU to hold the referendum or for Brussels to be involved in the process, although one would hope that Cameron kept Brussels informed throughout as a courtesy, and accommodated any requests that the EU may have had regarding dates to be avoided. (I have no idea if this happened in practice).

There was also no requirement for the uk to follow thru on the result. It was non binding.

even farage said if it was close it would be unfinished business.