Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 9

[Pastor Of Muppets]

Back on topic.

If Alister Jack is correct that there won’t be a second independence referendum for 25-40 years, then that would mean the SNP would have a bare minimum of 19 years to wait.

However..It is perfectly democratic to block Sturgeon and her exceedingly corrupt cabal forever .........

https://www.effiedeans.com/2020/11/it-is-perfectly...

[Evercross]

Pastor Of Muppets said:

Back on topic.However..It is perfectly democratic to block Sturgeon and her exceedingly corrupt cabal forever .........

https://www.effiedeans.com/2020/11/it-is-perfectly...

Of course it is. The only legal and democratic way for the SNP to achieve the powers to hold a secession referendum without being granted them by a Prime Minister of another party is for them to stand candidates in enough UK constituencies (and then win them) in a UK General Election so that they can appoint their own leader as PM, bring a bill to the House of Commons for the s.30 variance of the Scotland Act (or indeed bring a replacement version of the Act that changes the constitutional powers of the devolved parliament) and then have it successfully pass through the stages of the HoC and HoL.

I've said this many times before.

Anything else is the tail trying to wag the dog.

It really isn't a difficult thing to grasp, and makes me despair for the commenters in here who embrace the fake narrative of the SNP that in reality means democracy is a minority prevailing over a majority - breaking up the UK affects ALL of the UK, so it is inappropriate and undemocratic for a lower-tier legislature that represents only a part of the UK to prevail over the whole of the UK. This has nothing to do with self-determination and everything to do with a small group chucking their toys out the pram because they cannot get their way yet not having enough support where it matters to get what they want.

Nicola Sturgeon is not so different to Donald Trump/

Edited by Evercross on Saturday 7th November 11:14

[Scotty2]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54825151

Cue parents heading over the border to administer a reprimand! What exactly in the mad mad world of SNP constitutes a smack?? How hard. How often?

Thankfully I am still permitted to smack Mrs Scotty2 on the backside when she insists! For now. How long before "Useless" will try and ban adults playtimes under the "Hate Crime" law. How 1984.

[biggbn]

alangla said:

Training courses before buying fireworks? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54795415

Also, looks like Glasgow Royal Infirmary are doing their bit to help Covid spread by putting CV+ patients in open wards with others https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54748252
In some parts of England up to 25% of hospital “admissions” each day are people who were in hospital for something else & caught it there. Wonder what the figures in various parts of Scotland are? https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/the-ongoing-problem-...

I would be delighted if fireworks became a severely restricted product, only available to those with licences or to local councils/official organisers.

[Klippie]

Apparenty the SNP have commisioned a theme tune for the party...after a long list of tunes was considered this one was voted the best of the best...as much as I hate the SNP with every atom in my body I'll admit I find it quite catchy.

What do you all think - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9RUoExrTsg&ab...

[Scotty2]

Ha! Can just see Salmond chasing ladies around the office / Bute house with wee Nippie wagging a finger and tut tutting!

[lothianJim]

Scotty2 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54825151

Cue parents heading over the border to administer a reprimand! What exactly in the mad mad world of SNP constitutes a smack?? How hard. How often?

.

Apparently sufficient force to leave a mark such as a bruise, swelling or redness.

[Desiderata]

Scotty2 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54825151

Cue parents heading over the border to administer a reprimand!

I wonder if you could really do this or whether it would still be a crime to plan to cross the border to commit what would be a criminal act if you stayed at home? Or maybe we could just use it as a threat to keep our kids under control? I'm not far from the border, I could threaten my kids with a trip to Carlisle when they get naughty.

[Error_404_Username_not_found]

Carlisle? Christ, that's a bit severe. I never got anything worse than the cane.

[coppernorks]

Evercross said:

Of course it is. The only legal and democratic way for the SNP to achieve the powers to hold a secession referendum without being granted them by a Prime Minister of another party is for them to stand candidates in enough UK constituencies (and then win them) in a UK General Election so that they can appoint their own leader as PM, bring a bill to the House of Commons for the s.30 variance of the Scotland Act (or indeed bring a replacement version of the Act that changes the constitutional powers of the devolved parliament) and then have it successfully pass through the stages of the HoC and HoL.

I've said this many times before.

Anything else is the tail trying to wag the dog.

It really isn't a difficult thing to grasp, and makes me despair for the commenters in here who embrace the fake narrative of the SNP that in reality means democracy is a minority prevailing over a majority - breaking up the UK affects ALL of the UK, so it is inappropriate and undemocratic for a lower-tier legislature that represents only a part of the UK to prevail over the whole of the UK. This has nothing to do with self-determination and everything to do with a small group chucking their toys out the pram because they cannot get their way yet not having enough support where it matters to get what they want.

The UK government would be rightly derided by the rest of the democratic world if a large majority of Scots desired
self-determination and the UK administration ignored the rights of a devolved part of the UK.

The good folk of the rump UK have no right in Law to deny Scots the right to self determination, where does it say
that the dissolution of the Treaty of 1707 can only be achieved via the consent of the UK electorate ?

[hutchst]

But a large majority of Scots don't desire independence, so your rant is moot.

[Leithen]

We had a vote.

We chose to remain part of the Union.

We really don’t want to have a vote every few years, or every time the country goes through a rough patch.

Canada has been here with Quebec. Let’s learn something from that.

[i4got]

coppernorks said:

The UK government would be rightly derided by the rest of the democratic world if a large majority of Scots desired
self-determination and the UK administration ignored the rights of a devolved part of the UK.

The good folk of the rump UK have no right in Law to deny Scots the right to self determination, where does it say
that the dissolution of the Treaty of 1707 can only be achieved via the consent of the UK electorate ?

But the UK did allow a (once in a generation) referendum. Unlike many other countries around the world who currently won't (and certainly won't be deriding anyone)

[anonymous-user]

hutchst said:

But a large majority of Scots don't desire independence, so your rant is moot.

Since the last referendum on independence, England has voted to leave the EU, dragging Scotland with it, against its will. It's not unreasonable to believe this may have changed many Scots' thinking.

I am not convinced your statement is true.

[technodup]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Since the last referendum on independence, England has voted to leave the EU, dragging Scotland with it, against its will. It's not unreasonable to believe this may have changed many Scots' thinking.

I am not convinced your statement is true.

Can we stop repeating this fking lie?

Scotland voted to remain in the UK. The UK voted to leave the EU. Truth hurts, but that's how it is. Plus, had Scotland voted to leave the UK, it would also by definition (and confirmed in writing) have left the EU.

This 'dragging out', 'crashing out', 'against it's will' bks is emotive desperation to appeal to the losers who have been led a merry dance by the charlatan SNP who think they can pick and choose which bits of democracy they want.

[Jasey_]

hutchst said:

But a large majority of Scots don't desire independence, so your rant is moot.

This.

Having said that I suspect there will be another referendum if the SNP can win the next Scottish elections with an increased majority.

I just don't think that will happen.

[anonymous-user]

technodup said:

an we stop repeating this fking lie?

Which lie?

In 2014, 2 years before the EU referendum, Scotland voted 55/45 in favour of remaining in the UK.

Two years later the UK as a whole narrowly voted to leave the EU on a 52/48 split. Scotland, however, voted to remain by 62/38 (England was 47/53).

It's unarguable that Scotland was a willing 'leaver'.

Leaving the EU fundamentally changes the UK and Scotland's relationship with Europe and Scotland's access to the EU (including funding). This was not a position envisaged by the first independence referendum.

In light of the seismic and unwanted (by Scots) change in circumstances, why would it be unfair or unreasonable to allow another vote on independence?

I note, many of those who seek to deny it are the same who demanded loudest a referendum on the EU.

[hotchy]

Jasey_ said:

hutchst said:

But a large majority of Scots don't desire independence, so your rant is moot.

This.

Having said that I suspect there will be another referendum if the SNP can win the next Scottish elections with an increased majority.

I just don't think that will happen.

Wait until she locks us down over Christmas, maybe then the brainwashed may wake up.

[andy_s]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

technodup said:

an we stop repeating this fking lie?

Which lie?

In 2014, 2 years before the EU referendum, Scotland voted 55/45 in favour of remaining in the UK.

Two years later the UK as a whole narrowly voted to leave the EU on a 52/48 split. Scotland, however, voted to remain by 62/38 (England was 47/53).

It's unarguable that Scotland was a willing 'leaver'.

Leaving the EU fundamentally changes the UK and Scotland's relationship with Europe and Scotland's access to the EU (including funding). This was not a position envisaged by the first independence referendum.

In light of the seismic and unwanted (by Scots) change in circumstances, why would it be unfair or unreasonable to allow another vote on independence?

I note, many of those who seek to deny it are the same who demanded loudest a referendum on the EU.

Because it's divisive horse st stirred up by self-centered politicians who after 70 years of planning couldn't argue a basic economic case - and knew it but carried on regardless?

[technodup]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

technodup said:

an we stop repeating this fking lie?

Which lie?

The following ones.

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

In 2014, 2 years before the EU referendum, Scotland voted 55/45 in favour of remaining in the UK.

Two years later the UK as a whole narrowly voted to leave the EU on a 52/48 split. Scotland, however, voted to remain by 62/38 (England was 47/53).

It's unarguable that Scotland was a willing 'leaver'.

Yes thanks, we know the numbers. We also have gone over this tiresome debate hundreds of times. In respect of the EU referendum THERE IS NO SCOTLAND/England/Wales/N.I. So your numbers are moot, irrelevant, useless.

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Leaving the EU fundamentally changes the UK and Scotland's relationship with Europe and Scotland's access to the EU (including funding). This was not a position envisaged by the first independence referendum.

Yes it was, it was discussed many many times, to the point Salmond asked the EU if we could stay in and they told him to fk off. In writing. We all saw it. Stop trying to rewrite history, you're not very good at it. I note that funding seems to be your concern... has it never crossed your mind that a) we are 'funded' by the UK more than the EU, and b) that the EU, after losing it's 2nd largest contributor might not want another basket case sucking on the teat?

Of course point a applies to funding, trade, travel, currency, law, family ties, language, social norms and much more. Quite why the SNP and their muppet adherents want to sack all that and be a hanger on in the very foreign EU I'm not sure. Except I am, that lovely EU money obvs... (the same money that we pay in tax, the UK pays to the EU and we get a wee sliver back to build a bridge or two). Idiots.

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

In light of the seismic and unwanted (by Scots) change in circumstances, why would it be unfair or unreasonable to allow another vote on independence?

That 'seismic' (or more realistically slight) change in trading relationship would have happened AND WOULD STILL HAPPEN should Scotland vote to leave the UK. Scotland is NOT A MEMBER OF THE EU ffs.

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

I note, many of those who seek to deny it are the same who demanded loudest a referendum on the EU.

Note whatever you like, as with the rest of your post it's irrelevant.