Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8

[Rollin]

England football win has well and truly triggered the natgammons.

[r11co]

Strocky said:

You draw the line at a country, which Scotland as you're well aware is.

Which voted against independence in 2014, and every opinion poll before and since suggests they would do the same if asked at any point in recent history. That's self-determination for you.

[Strocky]

DocJock said:

So, not only is your arithmetic ste, your written English is as well...

By the way, D'Hont is an irrelevant, total deflection, as you well knew when you posted it. The SNP have never achieved anywhere near a majority of either the constituency vote or the regional vote since the diddy parliament was set up.

Interesting why you didn't quote my subsequent follow up post regarding the South of England but kudos on working out that the Scottish Parliament was setup for consensus politics by Blair/Dewar/Labour and not winner takes all as per WM

Not really seeing the relevance of the % vote share in Holyrood at the last election (46.5%)
As the SNP lost a majority even when they gained 1.1% constituency vote share from 2011

[Sway]

Strocky said:

It's fairly simple point I'm making as you "suspect"

You draw the line at a country, which Scotland as you're well aware is

Scotland was a country. It's retained it's nominal status through quirk of history. Look at all the central European "countries" of the 16th C that are now firmly regions.

The whole "equal partner" tripe is yet another example of the chips on shoulders.

Why should it be equal? It does have more prominence than Wales or NI - that's the nature of broadly equal constituency sizes.

Why do you feel that the considerations or desires of the majority of six million people should be considered equal to the considerations and desires of the majority of 50 million people?

[Alpacaman]

r11co said:

Strocky said:

You draw the line at a country, which Scotland as you're well aware is.

Which voted against independence in 2014, and every opinion poll before and since suggests they would do the same if asked at any point in recent history. That's self-determination for you.

2014, a chance for Scotlands voice to be heard. Except the SNP can't hear that voice because it didn't give the answer it was supposed to. So Scotland's voice should only be heard when it gives the answer that suits your plans? No wonder you are so keen to try and gain entry to the EU, that's the sort of democracy they love.

[Strocky]

r11co said:

Strocky said:

You draw the line at a country, which Scotland as you're well aware is.

Which voted against independence in 2014, and every opinion poll before and since suggests they would do the same if asked at any point in recent history. That's self-determination for you.

Yep, however it's not a fixed datum point no matter how much of a comfort blanket that would be for some

[Strocky]

Sway said:

Strocky said:

It's fairly simple point I'm making as you "suspect"

You draw the line at a country, which Scotland as you're well aware is

Scotland was a country. It's retained it's nominal status through quirk of history. Look at all the central European "countries" of the 16th C that are now firmly regions.

The whole "equal partner" tripe is yet another example of the chips on shoulders.

Why should it be equal? It does have more prominence than Wales or NI - that's the nature of broadly equal constituency sizes.

Why do you feel that the considerations or desires of the majority of six million people should be considered equal to the considerations and desires of the majority of 50 million people?

You better phone the United Nations and tell them to update their database then

[Strocky]

Alpacaman said:

2014, a chance for Scotlands voice to be heard. Except the SNP can't hear that voice because it didn't give the answer it was supposed to. So Scotland's voice should only be heard when it gives the answer that suits your plans? No wonder you are so keen to try and gain entry to the EU, that's the sort of democracy they love.

Nope, try again

[Rollin]

SNP said it was once in a lifetime/generation vote....until they blew it.

[Sway]

Why? The UN take the apolitical view of 'the UK calls itself a nation of nations, so we'll go along with it - however Scotland is not recognised nor can be interacted with as all UN interactions are with the UK'.

It's a proper fudge that supports my assertion, not refutes it.

As for Blair's note - you are on the same terms. One MP per x constituents. One person one vote.

Same terms does not mean equal power.

[r11co]

Strocky said:

r11co said:

Strocky said:

You draw the line at a country, which Scotland as you're well aware is.

Which voted against independence in 2014, and every opinion poll before and since suggests they would do the same if asked at any point in recent history. That's self-determination for you.

Yep, however it's not a fixed datum point no matter how much of a comfort blanket that would be for some

As I said before - new developments but same old st from pseudo Nats. The main proponents of Scottish nationalism have taken a kicking in two elections since that date.

You are getting boring now Strocky.

[Alpacaman]

Strocky said:

Alpacaman said:

2014, a chance for Scotlands voice to be heard. Except the SNP can't hear that voice because it didn't give the answer it was supposed to. So Scotland's voice should only be heard when it gives the answer that suits your plans? No wonder you are so keen to try and gain entry to the EU, that's the sort of democracy they love.

Nope, try again

Is that the best you have got? "Nope, try again". Strange Strocky whenever you start posting I always remember what Mark Twain said "Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." So I will stop arguing with you and leave you to get on with your nationalist fantasies, while the rest of us carry on in the real world.

[Silverbullet767]

Getting bored with this thread now, same old arguments with the same old people, nothings going to change, there's no independence vote coming in the future, the nats are losing votes and will continue to do so if they keep harping on with with the same old greivance politics.

As you wouldn't have googled it earlier, here's the definition of confirmation bias....

Confirmation bias is a cognitive error that people make when they are only willing to accept new information when it confirms what they already believe. People who fall into the trap of confirmation bias tend to purposefully seek out evidence that supports already solidified beliefs and purposefully reject any evidence that goes against those beliefs.

Originator: Peter Wason (1924-2003)

Have fun you lot.

[57 Chevy]

SNP win court case by proving they are liars...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44532985

[Kccv23highliftcam]

r11co said:

I wondered what the motivation for this random post attacking Mundell was, until I read this.

So, it seems that having lost the argument Blackford has resorted to type and opted to sling personal insults, and of course where he leads the sheep follow.

And there are so, so many of them. In fact they all seem to have paid into the SNP coffers!

[Uppity]

gofasterrosssco said:

Uppity said:

gofasterrosssco said:

Uppity said:

gofasterrosssco said:

So, you equate having a veto in the European Parliament, being what, less than 1% representation, with approx. 9% in WM? Forgetting all the influence and aspects in various committees and gov agencies, with most power excised through the civil service than anything else.

So Scotland is just going to veto stuff it doesn't agree with.. How lose friends and alienate yourself. I think you'd find Scotland would be fairly easily bent to the EU's will when financial carrots are dangled.. That's why small nations have little clout..

Again - that is something an independent Scotland would have to consider when deciding what its relationship with the EU should be.

Ok, fair enough. But two questions:

1) Why can't we consider it now (and haven't we been)?

We have - in the UK context - and we have given a decisive response, but that was subsumed into the UK response (larger population with different agenda trumps smaller population every time)

gofasterrosssco said:

2) What makes you think we'd have a choice?

At a very high level, the recreation of an independent Scotland will require a period of transition away from the UK, followed by a Scottish General Election to elect the new Government. I've no idea what the new political make-up of Scotland might be, but there will be parties vying for your vote with either pro- and anti-EU policies. Your decision.

gofasterrosssco said:

The likely reality (not set in stone, just going by previous form) is that we'd be offered a 'take it or leave it' EU offer,

And you could vote accordingly - in an independent Scotland

Edited by Uppity on Tuesday 19th June 11:51

Missing the point I was making - we Scots can have as many internal votes as we want, but that makes no difference to our external relationships (or lack there of). We can decide we want to rejoin the EU but not adopt the Euro - how do you think that will play out?

Your point about making a decision when you're there is just a rehash of old stuff from years ago. Point is you have no idea. And the real options both either heavily contradict your whole agreement for political or economic freedom (rejoin the EU), or throw Scotland in as an isolationist country who isn't willing to compromise to join a mutually beneficial union (either UK or EU).

OK, let me rephrase the point:

At a very high level, the recreation of an independent Scotland will require a period of transition away from the UK, followed by a Scottish General Election to elect the new Government. I've no idea what the new political make-up of Scotland might be, but there will be parties vying for your vote with

- pro and anti-EU policies
- pro and anti nuclear weapons
- pro and anti corporation tax
- pro and anti infrastructure projects
- pro and anti international treaties..

...etc.

With an independent Scotland, Scotland decides. That's the point

[technodup]

Uppity said:

Nope. Just in favour of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny.

We've already tested this. Scotland doesn't want to be in charge of its own destiny.

[Uppity]

technodup said:

Uppity said:

Nope. Just in favour of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny.

We've already tested this. Scotland doesn't want to be in charge of its own destiny.

That is indeed the consequence of the No vote

[NRS]

Uppity said:

r11co said:

That's the thing though, they aren't really arguing Nat. Read the subtext of their recent posts and you can see its more to do with anti-Conservative sentiment. That's what seems to bring them out.

Nope. Just in favour of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny.

gofasterrosssco said:

It is. Remember that event we had in 2014.? Is that not being in charge of your own destiny?

Yes, it was. And the voters chose to remain in the UK on the basis of a number of arguments. Remember these?



The reason the independence voice isn't going away is because people remember the anti-independence promises and are comparing them against Westminster's actions. As David Mundell reminded us last week during his statement on the Sewel Convention; "Scotland is not a partner of the United Kingdom; Scotland is part of the United Kingdom,"

And, because of the representation issue (59 MPs out of 650), Scotland has no comeback to this. There are no consequences for Mundell or any of his ilk.

So the question of Scotland being in charge of its own destiny is both democratic and ideological - democratically, we need a voice and ideologically, we should be able to form and implement our own policies. Under the current system, both goals can be ignored at will by Westminster if they don't align with their agenda - and there are no consequences.

Edited by Uppity on Tuesday 19th June 14:33

We are equal. We have approximately the same number of people voting for a MP as anywhere else in the UK. Would you say it is fair if say Wales could affect Scotland, just because they should also have a equal voice? People also knew this would be the case in 2014, it wasn't a big surprise we have a lot less MPs in total than the rest of the UK - so that is not a promise broken.

We also have our own parliment who can do a lot of their own policies. And often do apply them, often at the local level against the wishes of the locals (take Trump's golf course in Aberdeenshire as an example). So if Westminister is evil for forcing its views on Scotland, why is it ok the SNP do on local areas in Scotland? Surely that's just evil Edinburgh MPs dictating their will on the people, as the SNP complain Westminister does?

[technodup]

Uppity said:

OK, let me rephrase the point:

At a very high level, the recreation of an independent Scotland will require a period of transition away from the UK,

Has this transition to start before or after the UK transition from the EU?

Because if you get your way we're either going to be transitioning from two things at once, or two things one after the other. Either way, it'll be a clusterfk of epic proportions. (Not to mention the proposed third transition back in to the EU). Just how long do you want us to be in stasis for?

I understand why politicians want 'more politics, more of the time'. Going by polls I've seen re Brexit the people agree with me that we've had quite enough for the foreseeable, thanks very much.

See your moratorium on fracking? Let's have a moratorium on new laws. Just none, for five years. No campaigning, no proposals and nothing added to the ban list. And certainly no fking referendums. Just peace and quiet to go about our business.