Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not! Vol 3

[IanH755]

markyb_lcy said:

I’ve not heard one single self-righteous brexiteer use such a moderate and reasonable term such as this in the whole 3+ years since.

It’s always “overwhelming majority” or “the will of 17.4 million people” (which sounds “better”).

I think most of us on PH are aware percentages are fractions of 100 and that 100-52 = 48 and therefore it’s a 4% margin, but thanks for making that clear to those that might not.

Technically it's 48 million vs 16 million with those who didn't/couldn't vote being counted in with who ever won, so far more than a simple 4% margin as that was just 4% of voters, not 4% of the people.

[markyb_lcy]

IanH755 said:

Technically it's 48 million vs 16 million with those who didn't/couldn't vote being counted in with who ever won, so far more than a simple 4% margin as that was just 4% of voters, not 4% of the people.

What are you talking about?

Forget those that can’t / don’t vote, they are not part of the 100%, the 52%, the 48% or the 17.4 million. Why you even bring them up at all in the context of the discussion is a complete mystery.

[SpeckledJim]

markyb_lcy said:

IanH755 said:

Technically it's 48 million vs 16 million with those who didn't/couldn't vote being counted in with who ever won, so far more than a simple 4% margin as that was just 4% of voters, not 4% of the people.

What are you talking about?

Forget those that can’t / don’t vote, they are not part of the 100%, the 52%, the 48% or the 17.4 million. Why you even bring them up at all in the context of the discussion is a complete mystery.

So of those who expressed an opinion, most wanted to do what we’re now doing. Happy days.

So, since we’re all democrats, this bit of the conversation is done with. There’s still loads of juicy stuff left to chew over.

[Ridgemont]

markyb_lcy said:

Graveworm said:

If 8% of the people despite getting nearly 10 percent of the money, run a fiscal deficit 700-850 percent higher than the UK overall. and run a budget deficit when the UK is running a surplus - It is not hard to see why there may be widespread support for Scotland to go. The biggest concern is having neighbours, who are getting older and don't look after their health, who will keep popping around to borrow stuff and not be able to take care of themselves.

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 15th February 11:20

Indeed. Thankfully not everyone sees the future success of our sovereign nation in purely economic terms. Otherwise, London would become a sovereign city state, rejoin the EU and watch the rest of the “old” United Kingdom battle it out for the crumbs that are left

There’s absolutely no way that a majority of people in the Uk or a majority of people in the UK-sans-Scotland, would vote for Scotland to leave the uk.

Then again, I guess we could call “pockets of support” widespread support. This isn’t the age of truth, is it? I mean, how many times have we been informed 52% is an “overwhelming majority”?

Edited by markyb_lcy on Saturday 15th February 13:39

I’m not so sure about that. As a committed unionist it’s striking how few English Unionists there are I can see.

To be honest it’s a bit of a sideshow though. Either Scotland can convince itself it sees a benefit from the union or it will leave. Scottish unionists have to make that argument and not rely on the rest to somehow stand in the way.

Personally I think the way forward will not be on the SNP’s woeful record: there appears to be a hardcore 45% who don’t give a tuppenny bit about how the SNP is shafting the people it purports to lead into a promised land.
The killer will be Brexit.
1) Once the competencies come home the question will be why would the SNP give it away to Europe again
2) why would you want a border on the island?
3) if Scotland doesn’t go with the EU exactly how will it thrive as a stand-alone state? What is it about Scotland that it can defy both Brexit and Scoxit? It can be a sovereign nation. But will it be happier?

As Alex Massie noted a couple of weeks ago the Union didn’t resolve a Scottish problem: it resolved in a peaceful way a conundrum that had troubled Scottish leaders for hundreds of years: how do you deal with the English problem on island of Britain.
The EU was one option for resolving that. Brexit trashes that. My sense is that the SNP will not be able to answer that conundrum.

[markyb_lcy]

Not being a unionist (outside Scotland) though doesn’t exactly mean a given person would register a vote for Scotland to leave the Union. Many who would vote for them to stay will have never even considered it until asked in said vote.

To be honest it is mostly academic anyway because the people of the UK-sans Scotland, or the uk as whole, would never have the opportunity of that vote. If there is a 2nd vote on Scotland leaving, it will (and should) be only for those people in Scotland to decide. Otherwise we could have a situation where the electorate of the rest of the Uk could hold Scotland inside the union against their will, and that definitely isn’t going to cut it!

I do wish more English people would value the Scots properly as part of the UK.

[Thorodin]

markyb_lcy said:

Thorodin said:

We haven't. It's been called a sufficient majority of around 4% (not 2%). If parliamentary seats can be decided and divided by 1 vote being sufficient.....

I’ve not heard one single self-righteous brexiteer use such a moderate and reasonable term such as this in the whole 3+ years since.

It’s always “overwhelming majority” or “the will of 17.4 million people” (which sounds “better”).

I think most of us on PH are aware percentages are fractions of 100 and that 100-52 = 48 and therefore it’s a 4% margin, but thanks for making that clear to those that might not.

Just trying to moderate language to contextual terms.

You say "sufficient" is a moderate and reasonable term in the same sentence as you say "self-righteous brexiteer" which is a collective and negative term if ever there was one. You may not have heard that the word sufficient said - I have, many times. Whereas I have not heard the word overwhelming. You might have listened closer to commentators.

Your view of "the will of 17.4 million people" sounding better is just as biased . It also sounds, and is, a plain statement of fact and the unarguable truth - no hyperbole - no exaggeration - no partisan misrepresentation.

[markyb_lcy]

Thorodin said:

. You may not have heard that the word sufficient said - I have, many times. Whereas I have not heard the word overwhelming. You might have listened closer to commentators.

Your view of "the will of 17.4 million people" sounding better is just as biased . It also sounds, and is, a plain statement of fact and the unarguable truth - no hyperbole - no exaggeration - no partisan misrepresentation.

I must have been watching completely different commentary on the whole thing than you over the last 3+ years. I accept you may have heard completely different comments.

My point about 17.4 million “sounding better” was simply that 17.4 million people sounds a lot better than 52% of the referendum electorate. It’s a bigger number, and it doesn’t pay any attention to the fact that it was actually a close won race.

Both stats are “ unarguable truth - no hyperbole - no exaggeration - no partisan misrepresentation.” but one sounds better. That’s just marketing. Call it biased if you like, it’s just my opinion, which is unarguably biased towards my other opinions, my experiences and the like. I make no secret of that, and I don’t hold it any more valuable to the debate than anyone else’s opinion.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Sunday 16th February 00:39

[dcb]

markyb_lcy said:

I do wish more English people would value the Scots properly as part of the UK.

Its about 480 miles from London to Dundee, a similar distance from London
to Frankfurt, in central Germany.

I'll let you guess which one I am required to support with disproportionate state handouts,
under the Barnett formula.

This is why I support the separatist ideas of the SNP. I am happy for the Scots to stop
whinging on, including that awful little woman who is on telly every five minutes
blethering on like a "I speak your weight" machine.

Let the Scots paddle their own canoe. Sink or swim. With no state handouts from London.
Then that money that would have gone to the Scots can be spent in the English
regions away from the political power and money.

I give it five years before the Scots are back, asking for money from London again.

[Bonefish Blues]

dcb said:

markyb_lcy said:

I do wish more English people would value the Scots properly as part of the UK.

Its about 480 miles from London to Dundee, a similar distance from London
to Frankfurt, in central Germany.

I'll let you guess which one I am required to support with disproportionate state handouts,
under the Barnett formula.

This is why I support the separatist ideas of the SNP. I am happy for the Scots to stop
whinging on, including that awful little woman who is on telly every five minutes
blethering on like a "I speak your weight" machine.

Let the Scots paddle their own canoe. Sink or swim. With no state handouts from London.
Then that money that would have gone to the Scots can be spent in the English
regions away from the political power and money.

I give it five years before the Scots are back, asking for money from London again.

And if Krankie doesn't represent the views of the Scots, then let them tell her to upshut.

[Dont like rolls]

Any Scot should have the right to vote, be they living in Scotland or not. Every "Ex pat" has that right as should every Ex pat Scot.

[dcb]

dcb said:

I give it five years before the Scots are back, asking for money from London again.

I should mention that Scotland, as part of the divorce bill, would have to take
on their part of the National Debt, which is about £26,800 for every person in the UK.

About 5.4 million Scots, so I make that about £145 billion.

That's a lot of oil, whisky, tartan cloth and tins of shortbread.

[XCP]

If Scotland ever achieved independence the work of the SNP would be done. Bit like the Brexit/UKIP party.

Perhaps then the adults would take over?

[Thorodin]

It's been so long since the B ref, I've forgotten some of the conditions. Did Scotland voters get a vote in that referendum or not?

[markyb_lcy]

Thorodin said:

It's been so long since the B ref, I've forgotten some of the conditions. Did Scotland voters get a vote in that referendum or not?

I’m sure this is a somewhat sarcastic comment but I’m not entirely sure how exactly.

Scotland, being part of the Uk, was indeed part of the electorate for the brexit referendum. The Uk as a whole voted with a majority of 52% to leave. Scotland as part of the uk, for what it’s worth, voted 62% to remain in the EU. This, coupled with the Better Together campaign during Indy ref 1 making such a big thing to Scots of securing their place in the EU by voting to stay in the UK, does really give the SNP an angle to say “things have changed” and to justify a 2nd Indy ref.

Tories can do their hardest to deny them it, but if the Scots want it badly enough, eventually they’ll get it, or Scottish parliament will hold one anyway in a semi-legal setting.

Ultimately, if they want as a majority to leave the UK, then they will, and we shouldn’t try to stop them.

[hidetheelephants]

markyb_lcy said:

Thorodin said:

It's been so long since the B ref, I've forgotten some of the conditions. Did Scotland voters get a vote in that referendum or not?

I’m sure this is a somewhat sarcastic comment but I’m not entirely sure how exactly.

Scotland, being part of the Uk, was indeed part of the electorate for the brexit referendum. The Uk as a whole voted with a majority of 52% to leave. Scotland as part of the uk, for what it’s worth, voted 62% to remain in the EU. This, coupled with the Better Together campaign during Indy ref 1 making such a big thing to Scots of securing their place in the EU by voting to stay in the UK, does really give the SNP an angle to say “things have changed” and to justify a 2nd Indy ref.

The problem is that it involves fundamental contradictions and this is why whenever any SNP representatives are asked about it various 'Look! Squirrel!" distraction measures are employed instead of answers;
1. had the 2014 ref resulted in a Yes win Scotland would have been out of the EU; if you like tumble weed ask an SNP representative about this.
2. the 38% of scots who voted for Brexit are pretty evenly distributed across party divides, a 3rd of SNP voters wanted to leave but tumble weed appears when this is mentioned.
3. in order to join the EU iScotland would need a currency, a central bank to manage it and a deficit of less than 3%; again tumble weed runs across the stage when these things are mentioned, instead we get bullst about Sterling and pegging. I've never heard anyone from the SNP approach the deficit issue on any terms at all, never mind realistic ones.

[Brave Fart]

markyb_lcy said:

Scotland, being part of the Uk, was indeed part of the electorate for the brexit referendum. The Uk as a whole voted with a majority of 52% to leave. Scotland as part of the uk, for what it’s worth, voted 62% to remain in the EU. This, coupled with the Better Together campaign during Indy ref 1 making such a big thing to Scots of securing their place in the EU by voting to stay in the UK, does really give the SNP an angle to say “things have changed” and to justify a 2nd Indy ref.

But this is a bogus argument. The Brexit question was about the UK. It didn't say "vote on which way my bit of the UK wants to go" did it? Had it been a "vote for your region" question the result may have been different. Therefore, the whole "Scotland voted to stay" claim is invalid for three reasons:
1) as stated, it was a UK-wide vote
2) if there was independence now, Scotland would be out of the EU anyway
3) we haven't seen the results of leaving yet.

There is zero justification for a second Indyref. The SNP should focus their energy on making Scotland better, until at least a generation has passed.

[markyb_lcy]

It’s not my fight to have, I’m not Scottish. All I’m saying is that it has added fuel to the SNP fire.

If the people of Scotland and the Scottish parliament want Indy ref 2, they should have it.

Convincing ourselves that we can somehow hold them hostage as part of the uk will very quickly increase support for independence there, from people who previously might well have voted to stay were a 2nd referendum granted in good faith.

[Pastor Of Muppets]

markyb_lcy said:

If the people of Scotland and the Scottish parliament want Indy ref 2, they should have it.
.

The majority of Scots dont want it, the SNP and their minority of tribal fanatics are the only ones making the constant noise
about it, the majority of Scots just wish they would STFU and start putting an effort into sorting out the mess they have created.

And the Scottish Referendum page is this way... https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[pingu393]

Brave Fart said:

markyb_lcy said:

Scotland, being part of the Uk, was indeed part of the electorate for the brexit referendum. The Uk as a whole voted with a majority of 52% to leave. Scotland as part of the uk, for what it’s worth, voted 62% to remain in the EU. This, coupled with the Better Together campaign during Indy ref 1 making such a big thing to Scots of securing their place in the EU by voting to stay in the UK, does really give the SNP an angle to say “things have changed” and to justify a 2nd Indy ref.

But this is a bogus argument. The Brexit question was about the UK. It didn't say "vote on which way my bit of the UK wants to go" did it? Had it been a "vote for your region" question the result may have been different. Therefore, the whole "Scotland voted to stay" claim is invalid for three reasons:
1) as stated, it was a UK-wide vote
2) if there was independence now, Scotland would be out of the EU anyway
3) we haven't seen the results of leaving yet.

There is zero justification for a second Indyref. The SNP should focus their energy on making Scotland better, until at least a generation has passed.

It's as relevant as "My son's bedroom voted to remain".

It's bks - and they know it, but it won't stop them.

They are panicked, because if they don't get 50%+1 of the vote in the Scottish election in 2021, the argument is lost again.

[markyb_lcy]

Pastor Of Muppets said:

The majority of Scots dont want it, the SNP and their minority of tribal fanatics are the only ones making the constant noise
about it, the majority of Scots just wish they would STFU and start putting an effort into sorting out the mess they have created.

And the Scottish Referendum page is this way... https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

I’m just responding to comments on my posts, happy to put it to bed.

And I did preface what I was saying with “If”.