Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8
Discussion
SilverSixer said:
You may be right, but there's bugger all that can be done to stop them now. May could have worked with them after the Scottish Government proposals which they presented in, what, December? Ignored. More ammo. May hasn't got a clue what she's doing here, nor on brexit. It's all just gripping the wheel, steering blankly ahead and hoping the wall jumps out of the way. And if it doesn't, then, well. We've got a nice little Tory fiefdom left called England. May's number 1 priority is party, not country. The way she's flipped over brexit illustrates this. Have a look at some of the stuff she came out with when supporting the Remain campaign. She's shooting Britain in the neck as a unified entity, and she doesn't, really doesn't care.
Which is mostly personal bias on your part. Mine suggests to me that she's actually playing this out well and knows full well what she's doing and aims to achieve on both topics.
As for her "Remain" support...I always got the impression she was much more balanced than the rest, especially when you consider the pressure she was probably under from her leadership. She was quick to dismiss the greater elements of FUD. Though did come down on the side of Remain. I don't see her stance now as a problem at all, however - the people want something different. We all need to accept that and do what we can to ensure that happens with the best possible outcome, which she seems to be trying to do.
r11co said:
SilverSixer said:
You may be right, but there's bugger all that can be done to stop them now.
On the contrary. Anyone saying that doesn't understand the s.30 process and the Scottish Parliament. Sturgeon went off half-cocked last Monday because she needed a present for her party faithful at the SNP conference on Friday.Sturgeon has no mandate for a second referendum until she wins a vote in the Scottish Parliament. That is not a foregone conclusion as the SNP are a minority. It seems the Scottish Greens will back the vote despite it requiring them to break a clear manifesto pledge, so there is still time and opportunity for them to be mindful of their political future and what they owe to their voters.
Even if the vote passes it will be subject to a debate where all the issues and questions surrounding the proposals will be aired under the full media spotlight. This will be against a background of a failing record in government that the SNP seem to have no answer to or inclination to solve, and blaming Westminster will sound hollow when the UK parliament is tied up with other issues and Holyrood has the powers in the meantime to take action.
Too many people are forgetting that this time it is very different from last time around when the SNP stood on a manifesto pledge to have a referendum on independence with no caveats, and won a majority at Holyrood on the back of it.
Edited by r11co on Monday 20th March 14:21
one big issue I can see the SNP facing in the not too distant future is: how long can they hold onto the 'fracking' moratorium to keep the greens on side?
I think fracking in Scotland is a certainty, but how long can the snp keep holding it off for? Buckle too soon and the greens are off and they no longer have a majority in holyrood. Leave it too late and ship has sailed on the money they need to bolster the oil/gas industry in Scotland....
I think fracking in Scotland is a certainty, but how long can the snp keep holding it off for? Buckle too soon and the greens are off and they no longer have a majority in holyrood. Leave it too late and ship has sailed on the money they need to bolster the oil/gas industry in Scotland....
SilverSixer said:
You may be right, but there's bugger all that can be done to stop them now. May could have worked with them after the Scottish Government proposals which they presented in, what, December?Ignored. More ammo.
Worked with them? You seem to be under the misapprehension that the SNP was seeking constructive dialogue with Westminster. It wasn't. Instead it put forward a set of wholly unworkable proposals (Scotland in the UK AND in the single Market etc etc) and then stood ready to flounce as soon as Mrs May said no. Mrs May did the right thing by not engaging in such silliness. The British Government has a duty to negotiate for the wellbeing of all the UK states, and frankly being seen to engage with nonsense from the SNP (no matter how many times the SNP might keep repeating the word "credible") is not a priority . SilverSixer said:
May hasn't got a clue what she's doing here, nor on brexit. It's all just gripping the wheel, steering blankly ahead and hoping the wall jumps out of the way. And if it doesn't, then, well.
well that is your view, and you are of course entitled to it. I cannot say that I agree with it however. May seems to be going about things in a reasonably systematic fashion and dealing with the obstacles as they present themselves - in fact to date one can say that she has dealt with the issues really rather well given that we will be triggering Brexit "on time"
SilverSixer said:
We've got a nice little Tory fiefdom left called England. May's number 1 priority is party, not country.
its hardly her fault that there is no effective opposition now is it? As always the electorate will decide what happens to the Tories at the next GE. Again your opinions should not be confused with facts. SilverSixer said:
The way she's flipped over brexit illustrates this. Have a look at some of the stuff she came out with when supporting the Remain campaign. She's shooting Britain in the neck as a unified entity, and she doesn't, really doesn't care.
She was a Remainer, and now she is tasked with delivering the result of the Referendum. An unenviable task which she has engaged with well imho. That is hardly "flipping" is it? Your use of emotive shooting imagery is hardly helpful, nor is it accurate - but that's just my opinion.
B'stard Child said:
Looks nothing like you fella - you are 7 foot tall and built like a brick sheet house and I've never seen you holding whirlygig flowers or wearing pink tinted glasses or have your hair in pigtails..... (not actually sure you have enough hair to do that)
But if you say so I'm in no position to argue sir.
Sometimes on the weekend when I'm Felicity.But if you say so I'm in no position to argue sir.
SilverSixer said:
Scotland elected an SNP government, you can hardly blame that government for implementing its manifesto.
And the UK elected a Conservative Government which had a clear manifesto pledge to offer an in/out Referendum on EU membership - you can hardly blame that Government for implementing its manifesto.........andymadmak said:
SilverSixer said:
Scotland elected an SNP government, you can hardly blame that government for implementing its manifesto.
And the UK elected a Conservative Government which had a clear manifesto pledge to offer an in/out Referendum on EU membership - you can hardly blame that Government for implementing its manifesto.........SilverSixer said:
And a commitment to the EU Single Market, which they are reneging on. If you want to play Manifesto Poker.
Trumped by the fact that during the Referendum campaign the PM and most other senior Remainers made it 100% clear that voting out meant leaving the SM. Hey, they even spent some of my money on a handy leaflet confirming it which they sent to every household..Northern Munkee said:
kowalski655 said:
jsf said:
The reduction in the size of the civil service will save a fair few pennies.
A good chunk of the UK wide civil service is based in Scotland,eg debt collection is done from Stornoway, some big tax offices too i think, so if Scotland did go, there may be more civil servants.Of course all the civil servants from Scotland can then make up the new government, should be done in 3 days,for 50 groats and a crate of Irn Bru,if you believe the SNP.
But you carry on.
Edited by Northern Munkee on Monday 20th March 11:12
There will be more civil servants in rUK, as they take over what the Scots offices did, perhaps i shouldhave specified *in rUk*, but that was what the post i quoted referred to.
Apologies if i wasn't clear but no doubt we could have more "workshy lazy gold plated pensioned civil servants"[/PH mode]
And the Scots civil servants who lose their jobs them become the CS for iScot, which may be tricky as they couldn't even take on some DWP benefit functions without 4 extra years.
andymadmak said:
SilverSixer said:
And a commitment to the EU Single Market, which they are reneging on. If you want to play Manifesto Poker.
Trumped by the fact that during the Referendum campaign the PM and most other senior Remainers made it 100% clear that voting out meant leaving the SM. Hey, they even spent some of my money on a handy leaflet confirming it which they sent to every household..But as with your pal dontbesilly, please stop trying to have the brexit argument with me in the wrong thread - it's boring.
SilverSixer said:
I meant that there was bugger all that anyone can do to stop the SNP banging the drum for independence until such time as another referendum is held. I understand the s.30 process and the need for a vote in the Scottish Parliament. Everything which has happened thus far since brexit gives them ammo, whether you like it or not, whether you think they have a right to fire that ammo or not. Fire it they will, on and on, until either they hit the target or the gun gets taken away from them. Scotland elected an SNP government, you can hardly blame that government for implementing its manifesto.
And that time should be for a generation, 30 years.Nothing which has happened has given them ammunition, what has occurred is that the SNP has decided it will try to impose it's versions of facts on to the UK, if they really want a full picture then let the UK vote on the break up.
I suggest you look at the SNP manifesto for 2016 as it does not say anything about a second referendum and the knowledge of the EU referendum was widespread.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/thesnp/pages...
SilverSixer said:
But they didn't win, and the Leave campaign which did were are pains to stress that it wasn't so and that leaving the EU didn't mean leaving the single market, and to try to stay on topic a bit Michael Gove said a vote to leave would strengthen the Union of the UK. How's that one going? Also, leaflets don't trump manifesto commitments.
In fairness, we don't know whether it has or hasn't yet. If we have another referendum and it is 40/60 No then they can claim they have.Phud said:
I suggest you look at the SNP manifesto for 2016 as it does not say anything about a second referendum and the knowledge of the EU referendum was widespread.
In fact it says:SNP said:
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.
They aren't even close to half of the people in Scotland on present figures are they?Their 2015 UK manifesto also made it clear that election wasn't about independence either.
SilverSixer said:
But they didn't win, and the Leave campaign which did were are pains to stress that it wasn't so
But that's simply wrong and you know it. And having this discussion on the SI thread IS pertinent, given that Brexit is the latest excuse from the SNP for calling another "once in a lifetime" Referendum.
andymadmak said:
SilverSixer said:
But they didn't win, and the Leave campaign which did were are pains to stress that it wasn't so
But that's simply wrong and you know it. And having this discussion on the SI thread IS pertinent, given that Brexit is the latest excuse from the SNP for calling another "once in a lifetime" Referendum.
"There is a Free Trade Zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian Border and we willb epart of it".
Quote from Dan Hannan of Vote Leave:
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single market".
Quote from Owen Paterson of Vote Leave:
"Because only a madman would actually leave the Market".
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain...
But you know all this, it's been posted on the brexit thread, and yet you continue to peddle misinformation that Vote Leave campaigned on the basis of leaving the Single Market. They didn't. The fact that some remainers said that it would be a natural consequence of leaving the EU and therefore we should remain has turned out to be quite correct.
SilverSixer said:
. The fact that some remainers said that it would be a natural consequence of leaving the EU and therefore we should remain has turned out to be quite correct.
That isn't correct. It isn't a natural consequence. What you can't do is stay as a full member of the Single Market whilst simultaneously not accepting free movement of people. As you have yourself often emphasised: the Leave campaign made a big think about "control" over EU immigration, therefore that meant leaving the single market.If it wasn't for the immigration control issue, which is a political hot potato and they all know it, I suspect we would be aiming for something which looked an awful lot like EFTA/EEA membership. As it stands I suspect they are aiming for something which looks as much like EEA/EFTA membership as possible in practice which will allow some give on FOM.
SilverSixer said:
Can't upload it from behind my work firewall, but I have a Vote Leave 'leaflet' on my computer which states the following:..
You are comparing apples with oranges. This is about the same people going back on their word. You are talking about disparate groups arguing conflicting points, and going off on a tangent in the process of doing so.Alex Salmond did say 'once in a lifetime'. Sturgeon did say a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence. Both of them signed an agreement accepting that the outcome of the 2014 independence would be the "decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect".
Patrick Harvie did say he would not back a second independence referendum call unless it received the support of a million signature petition.
So far one of the three (guess who) has the audacity to flatly deny their actions despite the evidence. The other two sidestep the point when reminded.
There is no rational argument here - this is about individuals in politics acting ultra-vires. The good news is that the easiest answer to them is to go in armed with the simple facts and use them as reasons to refuse to engage, backed up with a responsible approach to the more pressing issues in hand.
The contrast between Theresa May handling in the best way she can a difficult situation she did not want to occur and Nicola Sturgeon effectively resigning the post of First Minister because she can't have things her way couldn't be more stark.
Edited by r11co on Monday 20th March 16:22
confused_buyer said:
SilverSixer said:
. The fact that some remainers said that it would be a natural consequence of leaving the EU and therefore we should remain has turned out to be quite correct.
That isn't correct. It isn't a natural consequence. What you can't do is stay as a full member of the Single Market whilst simultaneously not accepting free movement of people. As you have yourself often emphasised: the Leave campaign made a big think about "control" over EU immigration, therefore that meant leaving the single market.If it wasn't for the immigration control issue, which is a political hot potato and they all know it, I suspect we would be aiming for something which looked an awful lot like EFTA/EEA membership. As it stands I suspect they are aiming for something which looks as much like EEA/EFTA membership as possible in practice which will allow some give on FOM.
t. But it's the realities of politics.If what really mattered was the unity of the UK and to shut the SNP up once and for all, we're going about it a bit of a funny way. But we have a UK government to whom brexit is more important than the integrity of the UK. So be it.
SilverSixer said:
But we have a UK government to whom brexit is more important than the integrity of the UK. So be it.
At this moment in time Brexit is more important than (empty) threats of Scottish secessionism trumpeted by a minority party with no mandate or authority to call a referendum. Its called getting your priorities right.If the PM does unduly turn her attention to the SNP it both legitimises their currently illegitimate calls and undermines her position in what should be her priority interest.
She can and has presented a pragmatic reason for delaying looking at the union issue - what's the worst that can happen? The SNP spend the next four years on their phoney independence campaign while Scotland goes even further down the s
tter? The consequences of the Brexit negotiations are known and the deal turns out to be better than anything the SNP can promise as a 'new start' entry to the EU fold? The people who voted SNP because they thought they best represented Scotland's issues but didn't really want independence get fed up with their constant campaigning for independence and place their votes elsewhere at the next Holyrood election?Lots of good reasons to keep Nippy at arms length. None for embracing her demands.
SilverSixer said:
If what really mattered was the unity of the UK and to shut the SNP up once and for all, we're going about it a bit of a funny way. But we have a UK government to whom brexit is more important than the integrity of the UK. So be it.
It did, they had the once in a generation referendum. But since it didn't go their way there are tears, same as remain, if the vote had been independence do you seriously expect the shout to be, oh hang on you voted to leave so the last referendum needs to be redone as that vote has changed everythingGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff