Scottish Independence

audio1946 posted:

bad losers 

Its not sport, its life. No such concept of good or bad losers - if you lose, you do your best with what you have, but that does not preclude trying again in any way you can.

leaving personal preference for the Brexit result out of it, a repeat referendum of that vote makes every sense, as now more information is available and hype (from both sides) shown to be what it was, people may be in a better position to make an informed choice - and if that is indeed to reinforce the original referendum outcome of 'leave' then it will be more likely to shut up the remainers than anything else ever will, while giving a much stronger mandate to go ahead. Why are the leavers so afraid of a re-run of the referendum?

in practical terms, although a confirmatory vote would have been logical and easy before triggering Article 50 that didn't happen, and it now probably needs to and should await an indication of the real terms of leaving - though I don't know where Aricle 50 leaves things from a legal point of view.

will it happen? If I were a betting person, I would put money on it not happening, because May wants to go down in history for something and she sees Brexit as her big chance.

Coming back to the subject in hand, Scottish independence, they had their vote on leaving the UK, which didn't seem to be shrouded by all the hype the Brexit vote had, but at the same time I think they have a point in Brexit possibly changing their position. Logically a re-run of the Scottish referendum could be held after a Brexit confirmation referendum if the latter confirms Brexit.

 

naim_nymph posted:
northpole posted:

Scotland has enjoyed its referendum.  As has the UK.  They've been and gone.  Please do get over it and move on.

Peter

The real majority and the real voice of the people will continue to remain with the 30 + million  who did not vote for, and remain not wanting Brexit.

Debs, sorry, but 30+ million people did not vote to remain either . And how do we know that those people who didn't vote are opposed to Brexit, or that they just don't care either way ? Sorry you just can't 'steal' their votes for your team. We must stop trying to 'spin' these figures to meet a particular agenda. It really isn't doing anybody any favours. 

Innocent Bystander posted:
audio1946 posted:

bad losers 

Its not sport, its life. No such concept of good or bad losers - if you lose, you do your best with what you have, but that does not preclude trying again in any way you can.

leaving personal preference for the Brexit result out of it, a repeat referendum of that vote makes every sense, as now more information is available and hype (from both sides) shown to be what it was, people may be in a better position to make an informed choice - and if that is indeed to reinforce the original referendum outcome of 'leave' then it will be more likely to shut up the remainers than anything else ever will, while giving a much stronger mandate to go ahead. Why are the leavers so afraid of a re-run of the referendum?

in practical terms, although a confirmatory vote would have been logical and easy before triggering Article 50 that didn't happen, and it now probably needs to and should await an indication of the real terms of leaving - though I don't know where Aricle 50 leaves things from a legal point of view.

will it happen? If I were a betting person, I would put money on it not happening, because May wants to go down in history for something and she sees Brexit as her big chance.

Coming back to the subject in hand, Scottish independence, they had their vote on leaving the UK, which didn't seem to be shrouded by all the hype the Brexit vote had, but at the same time I think they have a point in Brexit possibly changing their position. Logically a re-run of the Scottish referendum could be held after a Brexit confirmation referendum if the latter confirms Brexit.

 

Applying your logic(?) we'd see re-run after re-run of every election held in the U.K. Our version of democracy is far from perfect, but replacing it with a model which allows re-runs until the whinging losers get the result they'd prefer does not seem preferable, to me at least.

Timmo1341 posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
audio1946 posted:

bad losers 

Its not sport, its life. No such concept of good or bad losers - if you lose, you do your best with what you have, but that does not preclude trying again in any way you can.

leaving personal preference for the Brexit result out of it, a repeat referendum of that vote makes every sense, as now more information is available and hype (from both sides) shown to be what it was, people may be in a better position to make an informed choice - and if that is indeed to reinforce the original referendum outcome of 'leave' then it will be more likely to shut up the remainers than anything else ever will, while giving a much stronger mandate to go ahead. Why are the leavers so afraid of a re-run of the referendum?

in practical terms, although a confirmatory vote would have been logical and easy before triggering Article 50 that didn't happen, and it now probably needs to and should await an indication of the real terms of leaving - though I don't know where Aricle 50 leaves things from a legal point of view.

will it happen? If I were a betting person, I would put money on it not happening, because May wants to go down in history for something and she sees Brexit as her big chance.

Coming back to the subject in hand, Scottish independence, they had their vote on leaving the UK, which didn't seem to be shrouded by all the hype the Brexit vote had, but at the same time I think they have a point in Brexit possibly changing their position. Logically a re-run of the Scottish referendum could be held after a Brexit confirmation referendum if the latter confirms Brexit.

 

Applying your logic(?) we'd see re-run after re-run of every election held in the U.K. Our version of democracy is far from perfect, but replacing it with a model which allows re-runs until the whinging losers get the result they'd prefer does not seem preferable, to me at least.

Well, I didn't suggest re-runs ad infinitum, and only feel it appropriate because of the very obviously flawed information fed to the public, with full information as to what Brexit actually means in practice still not known, and I only suggest it re Scottish independence because the argument of those pushing for that are basing it ipon the effect of Brexit.

This is all quite different from normal political cycles of government elections, Brexit having a far greater and lasting effect on the lives and livelihoods of all people living in Britain.

northpole posted:

Scotland has enjoyed its referendum.  As has the UK.  They've been and gone.  Please do get over it and move on.

Peter

Northpole,

Can you answer this question truthfully? I assume that you were a supporter of Brexit, although I could conceivably be wrong. In the event that the referendum had not gone your way by a narrow margin, would you have continued to argue and fight for UK 'Independence', or would you have simply accepted that your chance had come and gone and that you would reluctantly choose to make the best of a bad deal within the EU? Even if that would have been your position, I'm damn sure that Nigel Farage and his supporters would have been crying "Foul!" and demanding a second referendum as soon as possible.

On the Scottish Independence issue, I am genuinely undecided at the moment (unlike my position on the EU which has always been clear. I voted "No" the last time round, and I honestly do not know yet which way I will vote at the next. However, one thing is very clear to me. Even if I do not support Independence, I trust Nicola Sturgeon and her party to govern and take care of the Scottish electorate (the common man)  very much more than I would trust Theresa May and her party.

I don't think that the concept of a "Liberal Elite" exists in Scotland to the same extent as it appears to (at least from some of the posts to the Naim Forum) in England. However, the idea that Theresa May's policies are designed to support the 'common man' more than those of Sturgeons (or for that matter Corbyn's) is absolutely ludicrous.

HMACK

Well, I'm afraid you have me wrong.  I have many issues with the EU however, my preference was to remain in the mechanism; fight from within to bring about the changes which were conceivable without destabilising it;  and my assumption was that this was the way the majority of UK citizens would vote.  I, and many others in London, were quite shocked to learn of the outcome.  I don't support the notion of an independent London (or even City of London as some may have it!).  The nation was presented with the opportunity to express their views.  This was the basis upon which the tories were elected - they could not conceivably have dodged the bullet for another term without allowing the vote.  There is a question of timing, but that is done now.  It cost Cameron his position and exposed Boris for the so-and-so he is.  That's the way the cooky crumbled.  Quite extraordinary.

If not too crass, the 'afters' we are hearing from politicians and others is a little bit like listening to football manager's after their side lost for any number of reasons they are keen to highlight and distract from the outcome.  But they are irrelevant.  And very tiresome.  The result of the football matches remain as they were when the final whistle blew.  The result of the referendum should also stand.  Same north of the border.  We all understood these votes were once in a generation, not votes until we get our preference.  We all need to get over it and focus on making the outcomes as successful as possible rather than spend more time looking like a stubborn donkey whilst those in the EU with their own domestic problems try and get as much over us as they possibly can.  Spain the latest example with Gibralter.  A successful outcome being not just a good outcome for UK but equally important, an EU which can maintain stability at a time when several economies are placing a worrying burden on the 'sponsoring' nations.  That last point is my greatest concern.

Hope that clears up my position.

Peter

Peter,

I wholeheartedly apologise for my incorrect assumption about your position on the Brexit referendum, and I also have some sympathy for your position with respect to future referendums.

However, I feel that our exit from the EU (against the wishes of the clear majority of Scottish voters) justifies Nicola Sturgeon's position in respect of her request for a second referendum. I should also state that for a variety of reasons, many people outside Scotland seem not to grasp the fact that Sturgeon is very well respected (sorry Andarian - you are wrong here) by most people in Scotland. I may not vote the way she would like me to in a follow-up election, but I do very much admire her as a very able politician of sincerity conscience nevertheless. That is much more than I would claim (with some exceptions) for very many of the mainstream politicians at a UK level.   

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't feel that I have to reside in Scotland to form an opinion about the political character of Sturgeon.  Politicians, particularly national leaders, are judged on their public appearances and their ability to portray political beliefs and competences or otherwise.  We have all (other than those in their constituencies) had to judge Blair, Cameron, May, etc., on their public appearances; and I think the various political interviewers have drawn out the essence of who these people are very well.  My opinion is that Sturgeon, Salmond and others have gone out on a limb for the first (and hopefully final) referendum and will jump at any opportunity to have a second bite of the proverbial cherry.  My very best lifelong friends live in Glasgow and their opinion on Sturgeon are in stark contrast to yours.  I suppose that's how it is with politics.  We all have our opinions.

However, back to my original point - we have had our referendum, the results have been published; and we should move on, together, not divided.  My opinion on Sturgeon or others does not and should not affect whether there should or should not be another referendum.  The opportunity was there for the taking during the referendum on independence - SNP failed to carry the support of the Scottish population.  Prior to the Scottish referendum, it was well known that there would be a UK referendum on the EU - that was tory policy for the last two parliaments; so it should have come as no surprise whatsoever when the vote took place.  Even if the outcome was unexpected.  If it were such a massive issue for Sturgeon etc, why did they not hold fire on the Scotland referendum?  Hindsight and all that, but the top tier politicians could not have but known what was coming. 

Northern Ireland has much greater potential to create problems following the short sighted stance of the DUP's leader over the catastrophic energy initiative for which she was responsible and has led to politics in the province returning to a knife edge.  And so it goes...

Peter

Northpole posted:

"My very best lifelong friends live in Glasgow and their opinion on Sturgeon are in stark contrast to yours".

Ah, but are they Scottish? Maybe that makes a difference, or are they supporters of the Tory party in Scotland? Anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

However, I do agree with you that the Northern Ireland/Eire situation and how it is resolved is potentially the most worrying aspect of the Brexit vote. Let us all hope that an acceptable (to all) compromise regarding the future border can be reached.

It won't be easy!

 

northpole posted:

Prior to the Scottish referendum, it was well known that there would be a UK referendum on the EU - that was tory policy for the last two parliaments; so it should have come as no surprise whatsoever when the vote took place.  Even if the outcome was unexpected. 

Not quite, prior to 2015 manifesto / campaigning there was a policy that prior to any further EU treatises / transfer of power, there would be an In/Out referendum (a policy also in Lib Dem's 2010 manifesto). The idea for an arbitrary In/Out referendum was only introduced in the 2015 manifesto and (its suggested) was designed to fight off the UKIP challenge as well as a way to hold off Tory party dissent.  There was also a commitment in the 2015 manifesto to the EU single market (separate from an In/Out referendum) - given May's position now the situation HAS changed.

Since the result of the EU referendum pretty much shocked everybody (even those who campaigned for it), I think it reasonable to posit that most voters who took part in the previous vote on Scottish independence did so on the assumption that the UK was likely to remain in the EU. And given that a comfortable majority of Scottish voters elected to remain in the EU, I think it perfectly reasonable for the SNP to argue that there has been a material change in circumstances which justifies another vote on independence.  

Moreover I think I'm right in saying that a greater proportion of Scottish voters voted to remain in the EU than voted to stay part of the UK.  Therefore it is plausible to argue that had some of those whose voted to stay in the UK known at the time that they would later be forced out of the EU by English and Welsh voters they might have voted instead for Scottish independence.  I know these things can never be proven but I think its an argument that is hard for the UK government in Westminster to dismiss.  I also acknowledge that even if Scottish voters had known what the later EU referendum result would be, a vote for Scottish independence would not have guaranteed  continued membership of the EU for Scotland.   

All that said, I still very much hope that Scotland remains part of the UK which I think is in both Scotland and the rest of the UK's interests.  I can also understand why the PM doesn't want the Brexit negotiations further complicated by another vote on Scottish independence, but in my view neither of those arguments defeat the earlier one I have outlined which justifies another independence vote.

wenger2015 posted:

According to one of the latest polls, only 26% of Scots want another referendum? 

I think Nicola Sturgeon is out of step with public opinion,  it's time for her to concentrate on more important issues. 

Give them another vote ... put the EU and independence things to bed. If they want to leave, so be it ...

wenger2015 posted:

According to one of the latest polls, only 26% of Scots want another referendum? 

I think Nicola Sturgeon is out of step with public opinion,  it's time for her to concentrate on more important issues. 

Not sure where the 26% came from but the current set of polls show between 37% to 43% would vote Yes and that is before a campaign was fought.

No vote has remained at about 48% to 55%.

Some of the polls didn't take into account 16-18 year old voters so there could be a swing in both camps

naim_nymph posted:
northpole posted:

Scotland has enjoyed its referendum.  As has the UK.  They've been and gone.  Please do get over it and move on.

Peter

It's impossible to 'move on' from a flawed electoral procedure that produced a knee-jerk fluke winning result to such a narrow margin. The real majority and the real voice of the people will continue to remain with the 30 + million  who did not vote for, and remain not wanting Brexit. The 17m Brexit voters are in fact a minority, half of which are made up of people who realise they've not going to get the Brexit they've voted for and would change their minds if/when we get re-vote, plus more than a few million complete idiots who have always been clueless about how much the UK benefits from being a member of the EU. So don't expect the wiser and far bigger majority of the people of the UK who didn't want or vote for Tory Dogs Breakfast Brexit to get over this sham and move on. The irony is that most of the Brexit Tory Party fan club voters are going to be the ones worse off when those hob-nailed boots of Westminster start trampling over your rights that you were gifted with from the EU.

Debs

If there was a prize for the most delusional load of twaddle on these forums you would win by a country mile. It was a simple yes no vote. 17,410,742 voted to leave 16,141,241 voted to stay. Where do you get this 30+ million nonsense from? Nearly 13 million couldn't be bothered to drag themselves to a polling booth or fill out a postal vote form. Why should we care what their opinion is, and what special insight do you have to know how the might have voted? On the actual topic I am quite looking forward to the Scottish national socialists losing a number of seats at the GE.

I agree the swing to tories in Scotland could indicate anti-referendum,  but this UKPollingReport dated 28 April shows a little movement since the previous March poll that says it's maybe not the case.  

 Voting intention on Scottish independence stands at YES 45%(+2), NO 55%(-2) (and that’s without 16 and 17 year olds, so reality might be slightly more pro). Asked about a second Indyref, YouGov asked both about the principle of it and the specific timing – on principle, 42% of Scots want a referendum in the next five years, 51% do not. 

I see a growing dissatisfaction in SNP & a reluctance to return to the traditional labour vote,  notwithstanding the disaster that is the labour party at the moment.  The tory party in Scotland with Ruth Davidson as leader have got their act together & have moved on from the stigma of the landowning class of years past & look to have become the 'new' swing too party.   Over recent times scottish politics has been a series of huge swings;  labour under Blair had a landslide that decimated the tories,  this led to the rise & dominance of SNP & now the wheel is showing signs of turning again.  How far it will turn is questionable, I see SNP remaining very strong for the foreseeable future,  their opposition will for sure be the tories.  The question then is who will disaffected SNP voters move to if labour does rebuild.  Then if their is another IndyRef  ..............  interesting times.  

 

I am all for discussion from opposing points of view but could we please, in this forum at least, stop doing politics - this is what is screwing the whole world up.

 

By "politics" I mean

* statements pretending to be facts when they are just opinions;

* quoting opinion polls - irrelevant to any discussion of the merits or otherwise of a position;

* reflections of the personal nature on individuals, either the politicians or other members of this forum;

* taking a stance just because it is a party's stance;

 

* etc.

 

I have never belonged to a political party because I would not support all policies of any party; the most I could do with a policy I did not agree with is stay silent/abstain. Each policy should be approached from an individual viewpoint.

 

For those quoting numbers who voted, please stop ... you can argue them anyway you like but we had the referendum (both Scottish and Brexit) that we had and it was a win/lose scenario, nothing else;

* there could have been a threshold other than 50%;

* there could have been a threshold against the entire population;

* there could have been a legal requirement to vote (I  prefer this one since you can always spoil your ballot paper but at least this is a positive gesture);

* there could have been a requirement for voters to pass some test before they were allowed to vote so we could at least know that those voting actually knew something about what they were voting about rather than voting the way their favourite celebrity/newspaper/partner/etc said (contrevertial !.

... but none of the above happened so we have to live with what we got and cannot comment on what might have been if all the other non-voting public had participated.

 

In terms of Scottish independance

- I voted no (but with reservations);

- I agree with the logical position that there has been a substantive change of circumstances and that another referendum has merit;

- still undecided about how I would vote in the rerun but am currently minded to change my vote to yes.

 

I have not replied prior to this since there has been a lot of rubbish and irrelevant opinion posted that I thought would be self-evident to readers, but sadly not.

 

We live in a very flawed society and a very flawed political system but we are where we are and have to work with what we have ... so bring on indy ref 2

 

stuart.ashen posted:

What is interesting is the size of the swing to the conservatives. I thought they were dead in Scotland. I certainly see this as an anti referendum vote. 'Tis also true that the SNP remain strong though. GE up north will be interesting.

Stu

I would like to wish the Scottish Tories well in the GE ....

Allan Milne posted:

 

I am all for discussion from opposing points of view but could we please, in this forum at least, stop doing politics - this is what is screwing the whole world up.

 

By "politics" I mean

* statements pretending to be facts when they are just opinions;

* quoting opinion polls - irrelevant to any discussion of the merits or otherwise of a position;

* reflections of the personal nature on individuals, either the politicians or other members of this forum;

* taking a stance just because it is a party's stance;

 

* etc.

 

I have never belonged to a political party because I would not support all policies of any party; the most I could do with a policy I did not agree with is stay silent/abstain. Each policy should be approached from an individual viewpoint.

 

For those quoting numbers who voted, please stop ... you can argue them anyway you like but we had the referendum (both Scottish and Brexit) that we had and it was a win/lose scenario, nothing else;

* there could have been a threshold other than 50%;

* there could have been a threshold against the entire population;

* there could have been a legal requirement to vote (I  prefer this one since you can always spoil your ballot paper but at least this is a positive gesture);

* there could have been a requirement for voters to pass some test before they were allowed to vote so we could at least know that those voting actually knew something about what they were voting about rather than voting the way their favourite celebrity/newspaper/partner/etc said (contrevertial !.

... but none of the above happened so we have to live with what we got and cannot comment on what might have been if all the other non-voting public had participated.

 

In terms of Scottish independance

- I voted no (but with reservations);

- I agree with the logical position that there has been a substantive change of circumstances and that another referendum has merit;

- still undecided about how I would vote in the rerun but am currently minded to change my vote to yes.

 

I have not replied prior to this since there has been a lot of rubbish and irrelevant opinion posted that I thought would be self-evident to readers, but sadly not.

 

We live in a very flawed society and a very flawed political system but we are where we are and have to work with what we have ... so bring on indy ref 2

 

I agree. Let's have another and put the issue to bed - logically, after the EU negotiations have concluded.

But, if the outcome were to favour independence, let's not be having arguments about a border (there will be one) or currency (use your own). Independence is a fine and worthy aspiration for all nations - but you don't get to have your cake and eat it.

Bring it on ...

YNWA250505 posted:

"But, if the outcome were to favour independence, let's not be having arguments about a border (there will be one) or currency (use your own). Independence is a fine and worthy aspiration for all nations - but you don't get to have your cake and eat it.

Bring it on ..."

Really, YNWA250505? So you have the inside track on this, do you?

Do you think Theresa May will build a wall, and is she going to make us poor Scots pay for it to be built? I guess that she has one advantage over Trump in that the process has already been started by Hadrian, albeit some time ago. She simply has to fill in the gaps.

Seriously though, do you apply the same logic to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Do you really think that the re-establishment of a hard border that will inevitably have to be policed by the military on either side is a good idea. Like Blair and his time in office or not, the establishment of peace in Northern Ireland was the biggest of his party's achievements, and could not possibly have been achieved without the dismantling of border posts between the two countries. Do you really want to risk future peace just to re-establish border checkpoints on Northern Ireland's borders. If you do, would you be prepared to man the borders?

 

Hmack posted:

YNWA250505 posted:

"But, if the outcome were to favour independence, let's not be having arguments about a border (there will be one) or currency (use your own). Independence is a fine and worthy aspiration for all nations - but you don't get to have your cake and eat it.

Bring it on ..."

Really, YNWA250505? So you have the inside track on this, do you?

Do you think Theresa May will build a wall, and is she going to make us poor Scots pay for it to be built? I guess that she has one advantage over Trump in that the process has already been started by Hadrian, albeit some time ago. She simply has to fill in the gaps.

Seriously though, do you apply the same logic to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Do you really think that the re-establishment of a hard border that will inevitably have to be policed by the military on either side is a good idea. Like Blair and his time in office or not, the establishment of peace in Northern Ireland was the biggest of his party's achievements, and could not possibly have been achieved without the dismantling of border posts between the two countries. Do you really want to risk future peace just to re-establish border checkpoints on Northern Ireland's borders. If you do, would you be prepared to man the borders?

 

Not Hadrian's wall, the Antonine wall - you don't get away with pinching that much land!  And since the Reavers are gone, we'll claim the "Debatable Land".  

One of the problems with Brexit is that unless we get a soft Brexit, remaining in the customs union and a free trade deal from day one or very soon after.  So unless you want to just accept that smuggling will be rife, then, yes there'll have to be a hard border in NI, with all the risk that entails.  Even if citizens have free access to the other country, there will still need to be a hard customs border.  Most people didn't think about this consequence of Brexit.

The situation is similar for Scotland if Scotland were to obtain independence and negotiate different trade deals to England (Scotland would then need it's own currency, however they could tie its negotiable value to Stirling if they so choose, which might reduce the need for a hard customs border).

Thanks Huge,

It was worth a try! I though no one on the English side would notice.

Although actually, I have to own up that my mistake was more to do with the fact that my knowledge of Roman history in the UK originates from my school days which were a long, long time ago. You are right, of course.

Seriously though, it is unlikely that a border between Scotland and England would result in anything like the same tensions as will potentially exist in Ireland. The solution to the Ireland issue will simply have to be something other than the re-establishment of a hard border with all of its inherent dangers.      

Huge posted:
Hmack posted:

 

Do you think Theresa May will build a wall, and is she going to make us poor Scots pay for it to be built? I guess that she has one advantage over Trump in that the process has already been started by Hadrian, albeit some time ago. She simply has to fill in the gaps.

Not Hadrian's wall, the Antonine wall - you don't get away with pinching that much land!  And since the Reavers are gone, we'll claim the "Debatable Land".  

I'm not sure ... we could compromise - give Scotland Newcastle and we'll keep Carlisle.

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×