The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

He's not fucking up education as much as sturgeon and co are.

Give him time.

[eFestivals]

5 hours ago, LJS said:

Give him time.

Do what sturgeon asked and judge her on education.free passes are what idjuts give spaffer

[eFestivals]

Sturgeon talking about democracy again as tho it's something which only exists via her definition, and not via the votes of the Scottish people for a specific form of proposed democracy in the Scottish devolution referendum, 1997

That's scottish democracy that didn't want her to be able to call Indy referendums.

[eFestivals]

Remember thatSturgeon is of the view that the result of referendums are not binding on the UK parliament.,so surery the same applies with her claim of a mandate?

[eFestivals]

If the legal units of the devolution settlement can be turned on and off at the will of the UK pm then also the Barnet funding for Scotland can be turned off  on spaffers will and sturgeon will think that's ok. Same as she thinks it's ok with devolution.

[LJS]

That's fine Neil. We'll just give up, shut up & do what we're told and everything will just go back to normal as if the whole Indy thing was just a dream. 

 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

That's fine Neil. We'll just give up, shut up & do what we're told and everything will just go back to normal as if the whole Indy thing was just a dream. 

 

The union was designed by Scotland to benefit Scotland.at the xpenspense of England.indy is an idea riding on the back of English treasure.wonder how long it keeps its support with Scotland carrying the cost... Which I in s why sturgeon does everything possible to avoid admitting  the reality.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

The union was designed by Scotland to benefit Scotland.at the xpenspense of England.

Really? When did Scotland design the Union?

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

indy is an idea riding on the back of English treasure.wonder how long it keeps its support with Scotland carrying the cost... Which I in s why sturgeon does everything possible to avoid admitting  the reality.

You know there is a simple answer to that.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

Really? When did Scotland design the Union?

It came about at the behest of Scots to bail Scotlands empirebuilding fuck up out of the shit.

 

Quote

You know there is a simple answer to that.

@indy can't be won with the truth.indyists have such lowrespect for Scots. They want to bullshit them into poverty for their own power purposes.

Spot the difference between those indyists and Tories.

Edited May 9, 2021 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It came about at the behest of Scots to bail Scotlands empirebuilding fuck up out of the shit.

1: other versions of history are available.

2: the world has changed a bit since 1707.

3: the behest of Scots is now that we be allowed to reconsider.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

@indy can't be won with the truth.indyists have such lowrespect for Scots. They want to bullshit them into poverty for their own power purposes.

Spot the difference between those indyists and Tories.

If indy can't be won & the truth will save the Union, let us have a referendum, then we can move on. 

The desire & demand for a 2nd indyref shows no sign of abating & Johnson saying No will solve nothing.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

1: other versions of history are available.

 

It's true that the union was a primarily a Scottish want.

 

Quote

2: the world has changed a bit since 1707.

Yes including Scottish enforsementbof the union rejected by sturgeon.

Quote

3: the behest of Scots is now that we be allowed to reconsider.

It's mostly sturgeon saying you're not allowed to she does accept the initial endorsement.

 

Quote

If indy can't be won & the truth will save the Union, let us have a referendum, then we can move on. 

You'll reject the truth and claim truth can only come from Indy liars. Who want their own version of ermine

Quote

The desire & demand for a 2nd indyref shows no sign of abating & Johnson saying No will solve nothing.

It might solve it cos it might go all Quebec.. sturgeon is good at tying herself up in knots her brexit words will be used against her.if birders to trade are a bad thing they're CA worse thing for a larger amount of trade.

Edited May 9, 2021 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Sturgeon on Marr talking bollocks defining what democracy is again. Can't wait until there Indy campaign where it tries claiming again that it can vote itself rights over another sovereign county's currency.

[LJS]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

It's true that the union was a primarily a Scottish want.

Some Scottish people wanted it.  A great many didn't. Opinion polling at the time is sparse so it would take a brave man to claim that it was the desire of Scotland. The English were also rather keen as they were terrified of having a damned Papist on the throne.

Lets just agree that its a little more complicated than your over simplistic take & anyway is was 214 years ago - so even if you were right .. so what?

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Yes including Scottish enforsementbof the union rejected by sturgeon.

It's mostly sturgeon saying you're not allowed to she does accept the initial endorsement.

not really sure what you're on about here. 

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You'll reject the truth and claim truth can only come from Indy liars. Who want their own version of ermine

a rather strange accusation to level at a party who have never accepted a peerage.

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It might solve it cos it might go all Quebec..  

Now, here is where we agree. A second independence referendum in Quebec settled the issue which a first one was unable to do. There is now a fairly consistent majority against independence in Quebec. It seems to me that a second referendum is the only realistic way in which the constitutional issue can be resolved. One way or another. 

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Sturgeon on Marr talking bollocks defining what democracy is again. Can't wait until there Indy campaign where it tries claiming again that it can vote itself rights over another sovereign county's currency.

I can't wait either & I'm sure we will debate that & many other important issues.

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

Some Scottish people wanted it.  A great many didn't. Opinion polling at the time is sparse so it would take a brave man to claim that it was the desire of Scotland.

It was driven by Scotland and not by England. Which was my point.

 

Quote

 

 

The English were also rather keen as they were terrified of having a damned Papist on the throne.

And the same sectarianism is rampant within today's issue by in Scotland

Quote

Lets just agree that its a little more complicated than your over simplistic take & anyway is was 214 years ago - so even if you were right .. so what?

 

It's not my take it's the take of an Indy supporting Scottish professor whose word I read earlier today

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18789238.british-empire-shameful-story-scots-helped-start/

Quote

not really sure what you're on about here. 

I'm pointing out that the law is clear about the constitutional status being a reserved matter. Sturgeon says a vote in Scotland has greater meaning than law

Quote

a rather strange accusation to level at a party who have never accepted a peerage.

So salmond wouldn't have accepted a title of father of the nation if the vote had been won in 2014.this isn't about what Scots want but about what sturgeon wants for herself.

Quote

Now, here is where we agree. A second independence referendum in Quebec settled the issue which a first one was unable to do. There is now a fairly consistent majority against independence in Quebec. It seems to me that a second referendum is the only realistic way in which the constitutional issue can be resolved. One way or another. 

I can't wait either & I'm sure we will debate that & many other important issues.

The last vote didn't settle it even with promises that it would do here's betting the indyists won't allow it to be settled this time unless they win. In which case they won't permit it to be reversed when Indy isn't everything the indyists promise it'll be. It can't be because Scotlands problems come from within Scotland they are noot caused by others. scotland wants to pretend that losing EU membership via a UK vote wasn't fair but it was happy to advocate losing it via a Scottish vote while lying about that reality.

Edited May 9, 2021 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

 

It's not my take it's the take of an Indy supporting Scottish professor whose word I read earlier today

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18789238.british-empire-shameful-story-scots-helped-start/

 

interesting but not really about the Act of Union - here's what the same guy has to say about that ..

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18751278.act-union-came-corrupt-fixed-deal-1706/

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

interesting but not really about the Act of Union - here's what the same guy has to say about that ..

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18751278.act-union-came-corrupt-fixed-deal-1706/

Interesting thanks. Did you notice how there was a block on trade with scotland dont you think that will come a about naturally as a consequence of indy. People make a first preference of buying within their country so English buyers of Scottish goods will fade away post indy with another hit to the Scottish economy over andsbove the other factors onto the Scottish economuyscotlsndeontbe like Denmark because it doesn't have the same connectivity with Europe. Indy Scotland will take big hit adjusting to the new situation for all of the previously said reasons plus changes in cross border trade England is not dependent on Scotland in the same way Scotland is dependent on England. 

[LJS]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Interesting thanks. Did you notice how there was a block on trade with scotland dont you think that will come a about naturally as a consequence of indy. People make a first preference of buying within their country so English buyers of Scottish goods will fade away post indy with another hit to the Scottish economy over andsbove the other factors onto the Scottish economuyscotlsndeontbe like Denmark because it doesn't have the same connectivity with Europe. Indy Scotland will take big hit adjusting to the new situation for all of the previously said reasons plus changes in cross border trade England is not dependent on Scotland in the same way Scotland is dependent on England. 

plenty of time to discuss all that borders/currency stuff one we have a referendum....

 

Quote

 

Nicola Sturgeon has won a mandate for another referendum on Scottish independence. You can twist and mangle the results into whatever shape you like, but that is the outcome.

There’s no joy in this conclusion for those of us who regard the potential break-up of the UK as a tragedy. But if you really believe in the Union, you have to fight for it as an arrangement of consent rather than a prison to keep Scotland against its will.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/05/09/supporters-of-the-union-must-accept-sturgeons-referendum-mandate/

 

 

[kaosmark2]

I've said before that I don't like referendums, but with such a high turnout there's certainly a case for one.

That said, I don't trust the SNP to be honest and realistic in their campaign leading up to one, I fully expect an even more disingenuous equivalent of the white paper from before the last one, but I hope I'm wrong.

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, LJS said:

plenty of time to discuss all that borders/currency stuff one we have a referendum....

 

 

The Indy campaign has had decades to come up with solutions there's good reason why it's still up in n the air. theres no acceptable solutions for Scotland.

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

That said, I don't trust the SNP to be honest and realistic in their campaign leading up to one, I fully expect an even more disingenuous equivalent of the white paper from before the last one, but I hope I'm wrong.

Last time they tried to bullshit their way to victory I don't expect anything to different this time.itvwould have been a costly error to have won last time.that would have financially crippled every household in Scotland. Much worse than Tory austerity.

[pink_triangle]

In my view it is easy to make an argument both for and against their being a mandate for a referendum. People will just pick the argument that fits with the view they had before the election.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

In my view it is easy to make an argument both for and against their being a mandate for a referendum. People will just pick the argument that fits with the view they had before the election.

Well, this is demonstrably true. However those who argue that there is no mandate because pro indy parties got less than 50% of the vote are on shaky ground on two counts.

1: that only works if you pick the constituency vote. It doesn't work if you use the list vote.

2: by that logic no government has had a mandate to do anything for 70 years.

Neil's argument that there can be no mandate because it falls outwith holyrood's competence has more logic but leaves the UK looking like it is holding Scotland hostage against its will which is not a great look and is likely to exacerbate the problem.

I see no way to resolve Scotland's constitutional stalemate other than by having a second referendum.

Edited May 9, 2021 by LJS

[LJS]

Adam Boulton bizarrely suggesting that we may stop speaking English if we gain independence...

 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

37 minutes ago, LJS said:

Well, this is demonstrably true. However those who argue that there is no mandate because pro indy parties got less than 50% of the vote are on shaky ground on two counts.

1: that only works if you pick the constituency vote. It doesn't work if you use the list vote.

2: by that logic no government has had a mandate to do anything for 70 years.

Neil's argument that there can be no mandate because it falls outwith holyrood's competence has more logic but leaves the UK looking like it is holding Scotland hostage against its will which is not a great look and is likely to exacerbate the problem.

I see no way to resolve Scotland's constitutional stalemate other than by having a second referendum.

It's incredibly borderline, I do generally believe that referendums are bad, and particularly 50%+1 of whoever turns out. IMO it should be 50%+1 of registered voters required for such major change (same re. what Brexit should have been), or a supermajority required.

Obviously, with Brexit now having happened, circumstances have changed since the last one, but I don't really believe the SNP will stop asking for them if they lose this one. Throwing endless attempts and hoping that at one point it sticks feels dirty, and likely.

[LJS]

22 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It's incredibly borderline, I do generally believe that referendums are bad, and particularly 50%+1 of whoever turns out. IMO it should be 50%+1 of registered voters required for such major change (same re. what Brexit should have been), or a supermajority required.

Obviously, with Brexit now having happened, circumstances have changed since the last one, but I don't really believe the SNP will stop asking for them if they lose this one. Throwing endless attempts and hoping that at one point it sticks feels dirty, and likely.

You may be surprised to hear that I don't much like referendums either. But, love 'em or hate 'em I don't see any other way out of the position we're in now. 

I also get the logic of some kind of threshold beyond the 50%+1 being built in. The problem Is that the precedent has been well and truly set that a simple majority is how we run referendums in the UK. Any attempt to change that will look very much like an attempt to thwart independence.

As for the SNP continuing to demand a referendum if  a second referendum goes against them. Well they primarily exist to campaign for independence so it would be a bit odd to expect them to stop. However it's worth pointing out that there have been elections where they have explicitly said they are not advocating a referendum in that campaign.

That doesn't really matter though. What matters is popular support and I believe a second No victory would put the matter to bed for a good number of years (maybe even a generation!!)

I may, of course, be totally wrong but that's what happened in Quebec & I expect it would happen here.