58 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

If the majority of Scots wish to stay in the Union, then why are you so afraid to give them a vote on the matter? 

 

Ph

They have already had a vote

How many votes would you like to have ?

Maybe have a vote every five years ?

39 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Maybe have a vote every five years ?

Is it a problem elsewhere every 2 years?

1 minute ago, Saanim said:

Is it a problem elsewhere every 2 years?

Where do they have referendums every two years asking the same question every two years ?

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Where do they have referendums every two years asking the same question every two years ?

In the mind of Ms Sturgeon

13 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They have already had a vote

How many votes would you like to have ?

Maybe have a vote every five years ?

Why not?  Again, if the majority really do want to stay, what are you so afraid of?  That 2 million Scots might make a mistake and put their X in the wrong box? 

 

The lack of appreciaton of just how much 2016 altered the political  landscape is bizarre.  If another referendum shows a lack of appetite for independence then that will be that.   But remember the Holyrood voting system was set up to ensure that there was not a single party majority - that the SNP are pretty much there in any case says a good deal about the support they have in the Country.  It really is not just the bampots who want independence.

 

PH

14 hours ago, Phulublub said:

If the majority of Scots wish to stay in the Union, then why are you so afraid to give them a vote on the matter? 

 

Ph

We already did.

14 hours ago, Phulublub said:

A significant number who voted in 2014 because of these reasons, now see the disaster that they foresaw coming to pass and would rather throw their lot in with Europe than with England.

 

What makes you think "Europe" (I assume you mean the EU) would have you?

 

Of course, they'll make all the right noises until you've actually left the UK (yes, the UK, not England). They'll do anything to destabilize the UK following Brexit, they're still very bitter about that. But once you'd left you'd be at their mercy. There's no charity in the EU, they'd want their pound of flesh and they'd hold all the cards. You'd be in an incredibly weak position and they'd have their foot on your throat and you'd better believe they'd make the most of your vulnerability. Expect 10 years of arduous negotiations followed by a terrible deal. 

 

Still, it would make Sturgeon happy in her desperate need for power over 'her people', so it's not all negative. ????

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

What makes you think "Europe" (I assume you mean the EU) would have you?

 

Of course, they'll make all the right noises until you've actually left the UK (yes, the UK, not England). They'll do anything to destabilize the UK following Brexit, they're still very bitter about that. But once you'd left you'd be at their mercy. There's no charity in the EU, they'd want their pound of flesh and they'd hold all the cards. You'd be in an incredibly weak position and they'd have their foot on your throat and you'd better believe they'd make the most of your vulnerability. Expect 10 years of arduous negotiations followed by a terrible deal. 

 

Still, it would make Sturgeon happy in her desperate need for power over 'her people', so it's not all negative. ????

The uncertainty is exactly why many of us voted to stay in 2014.  Why is that so very hard to understand?  That so many are now willing to risk this uncertainty should tell you something.  But - again - if many are not, then another referendum really will put things to bed as the landscape is not going to undergo such a huge change in the near future.

 

It is not Sturgeon (for whom I have no time) but the Scottish people.  If they are so gullible to fall for her rhetoric (if that is what is is), then what business is it of yours?  Let them go, if that is what they want.  Or perhaps it is the English seeing that they may lose control over yet another colony that worries them so much?

 

PH

14 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

We already did.

And since then, how many times have the SNP - who's central plank and pretty mucbh single reason  for existence is Independence - been successful in elections?

 

Aparently, having multiple quick fire reruns is OK for the Nasty Party, whose 180,000 get to choose the PM, but not for a Country!!!

 

PH

I respect Scotland's right to a choice and find the prospect of a de-unified UK interesting (and horrifying at the same time considering the lies pro-brexit UK politicians [yes in all the nations] used in the Brexit referendum).

 

As the SNP is using this as a core issue of their voting platform maybe they should just rename themselves to the Scottish Independence Party (or similar) as a "nationalist" is not necessarily all about independence.

 

If the SIP (rather than the SNP) got a substantial majority of the vote who could argue with self determination. 

and on the issue of brexit, it should be remembered that whilst 60% of Scots voted remain, 40% voted for leave, so the majority vote was based only on a 10% swing of voters (i.e. a 10% change of heart would have resulted in 50/50).

 

My point? Referenda should be legally required to have a higher majority than 50/50 (say 70/30) to be considered the true voice of the public (voters and non-voters alike)

1 minute ago, MRToMRT said:

and on the issue of brexit, it should be remembered that whilst 60% of Scots voted remain, 40% voted for leave, so the majority vote was based only on a 10% swing of voters (i.e. a 10% change of heart would have resulted in 50/50).

Whereas the UK-wide majorithy for Brexit was huge. Overwhelming.  Massive.  Unambiguous. Decisive.  Yeah, that mere 10% swing would be a game changer!

 

PH

4 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

Whereas the UK-wide majorithy for Brexit was huge. Overwhelming.  Massive.  Unambiguous. Decisive.  Yeah, that mere 10% swing would be a game changer!

 

PH

But it was a majority..............................and that is all that was needed.

 

 

Red Rum didn't need to win by a furlong  -  just a nose would have done it.

Edited November 30, 20223 yr by hotandsticky

Just now, hotandsticky said:

But it was a majority..............................and that is all that was needed.

"52-48  power but no legitimacy."  Who said that?

 

"52-48 will be unfinished business."  Who said that?

 

(Hint:  Not a Remainer)

 

PH

7 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

and on the issue of brexit, it should be remembered that whilst 60% of Scots voted remain, 40% voted for leave, so the majority vote was based only on a 10% swing of voters (i.e. a 10% change of heart would have resulted in 50/50).

 

My point? Referenda should be legally required to have a higher majority than 50/50 (say 70/30) to be considered the true voice of the public (voters and non-voters alike)

 

 

Whilst I think your 70/30 is too high, I do agree with there being a demonstrable majority.  65% would probably satisfy that definition.

Just now, Phulublub said:

"52-48  power but no legitimacy."  Who said that?

 

"52-48 will be unfinished business."  Who said that?

 

(Hint:  Not a Remainer)

 

PH

It matters not, we are out.

26 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

and on the issue of brexit, it should be remembered that whilst 60% of Scots voted remain, 40% voted for leave, so the majority vote was based only on a 10% swing of voters (i.e. a 10% change of heart would have resulted in 50/50).

 

My point? Referenda should be legally required to have a higher majority than 50/50 (say 70/30) to be considered the true voice of the public (voters and non-voters alike)

I agree. Should be minimum 70/30 required on such a huge issue.

 

The majority of recent polling shows the majority wish to stay anyway (in the graphic below red meaning stay,  green meaning leave).

 

So given they cannot have a referendum, and if they did they'd more than likely lose, I'd say it remains a fantasy for the anti English nationalists north of the border.

 

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

 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

the anti English nationalists

Unnecesary and perhaps showing your anti-Scottish bias.  It is entriely possible to be pro-Independence and not anti English.  But that would probably not fit your narrative.

 

PH

14 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Where do they have referendums every two years asking the same question every two years ?

That was not what I was referring to yours: "Maybe have a vote every five years ?"

38 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

and on the issue of brexit, it should be remembered that whilst 60% of Scots voted remain, 40% voted for leave, so the majority vote was based only on a 10% swing of voters (i.e. a 10% change of heart would have resulted in 50/50).

 

My point? Referenda should be legally required to have a higher majority than 50/50 (say 70/30) to be considered the true voice of the public (voters and non-voters alike)

It was 62% against 38%. 

9 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

Unnecesary and perhaps showing your anti-Scottish bias.  It is entriely possible to be pro-Independence and not anti English.  But that would probably not fit your narrative.

 

PH

So why do you keep referring to leaving England, instead of leaving the UK? Slip of the tongue? ????

 

 

Edited November 30, 20223 yr by JonnyF

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

It was 62% against 38%. 

Thanks for the correction. 

 

It does make one think, the word "was" that is. Makes me think the only reason that the UK PM(s) ihave denied a further Scottish independence referenda is that it would open the door to a UK wide push for another Brexit referenda. As I  live in the UK, I have noticed the tide has swung on brexit and that and you hear so many people now voicing their loud opinion of being duped by politicians on Brexit and how they would not have voted for it if they had known how hard life would become without our major trading partner's goodwill and the inability of our Gov to control immigration.

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They have already had a vote

How many votes would you like to have ?

Maybe have a vote every five years ?

Here's the thing - in both Holyrood and Westminster we have elected a majority of representatives who expressly campaigned upon that very issue. They have a democratic mandate which is being blocked by MPs from another country. 

If we were a democracy we would have referenda as often as the electorate wished to have them. Scottish voters have made their desire clear. English MPs are saying no.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

We already did.

There we go - the true state of mind of so many "we gave the Scots a referendum". 

 

Clearly this is not a union of equals nor a voluntary union: We (i.e. the English) gave the Scots a referendum. We won't give them another.

27 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

There we go - the true state of mind of so many "we gave the Scots a referendum". 

 

Clearly this is not a union of equals nor a voluntary union: We (i.e. the English) gave the Scots a referendum. We won't give them another.

Careful, your anti-English bias is showing again.

 

Even the likes of Alex Salmond agreed it was once in a lifetime/generation. Now you lost, you're spitting the dummy and demanding another one ????. If you couldn't be trusted to accept the first result after saying you would, why should we expect you to accept the result of a re-run. You'd just demand a third.

 

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

 

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Careful, your anti-English bias is showing again.

 

Even the likes of Alex Salmond agreed it was once in a lifetime/generation. Now you lost, you're spitting the dummy and demanding another one ????. If you couldn't be trusted to accept the first result after saying you would, why should we expect you to accept the result of a re-run. You'd just demand a third.

 

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

 

Trust doesn't come into it, not that I particularly care if you have trust in Scots. You trust or otherwise is irrelevant.

 

If we lost the second referendum of course I would demand a third. Political beliefs are not based upon their acceptance by others. It's simply naive to suggest otherwise.

19 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Careful, your anti-English bias is showing again.

 

Even the likes of Alex Salmond agreed it was once in a lifetime/generation. Now you lost, you're spitting the dummy and demanding another one ????. If you couldn't be trusted to accept the first result after saying you would, why should we expect you to accept the result of a re-run. You'd just demand a third.

 

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

 

Please link me to the relevant law or constitutional clause that states a referendum can only be held once in a lifetime...

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

If we lost the second referendum of course I would demand a third. Political beliefs are not based upon their acceptance by others. It's simply naive to suggest otherwise.

Exactly. So you expect Westminster to keep giving you re-runs until you get the result you want.

 

Not really realistic, is it? Hence the title of this thread.

 

Maybe it's time to accept reality and stop hoping for something that will never happen? Maybe take a leaf from the book of George Costanza?

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Please link me to the relevant law or constitutional clause that states a referendum can only be held once in a lifetime...

I don't recall saying it was a law.

 

I said it was an agreement by all parties. We took them for their word. Fool me once and all that...

 

If you are looking for court rulings, may I suggest you re-read the title of this thread?

A baiting troll post has been removed also a reply