Independence referendum: Scottish government loses indyref2 court case

[ozimoron]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

But that debt is currently parked at Westminster in England

Would have to move the debt to Holyrood in Scotland if they became independent  

But Scottish taxes are going to pay for that regardless, right?

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Scotland has control of their finances , they can give free prescriptions solely to Scottish people , England cannot do that 

Of course England can - but for reasons which utterly confound me, England insists on electing the most venal, corrupt politicians.

 

Here's an idea - get rid of FPTP and what is effectively a 2 party system, get true and proper representation and start electing decent MPs. Then you might get what you should already have.

 

[vinny41]

 Since 1972, a total of 48 referendums have been held by EU member states, candidate states, and their territories, with several additional referendums held in countries outside the EU

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

 

The % results for or against are shown in the link above

In some cases a 2nd referendum was required at the voters of that county didn't vote the way their 

government wanted them to vote

I am sure some people would disagree with the 

1992 French Maastricht Treaty referendum as only 51% voted in favour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_French_Maastricht_Treaty_referendum

[RuamRudy]

30 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

And it was agreed that it was a once in a lifetime vote (in practice 30-40 years). 

 

We are the UK.  Many more people want it to stay that way than want it changed.

 

Even if it is a 50/50 thing, what Scots nationalists don't realise is that even in Scotland about 50% of the people won't want it. They push 'freedom' and 'independence' for all Scots like it really really matters, but don't give a toss for the half of their countrymen that don't want it.

 

And of course Scotland is just about as free as a country can be anyway- probably more so than England actually, which is wholly bound by UK law.

 

 

There was no such agreement. Once in a lifetime is a fiction of your own making.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Of course England can - but for reasons which utterly confound me, England insists on electing the most venal, corrupt politicians.

 

 

England cannot do that (give free prescriptions) because we do not have our own Parliament to make separate rules just for us 

[vinny41]

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Of course England can - but for reasons which utterly confound me, England insists on electing the most venal, corrupt politicians.

 

Here's an idea - get rid of FPTP and what is effectively a 2 party system, get true and proper representation and start electing decent MPs. Then you might get what you should already have.

 

Wasnt there a  referendum on that in 2011 where the UK voted NO by 67.90% and that includes the 63.64%  of votes from Scotland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum#Results_by_United_Kingdom_regions

[Scott]

Trolling post removed. 

 

[vinny41]

Scottish referendum: yes and no agree it's a once-in-a-lifetime vote

Both sides of the campaign have made it clear they will abide by the result, as political fallout from reneging would be significant

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote

 

Article clearly states "Alex Salmond pledged there would be no second referendum for "a generation", even if he lost by one vote."

[ozimoron]

Just now, vinny41 said:

Scottish referendum: yes and no agree it's a once-in-a-lifetime vote

Both sides of the campaign have made it clear they will abide by the result, as political fallout from reneging would be significant

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote

 

Article clearly states "Alex Salmond pledged there would be no second referendum for "a generation", even if he lost by one vote."

What Salmond says and the law are not the same thing. All the referendum rules would have been written into law.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If you are unaware that U.K Prime Minister David Cameroon announced that there would just be the one referendum , that announcement came prior to the referendum , then you really shouldn't be commenting on an issue that you are ignorant about .

   Cameroon stated beforehand there would be just one referendum and that would the final .

   Do you really need me to  do a websearch to find that common knowledge for you?

Is that enshrined in legislation, because if not, it is meaningless what Cameron said. 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

England cannot do that (give free prescriptions) because we do not have our own Parliament to make separate rules just for us 

Nonsense. 
 

“An act of Parliament can be enforced in all four of the UK constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland); however as a result of devolution the majority of acts that are now passed by Parliament apply either to England and Wales only, or England only;”

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Parliament_(UK)#:~:text=An act of Parliament can,generally acts only relating to

 

“Laws do not necessarily apply to the whole of the UK as different countries within the UK have devolved powers for different areas of government, like health or education. Laws can sometimes apply to only England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.”

 

https://eachother.org.uk/how-do-laws-become-law/

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Bluespunk

[Mac Mickmanus]

19 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What Salmond says and the law are not the same thing. All the referendum rules would have been written into law.

In the U.K , we have things called "Gentleman's agreements"

You agree on something , shake hands, and thats bonding and finalised and you both keep to those terms .

   If any party bails out of those agreed terms , that party would lose their reputation as being a honourable fair trustworthy person 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

There was no such agreement. Once in a lifetime is a fiction of your own making.

As I explained in reality it meant once in a generation (30-40 years), and since when has it been every few years, or when the losing side just decides the time is right?  But if you just want to go about playing semantics rather than discussing some very intractable issues I have raised........!

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

As I explained in reality it meant once in a generation (30-40 years), and since when has it been every few years, or when the losing side just decides the time is right?  But if you just want to go about playing semantics rather than discussing some very intractable issues I have raised........!

If another referendum was held , then they would have to hold another one to make it fair and make it a best out of three , one side would need to win 2-1

[RayC]

3 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Where did I say the methodology used by YouGov was flawed  I did point  out only 1708 people took part in the survey and the survey was sponsored by the Times newspaper.

What's the point in mentioning the sample size then, unless you think that it is too small? If you do believe that the sample size is too small then, by definition, you consider the survey methodology flawed 

 

Likewise why mention the sponsor unless you think that this introduces bias? If this is the case then, again, the methodology is flawed.

 

3 hours ago, vinny41 said:

I know loads of people that didn't bother to vote on 23rd June as they believed that it was a forgone conclusion that remain would win as that it what the pollsters were predicating

No matter how well designed, polls will sometimes get things wrong.

Edited November 24, 2022 by RayC
Spelling

[ozimoron]

50 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

In the U.K , we have things called "Gentleman's agreements"

You agree on something , shake hands, and thats bonding and finalised and you both keep to those terms .

   If any party bails out of those agreed terms , that party would lose their reputation as being a honourable fair trustworthy person 

absolute garbage, sorry.

[vinny41]

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

What's the point in mentioning the sample size then, unless you think that it is too small? If you do believe that the sample size is too small then, by definition, you consider the survey methodology flawed 

 

Likewise why mention the sponsor unless you think that this introduces bias? If this is the case then, again, the methodology is flawed.

 

No matter how well designed, polls will sometimes get things wrong.

I am not aware of any poll that has ever been released which goes against the view of the sponsor that has paid for it.

YouGov are not hiding the fact that the Times was involved but they decided not to release that information in their press release

Assessing Poll Validity

There is no universal rule to determine what makes a poll ‘valid.’ However, all public reports of survey findings should include reference to the following:

Sponsorship of the survey

Dates of interviewing

Method of obtaining the interviews (in-person, telephone or mail)

https://bcsr.rutgers.edu/assessing-poll-validity/

 

Above is a few of the points that should be addressed

We know nothing of the Methods obtaining the interviews (in-person, telephone or mail) that were used

YouGov conducts its public opinion surveys online using something called Active Sampling for the overwhelming majority of its commercial work, including all nationally and regionally representative research

. This means that all the respondents who complete YouGov surveys will have been selected by YouGov, from our panel of registered users

https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/

 

Personally I take all these polls with a pinch of salt likewise no-one know the outcome of the 2016 referendum until the votes were counted and we knew there was a clear majority 

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

England cannot do that (give free prescriptions) because we do not have our own Parliament to make separate rules just for us 

Could it be that the governing party simply doesn't want that? If the Scots and the English would want it, I doubt the Welsh would massively oppose it.

[pacovl46]

14 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Nah.

 

Sturgeon is just using that as an attempt to justify re-running the vote. She wants to ruin Scotland for her own personal ambition. She'd rather have total power over an unsuccessful country than limited power over a successful one. I don't think the Scots are silly enough to fall for it.

May that as it be, it still doesn't change the fact that circumstance has changed dramatically and therefore they should be allowed to vote again! 

[herfiehandbag]

15 hours ago, JayClay said:

And if you break it down by age group it gets way more interesting.

 

The only demographic keeping Brexit remotely alive in public support are the 50+. They won't be around for ever...

And as they die out, they are replaced by other people who have grown older, become more reflective and formed their own views. Those views, formed over a considerable period may include a distaste for many aspects of the EU.

 

I don't know about you, but now in my sixties I have very different views on a number of subjects compared to those I held in my twenties.

[JonnyF]

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I can think of no better way to convince people they want something than to have someone they already distrust tell them they can’t have it.

 

 

Well even if they did want it (and when offered the choice in 2014, they clearly voted against it), they can't have it.

 

The clue is in the thread title.

 

The Supreme court has ruled. You respect the law, don't you?

 

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

May that as it be, it still doesn't change the fact that circumstance has changed dramatically and therefore they should be allowed to vote again! 

Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves. An independent Scotland would be a disaster, a failed state. There are so many reasons why they should remain in the UK it's not even funny. 

 

Don't let a few anti-English nationalist extremists shout down the majority.

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Scottish referendum: yes and no agree it's a once-in-a-lifetime vote

Both sides of the campaign have made it clear they will abide by the result, as political fallout from reneging would be significant

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote

 

Article clearly states "Alex Salmond pledged there would be no second referendum for "a generation", even if he lost by one vote."

Salmond is yesterday's man. Not only has the world changed significantly since 2014, most of the promises made by the UK gov if we were to stay have proven to be lies. Add to that the disaster that is brexit and we are now in very different circumstances.

The clamour for independence is not the fringe show it was in 2010. WM can stonewall all they like - that is simply more fuel to the fire.

[RuamRudy]

27 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves. An independent Scotland would be a disaster, a failed state. There are so many reasons why they should remain in the UK it's not even funny. 

 

Don't let a few anti-English nationalist extremists shout down the majority.

So 50% of the Scottish electorate need protection from England because they are too stupid to make a rational decision for themselves? 

Given the last 12 years of England's choices for government, i can only assume that that your post was written in jest...

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, mommysboy said:

As I explained in reality it meant once in a generation (30-40 years), and since when has it been every few years, or when the losing side just decides the time is right?  But if you just want to go about playing semantics rather than discussing some very intractable issues I have raised........!

But you haven't raised any issues of substance in relation to whether another referendum can be held. Once in a generation is a turn of phrase like dead in a ditch.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So 50% of the Scottish electorate need protection from England because they are too stupid to make a rational decision for themselves? 

Actually they made a very rational decision in 2014.

 

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Given the last 12 years of England's choices for government, i can only assume that that your post was written in jest...

I suggest you check Sturgeon's record on drugs, education etc. before you criticize the English government too much. Although, like many Scottish nationalists you do seem to have a history of disliking and blaming the English for everything.

[RuamRudy]

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Just need to remind Scottish people that if they left the U.K , they would have to take their share in the National debt with them, which currently stands at about 150 000 Quid per person 

As long as the debt continues to be serviced then this isn't an issue. I don't see England being able to pay it back any time soon so there will be no demand on Scotland to do so. That said, the UN convention on seceding nations is that the debt remains with the former administration.

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Actually they made a very rational decision in 2014.

 

I suggest you check Sturgeon's record on drugs, education etc. before you criticize the English government too much. Although, like many Scottish nationalists you do seem to have a history of disliking and blaming the English for everything.

Good god , how have we regressed so quickly? I had high hopes for the new World News forum that we could avoid these ad hominem attacks but it seems not. 

[James105]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

As long as the debt continues to be serviced then this isn't an issue. I don't see England being able to pay it back any time soon so there will be no demand on Scotland to do so. That said, the UN convention on seceding nations is that the debt remains with the former administration.

So you want Scotland to renege on it's share of the national debt that Scotland played it's part in accumulating (free universities, free prescriptions etc), and you want the UK to grant another referendum so the rest of the UK can take on your burden?   Yet at the same time wonder why another referendum isn't forthcoming?    Fascinating.   Wonder how you would feel if England was to secede and started pointing at UN Conventions stating that Englands share of the national debt now belongs to rest of UK?  

 

Since it's Englands turn next to vote for independence this could be quite the selling point I think if England were able to remove such a large debt burden form the English and put it on the shoulders of the Scots, Welsh and N.Irish.   

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, James105 said:

So you want Scotland to renege on it's share of the national debt that Scotland played it's part in accumulating (free universities, free prescriptions etc), and you want the UK to grant another referendum so the rest of the UK can take on your burden?   Yet at the same time wonder why another referendum isn't forthcoming?    Fascinating.   Wonder how you would feel if England was to secede and started pointing at UN Conventions stating that Englands share of the national debt now belongs to rest of UK?  

 

Since it's Englands turn next to vote for independence this could be quite the selling point I think if England were able to remove such a large debt burden form the English and put it on the shoulders of the Scots, Welsh and N.Irish.   

I think you are twisting my post to fuel your own irrational ire. I made it clear that were Scotland to assume a proportion of the UK debt then it will merely need to service it as England will be in no position to pay off their share.

 

Then I told you about the UN convention on seceding nations. You might not like it, but that's the position of the UN, which the UK helped devise.

 

Personally I prefer to own my obligations. Indeed, it's a better bargaining position. We will, after all, expect to receive a share of the UK's assets commensurate with our share of debt.