Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8
Discussion
andy_s said:
GoneAnon said:
The manifesto specifically included the provision of a new indyref in the event of change of circumstances such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against it's will.
They were about to take themselves out of the EU anyway weren't they?**of course they were
Edited by FN2TypeR on Monday 20th March 20:38
Why would we bother? It's not like the unionists will listen, and we really don't need the abuse.
Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
GoneAnon said:
Areyou seriosly suggesting takig up arms against your fellow British citizens?
Now that's SNP logic right there. Illustrate how ridiculous one guy's moaning about a bit of swearing is relative to the unrest such splits cause elsewhere and I'm suggesting taking up arms? GoneAnon said:
the tiny minority and massive majority you speak of are figments of your imagination.
The massive majority relates to the rest of the UK. The SNP are intent on giving it a kicking as much as they are intent on Scotland going it alone. And the rest of the country, like most of us up here are utterly bored of it all already.As Jim Sillars pointed out on the link above, the SNP claims of 62% must include all the Tory remainers e.g. Ruth Davidson and many more, who are as anti Indy as they come. Not to mention the Sillars types (30%?) who want Indy with no EU. So that's her biggest 'mandate' debunked. Her other 'mandate' of "manifesto" can equally be debunked as she said a vote for SNP wasn't a vote for another vote, and that's before she relies on the Greens betraying their own manifesto to help her over the top.
Manifestos are only important when they suit the agenda you see.
GoneAnon said:
The manifesto specifically included the provision of a new indyref in the event of change of circumstances such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against it's will.
I looked in both the one posted from 2016 and the one for 2015 and I couldnt see that clause, can you help me out with that please?GoneAnon said:
Why would we bother? It's not like the unionists will listen, and we really don't need the abuse.
Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
Who can blame them? All the Yes campaign ever peddled was utter garbage frankly, lies, deflection and a campaign so half arsed it made Gove and BoJos "Vote Leave" mob look professional.Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
GoneAnon said:
Areyou seriosly suggesting takig up arms against your fellow British citizens?
The manifesto specifically included the provision of a new indyref in the event of change of circumstances such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against it's will.
To have had a Holyrood majority in the last parliament and almost there again after 10 years in power - in a system specifically designed to avoid majority rule - and to send 56 of Scotland's 59 MPS to Westminster rather suggests that the tiny minority and massive majority you speak of are figments of your imagination.
This is the only reference to the EU, please explain your leap of faith.The manifesto specifically included the provision of a new indyref in the event of change of circumstances such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against it's will.
To have had a Holyrood majority in the last parliament and almost there again after 10 years in power - in a system specifically designed to avoid majority rule - and to send 56 of Scotland's 59 MPS to Westminster rather suggests that the tiny minority and massive majority you speak of are figments of your imagination.
We believe it is best for Scotland to stay part of
the EU (European
Union). We think that people in Scotland and across
the UK will
vote to stay part of the EU. But we will campaign p
ositively for an
“in” vote, to remain in the EU.
SBDJ said:
GoneAnon said:
The manifesto specifically included the provision of a new indyref in the event of change of circumstances such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against it's will.
I looked in both the one posted from 2016 and the one for 2015 and I couldnt see that clause, can you help me out with that please?Phud said:
This is the only reference to the EU, please explain your leap of faith.
We believe it is best for Scotland to stay part of
the EU (European
Union). We think that people in Scotland and across
the UK will
vote to stay part of the EU. But we will campaign p
ositively for an
“in” vote, to remain in the EU.
I'm sure the BBC will have reported the2016 manifesto accurately: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-3...We believe it is best for Scotland to stay part of
the EU (European
Union). We think that people in Scotland and across
the UK will
vote to stay part of the EU. But we will campaign p
ositively for an
“in” vote, to remain in the EU.
Independence and the constitution
It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.
Oh look, it is pretty much word-for-word from the SNP. https://www.snp.org/the_snp_2016_manifesto_explain...
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Maybe the Guardian coverage of the 2015 manifesto is more to your taste? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/20/s...
EU referendum – proposal that there should be a double majority requirement, whereby each of the four constituent nations of the UK would have to vote for withdrawal before the UK as a whole could leave the EU.
LB: This is highly unlikely to be accepted should a referendum be called, but immediately establishes the SNP’s opposition to it and highlights the difference in public opinion north of the border. Useful since Sturgeon has acknowledged that a decision to leave the EU could be the “material change in circumstances” necessary to put another independence referendum in her 2016 Holyrood manifesto.
Now, if these journalists can find it, and a simple YESSER like me can find it,I'm astounded that all you smart Unionists can't. Maybe it's the big, complicated words like "significant" and "material" that confuse you?
In the 2014 ref we were told that the only way to stay in Europe was to vote No. The only people talking about a Euro referendum at that time were the tories and even they didn't expect to win the Westminster election, so it is wrong to say that anyone voted to stay in the UK knowing there was to be an in-out vote. At best,it was a (slim) possibility but no more than that.
I personally know one successful Polish guy who HAD to vote NO so he could continue his business here which employs local people and now has no idea if he can stay or if he will have to leave. Can you guess how he will vote in another Indyref now that the lies are starting to come out? Like the Sewell Convention, for instance, supposedly enshrining the new powers in law but which turns out NOT to be worth the paper it is printed on.
Let's also remember for a moment that the morning after the result when we learned of English Votes for English Laws. Or the introduction of union flags on driving licences shortly afterwards. If that wasn't a petty and childish kick I'm not sure what would be.
Edited by GoneAnon on Monday 20th March 21:35
GoneAnon said:
Why would we bother? It's not like the unionists will listen, and we really don't need the abuse.
Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
I've certainly never insulted anyone, I've no dog in the fight and don't care who is in charge, one lot is as bad as the other frankly. So if you have a case to make, please make it - one positive, tangible advantage of independence to me and my family?Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
The arguing will prevail until the coo's come hame, but the simple fact is Sturgageddon is never going to happen, the majority of Scottish people are well aware of the chaos and devastating damage that the SNP would cause to Scotland if they got their wish break up the UK.
The deluded Charlatans are being seen for the liars and manipulators of facts by more and more people every day that passes, they are doing their cause no favours.
It's hard to believe that such a bunch of blinkered and dangerous amateurs are at the helm of Scotland.
The deluded Charlatans are being seen for the liars and manipulators of facts by more and more people every day that passes, they are doing their cause no favours.
It's hard to believe that such a bunch of blinkered and dangerous amateurs are at the helm of Scotland.
technodup said:
GoneAnon said:
Are you seriously suggesting taking up arms against your fellow British citizens?
Now that's SNP logic right there. Illustrate how ridiculous one guy's moaning about a bit of swearing is relative to the unrest such splits cause elsewhere and I'm suggesting taking up arms? technodup said:
Think yourself lucky we're not touring through your town on the back of Toyota pick-ups.
I'm going to assume you didn't mean that you were coming in those pick-ups to steal my sheep. Maybe you would like to say exactly what I should think myself lucky you weren't going to do in my town?GoneAnon said:
Why would we bother? It's not like the unionists will listen, and we really don't need the abuse.
Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
This is just my point. The is no rational Independence argument, so when challenged independence supporters just fall back on "why bother, we don't need the abuse". As I see it the only way to answer the doubters is to explain why and how independence offers a better future for Scotland. To do this the independence movement needs to properly answer all the outstanding questions re currency, deficit, EU membership, costing etc. AND why being independent will be better in the future (not nonsense like 'it can't be any worse' or fantasy projections about this that and the next thing as if no other country in the world has thought of it before). I'm utterly against independence but IF someone can provide evidenced answers I'd at least consider the idea. Until then I'll just consider the independence movement a delusional cult.Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
GoneAnon said:
It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.
Oh look, it is pretty much word-for-word from the SNP. https://www.snp.org/the_snp_2016_manifesto_explain...
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Maybe the Guardian coverage of the 2015 manifesto is more to your taste? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/20/s...
EU referendum – proposal that there should be a double majority requirement, whereby each of the four constituent nations of the UK would have to vote for withdrawal before the UK as a whole could leave the EU.
LB: This is highly unlikely to be accepted should a referendum be called, but immediately establishes the SNP’s opposition to it and highlights the difference in public opinion north of the border. Useful since Sturgeon has acknowledged that a decision to leave the EU could be the “material change in circumstances” necessary to put another independence referendum in her 2016 Holyrood manifesto.
Now, if these journalists can find it, and a simple YESSER like me can find it,I'm astounded that all you smart Unionists can't. Maybe it's the big, complicated words like "significant" and "material" that confuse you?
I have trimmed it but thanks for the abuse, and also the quote is is almost word for word, actually the words are not in the manifesto but added later, but it seem you wish to ignore that.Oh look, it is pretty much word-for-word from the SNP. https://www.snp.org/the_snp_2016_manifesto_explain...
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Maybe the Guardian coverage of the 2015 manifesto is more to your taste? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/20/s...
EU referendum – proposal that there should be a double majority requirement, whereby each of the four constituent nations of the UK would have to vote for withdrawal before the UK as a whole could leave the EU.
LB: This is highly unlikely to be accepted should a referendum be called, but immediately establishes the SNP’s opposition to it and highlights the difference in public opinion north of the border. Useful since Sturgeon has acknowledged that a decision to leave the EU could be the “material change in circumstances” necessary to put another independence referendum in her 2016 Holyrood manifesto.
Now, if these journalists can find it, and a simple YESSER like me can find it,I'm astounded that all you smart Unionists can't. Maybe it's the big, complicated words like "significant" and "material" that confuse you?
Edited by GoneAnon on Monday 20th March 21:35
Here is the only part of the 2016 Manifesto which mentions referendum, We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if it is clear that more than half of the people in Scotland want independence.
Edited by Phud on Monday 20th March 21:56
GoneAnon said:
Oh look, it is pretty much word-for-word from the SNP. https://www.snp.org/the_snp_2016_manifesto_explain...
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, if these journalists can find it, and a simple YESSER like me can find it,I'm astounded that all you smart Unionists can't. Maybe it's the big, complicated words like "significant" and "material" that confuse you?
Nobody's questioning they said it. I'm not even questioning the fact that there is a material change (although I would). What I'm asking is how the SNP explain it's against our will, given we've never been asked officially, the polls don't suggest it and the make-up of the so called 62% is questionable in the extreme. We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, if these journalists can find it, and a simple YESSER like me can find it,I'm astounded that all you smart Unionists can't. Maybe it's the big, complicated words like "significant" and "material" that confuse you?
So never mind the big complicated words, explain the small simple ones "against our will" to us.
GoneAnon said:
In the 2014 ref we were told that the only way to stay in Europe was to vote No.
We did stay in the EU. I don't remember anyone saying it was binding forever. I do remember something about a generation though...
andy_s said:
I've certainly never insulted anyone, I've no dog in the fight and don't care who is in charge, one lot is as bad as the other frankly. So if you have a case to make, please make it - one positive, tangible advantage of independence to me and my family?
Lots of reasons come to mind. We heard a lot about the "Arc of Prosperity" until the financial meltdown in 2008, then we heard how badly those countries were doing. Since then those governments took action appropriate to their own circumstances and have now recovered better than the UK. We now have a couple of taxpayer-owned banks at least one of which (HBoS) was actually English despite the brass plate in Edinburgh. Most of their bailout money came from foreign governments, principaly the USA but we are regularly told how wonderful it was to have Westminster bail them out. As an RBS shareholder, maybe it woould have been better to let them fail?
Every Scottish Pound in circulation is backed by a Poundd deposited at the Bank of England. English money is not backed in the same way - think "quantative easing".
Norway invested a fraction of their oil wealth (only since and now earn more from that than they do from oil. We still have time to do something similar if we stop pisssing money away on nukes etc.
You and your family have benefitted from 10 years of Council Tax being frozen. The 10 years before saw a 73% increase in mine.
You don't pay bridge tolls any more.
You and/or your children can benefit from free university fees.
The Westminster government could adjust the VAT treatment for Police Scotland and The Fire & Rescue Service but won't. Why?
Europe didn't have to give permission for the euro referendum but Westminster insist on giving their consent to a Scottish vote. Why?
When the Brexit negotiations begin, what Scottish interests will be a price worth paying to protect the south? We've already seen European money intended for Scottish hill-farmers, diverted to English items.
We won't have to contribute to the cost of things like London Crossrail, HS2 and other projects that don't come within hundreds of miles of us?
Maybe we could have a national airline that will allow us to fly anywhere except London.
Can you find me a country - any country - that has won independence from the UK and asked to come back?
technodup said:
So never mind the big complicated words, explain the small simple ones "against our will" to us.
I'd also like to know why the SNP/nats have suddenly changed their attitude towards exiting the EU as well. They were quite prepared for it to happen off the back of an independent Scotland - so why is it suddenly such a bad thing (I bet it's cos the sassenachs voted for it......
)technodup said:
GoneAnon said:
Oh look, it is pretty much word-for-word from the SNP. https://www.snp.org/the_snp_2016_manifesto_explain...
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, if these journalists can find it, and a simple YESSER like me can find it,I'm astounded that all you smart Unionists can't. Maybe it's the big, complicated words like "significant" and "material" that confuse you?
Nobody's questioning they said it. I'm not even questioning the fact that there is a material change (although I would). What I'm asking is how the SNP explain it's against our will, given we've never been asked officially, the polls don't suggest it and the make-up of the so called 62% is questionable in the extreme. We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, if these journalists can find it, and a simple YESSER like me can find it,I'm astounded that all you smart Unionists can't. Maybe it's the big, complicated words like "significant" and "material" that confuse you?
So never mind the big complicated words, explain the small simple ones "against our will" to us.
GoneAnon said:
In the 2014 ref we were told that the only way to stay in Europe was to vote No.
We did stay in the EU. I don't remember anyone saying it was binding forever. I do remember something about a generation though...
We then look at the ones who made a little effort and find that 6 out of 10 of those said Stay, and only 4 out of 10 say Leave, but becuase a smaller % majority in our larger neighbour say they are going so we have to as well, I'd say that's kind of being taken out against our will.
Imagine going out with a crowd of mates. You get to a pub you like and would quite like to stay in, but your bigger pals say they are moving on. They don't know where they are moving to, how long it will take to get there, how expensive the beer is and it is cold and wet outside but they make you go with them or be left behind.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff