Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[Wombat3]

fluffnik said:

davepoth said:

So to sum up: It's not owned by the state.

It will do when the Crown is absorbed and digested by a new Republic and the Windsors become common Citizens just like everyone else.

No vestige of feudal theocracy should remain.

Dream on, it not gonna happen in your lifetime you mug

[NoNeed]

fluffnik said:

NoNeed said:

How do you make them all "renounce" titles?

Perhaps by criminalising any claim to abolished titles.

If they prefer jail and massive fines, so be it.

(all the "K" should go too)

I thought you wanted to re-create Norway in Scotlamd? they still have a monarchy.

and what's K?


Also how do you legally abolish a title when a law to do that needs royal assent?

[Garvin]

The nationalists' bile of this thread appears to be taking a breather from attacking Dave, his evil Tory henchmen and the rest of Westminster and turned its attention to offloading its bitter-and-twistedness against the Monarchy. I thought the SNP wanted to retain the Queen as Head of State (or have I got that one wrong?) or will she become the next target for the SNP and its band of followers if independence is gained.

What then when the land of milk & honey doesn't miraculously appear? Uprisings against the President or whatever republican leader is put in a more or less a like-for-like position? Perhaps that will just be the rather pathetic and mainly unelected top administration of the obviously corrupt (we daren't publish our accounts) EU the SNP seem to like so much!

[finnie]

A question for the PH gassers on scottish politics:

I watch the TV and see the SNP politicians go on about that this election is not about a referendum on independance. Namely last night on BBC One it was repeated several times that membership in westmister is not a path to independance. However every comment I see/hear/read from the "45" go on and on abut how we will be better on our own - ie independant. The leaders also go about another referendum if the people want it. From what i see the nationalist public do want it.

Is there not a disconnect here between the party and the people? The leaders are on TV saying one thing with the public they represent wanting another

[andymadmak]

finnie said:

A question for the PH gassers on scottish politics:

I watch the TV and see the SNP politicians go on about that this election is not about a referendum on independance. Namely last night on BBC One it was repeated several times that membership in westmister is not a path to independance. However every comment I see/hear/read from the "45" go on and on abut how we will be better on our own - ie independant. The leaders also go about another referendum if the people want it. From what i see the nationalist public do want it.

Is there not a disconnect here between the party and the people? The leaders are on TV saying one thing with the public they represent wanting another

There is no disconnect, just dishonesty.
The SNP is looking to smash Labour in Scotland, and then to use the platform of most Scottish MPs being from the SNP as a basis from which to launch a new referendum within 5 years ( the will of the Scottish people blah blah blah)
However, to smash Labour the SNP need to persuade lots of Labour voters to switch to the SNP and this is where the problem lies because many of those voters will be folk who voted NO in the referendum.
If they thought that voting SNP to Westminster was essentially the same as voting YES to independance then many would not vote SNP, so Ms Sturgeon has to reassure them that its nowt to do with independance, and everything to do with " making sure that Scotlands voice is heard in Westminster" . Be under no illusions though. Once the SNP has its platform it WILL push again for that second referendum. Want to avoid a second referendum, and 5 more damaging years for investment in Scottish jobs? Vote Labour, Tory, Lib Dem as appropriate to lock out the SNP.

[finnie]

I think thats my point, they are trying to get votes to better represent scotland in westminster. But the existing SNP public want to split. The leaders say they will have a referendum if the people want it. They seem to want it so the leaders will have to give it. Exactly opposite to what they are saying to existing no voters to get them to vote SNP.

I think I am far less likely to vote SNP now than I was to vote Yes in the referendum because of this. I doubt I am alone in this, so are we going to see another shock silent vote on Firday???

[IainT]

Rollin said:

Problem is that the nationalists won't be able to stop themselves from describing any minor interaction as a 'victory for Scotland!'.

The nats failed to convince the people of Scotland on the merits of their argument. Now they're going to try to convince the English.

[AstonZagato]

fluffnik said:

It will do when the Crown is absorbed and digested by a new Republic and the Windsors become common Citizens just like everyone else.

No vestige of feudal theocracy should remain.

It almost sounds as though you have a deep-seated inferiority complex. That someone inheriting a title make you feel inadequate.

Feudal?
We don't have peasants anymore. The aristocracy are not required to raise armies for the monarchy. Parliament is sovereign. What are you on about?

Theocracy?
No-one, not even (I suspect) Lizzie Windsor, believes her power comes from some sky fairy. Yes, she takes her religious role seriously but she takes all of her state roles seriously.

It has become a toothless tradition amongst many quaint traditions that their country has. It is a tradition that attracts droves of tourists to visit. The alternative ideas for an elected president are equally unattractive.

The House of Windsor will one day cock up and things will change. They probably would have gone if Edward VIII had been on the throne in WWII.

For now, the British people are content with a constitutional monarchy exactly because they can see it is NOT a feudal theocracy. If you think it is, I think you need your bumps felt.

[Strocky]

simoid said:

Strocky said:

Not really, I agree with the vast majority of their core policies but I'm not goin to spite my nose because of a few things I don't agree with

Do you agree with every Tory policy?

Or is there a red line policy for you?

Edited by Strocky on Saturday 2nd May 12:52

What's the Tories got to do with anything?

I assumed you are a Tory voter?

[Rick_1138]

andymadmak said:

finnie said:

A question for the PH gassers on scottish politics:

I watch the TV and see the SNP politicians go on about that this election is not about a referendum on independance. Namely last night on BBC One it was repeated several times that membership in westmister is not a path to independance. However every comment I see/hear/read from the "45" go on and on abut how we will be better on our own - ie independant. The leaders also go about another referendum if the people want it. From what i see the nationalist public do want it.

Is there not a disconnect here between the party and the people? The leaders are on TV saying one thing with the public they represent wanting another

There is no disconnect, just dishonesty.
The SNP is looking to smash Labour in Scotland, and then to use the platform of most Scottish MPs being from the SNP as a basis from which to launch a new referendum within 5 years ( the will of the Scottish people blah blah blah)
However, to smash Labour the SNP need to persuade lots of Labour voters to switch to the SNP and this is where the problem lies because many of those voters will be folk who voted NO in the referendum.
If they thought that voting SNP to Westminster was essentially the same as voting YES to independance then many would not vote SNP, so Ms Sturgeon has to reassure them that its nowt to do with independance, and everything to do with " making sure that Scotlands voice is heard in Westminster" . Be under no illusions though. Once the SNP has its platform it WILL push again for that second referendum. Want to avoid a second referendum, and 5 more damaging years for investment in Scottish jobs? Vote Labour, Tory, Lib Dem as appropriate to lock out the SNP.

Last night on the debates, Willie Rennie was grabbing this a bit and essentialy pointing out that while Nicola Sturgeon and the sNP heads are saying they wont offer a second referendum unless Scottish people (I.E. the SNP party members), however their MP's are canvasing to the public that the SNP are doing this to get a second referendum, a good example being Mhari Black, who has said on video several times this is what the SNP are going to do.

Also he mentioned that while the SNP party members may vote for a second referendum on the SNP manifesto for 2016, this will be the minority of scottish voters again dictating where the nation should be going with regards to yet another referendum and plunging scotland into yet more uncertainty.

I can buit hope the SNP get half of the seats the polls expect them too (i.e. their 'kinnock' moment) or the Tories get enough seats for a small majority.

[Strocky]

Rick_1138 said:

Also he mentioned that while the SNP party members may vote for a second referendum on the SNP manifesto for 2016, this will be the minority of scottish voters again dictating where the nation should be going with regards to yet another referendum and plunging scotland into yet more uncertainty.

I can buit hope the SNP get half of the seats the polls expect them too (i.e. their 'kinnock' moment) or the Tories get enough seats for a small majority.

If the SNP win a majority in Holyrood 2016, would you then accept it's then fair and democratic if another referendum is held?

TBH I don't see another referendum for at least the next 10 years minimum

If the UK is pulled out of the EU and Scotland votes to remain I foresee Scotland unilaterally declaring independence

[spitsfire]

finnie said:

A question for the PH gassers on scottish politics:

I watch the TV and see the SNP politicians go on about that this election is not about a referendum on independance. Namely last night on BBC One it was repeated several times that membership in westmister is not a path to independance. However every comment I see/hear/read from the "45" go on and on abut how we will be better on our own - ie independant. The leaders also go about another referendum if the people want it. From what i see the nationalist public do want it.

Is there not a disconnect here between the party and the people? The leaders are on TV saying one thing with the public they represent wanting another

Possibly, but it keeps their core support enthusiastic, and that is a necessary evil for them to succeed; it's a lot easier to control the election story of the day when you've got a large, united and very assertive support base. If it's a bad story, publicly identify the source on social media and question their motives. If it's a good story, retweet ad infinitum whilst complaining of being ignored by the 'MSM'.

You won't find any journalists in Scotland going through SNP policy a la Paxman or Andrew Neil; those who might be tempted are cognisant of last year's rally against BBC 'bias' and the pasting some of their colleagues get on social media from angry Nats.

Ultimately this means that the Nats get a fairly light grilling of their policies, so they can promise any old st and blame somebody else if it doesn't materialise:

'You know how we promised everybody a unicorn? Sorry, but the Tories killed them with the bedroom tax in a foodbank. Not our fault'

[Rollin]

Scotland can't vote to remain in the EU in a UK referendum.

Remember that map of regions that voted no in Scotland, and how you nats said it was irrelevant?

[Rick_1138]

Strocky said:

Rick_1138 said:

Also he mentioned that while the SNP party members may vote for a second referendum on the SNP manifesto for 2016, this will be the minority of scottish voters again dictating where the nation should be going with regards to yet another referendum and plunging scotland into yet more uncertainty.

I can buit hope the SNP get half of the seats the polls expect them too (i.e. their 'kinnock' moment) or the Tories get enough seats for a small majority.

If the SNP win a majority in Holyrood 2016, would you then accept it's then fair and democratic if another referendum is held?

TBH I don't see another referendum for at least the next 10 years minimum

If the UK is pulled out of the EU and Scotland votes to remain I foresee Scotland unilaterally declaring independence

Its fair and democratic insofar that the majority of seats in the govt has a majority, however its the claiming that the 'people' get to decide, when in fact its the minority of the people who vote for the SNP (though the majority vote is fractured between Con\Lab\Dem) so as a result again we have the minority trying to get the vote they wanted rather than acepting the last one.

basically i am saying the SNP should be saying publicaly that there will be no further ref vote for at least 15-20 years, the fact they wont speaks volumes.

Also, Scotland cannot declare independance, they have to get permission to secede from the union from westminster, and again, if more than half scots dont want to split, then it wont, unless some 75% of scots wanted to leave then i cant see it being feasible as it would ruin the country with the infighting and hatred between groups after the split. The crap you see about online from both sides would get worse and worse and there would be a lot of trouble.

[spitsfire]

Strocky said:

If the SNP win a majority in Holyrood 2016, would you then accept it's then fair and democratic if another referendum is held?

TBH I don't see another referendum for at least the next 10 years minimum

If the UK is pulled out of the EU and Scotland votes to remain I foresee Scotland unilaterally declaring independence

What does 'fair and democratic' mean in this context? I'd suggest the more relevant criteria might be what is reasonable and what is practicable.

It's not reasonable (nor, by association, fair) to describe a constitutional question as 'once in a generation' but then asking it endlessly because you didn't like the answer given. It's not practicable to spend 6 months in every Parliamentary term paralysing the country, causing economic uncertainty, and alienating the rest of the UK.

By most rational measures, it is remarkably stupid.

But I don't think that makes it in any way less likely.

[spitsfire]

Interesting article from Private Eye on Rupert Murdoch and Alex Salmond's love in

Private Eye said:

The “Auld Alliance” between Murdoch and the SNP goes back a long way. The Leveson inquiry revealed that Alex Salmond had held more than two dozen meetings with Murdoch, his son James and their senior henchmen. Salmond had shown a “striking” readiness to lobby UK ministers on behalf of Murdoch’s News Corporation, Leveson said. He was seeking political support from the Scottish Sun at the same time as he was offering to help the Murdoch family drive through its takeover of BSkyB.

[Garvin]

Strocky said:

If the SNP win a majority in Holyrood 2016, would you then accept it's then fair and democratic if another referendum is held?

If they campaign very openly in the run up to that election that this is what they will do and when, then yes.

However, they are attempting to conceal their real objectives in the current GE as they know it would count against them with SNP supporting 'no' voters, hence their continued blathering that the GE is not a vote for independence (methinks they protest too much!). Unfortunately, they cannot control their party members who continue to give the game away. Indeed, even Sturgeon alluded to bringing another referendum back on the table sooner rather than later before she realised what a clanger she had just dropped (along with the catastrophic declaration that she would do anything and everything to keep the Tories out of government). It is just deceit, pure and simple, by a very naive and not very bright Sturgeon.

[Strocky]

Garvin said:

Strocky said:

If the SNP win a majority in Holyrood 2016, would you then accept it's then fair and democratic if another referendum is held?

If they campaign very openly in the run up to that election that this is what they will do and when, then yes.

They would have to, it would be voted on by the membership and be in black and white

[Garvin]

Strocky said:

Garvin said:

Strocky said:

If the SNP win a majority in Holyrood 2016, would you then accept it's then fair and democratic if another referendum is held?

If they campaign very openly in the run up to that election that this is what they will do and when, then yes.

They would have to, it would be voted on by the membership and be in black and white

Of course, it isn't just up to them whether a referendum is held though is it!!

[gofasterrosssco]

Normal service has resumed...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-3...

Apparently they were not in anyway YESNP related..