The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, viberunner said:

You, for starters. You like to have YOUR line around MY country.

And it wouldn't be so bad if the majority of the English did not "Vote Twat" (BoJo, Brexit).

Pmsl. Now you're rejecting geography.

And you're rejecting the choice of Scotland to remain within the UK - despite knowing of the coming euref.

And I agree, it would be much better if no one voted stupid. So tell me: when are you going to stop doing voting more stupid than the brexiters and spaffer fans?

Edited October 8, 2020 by eFestivals

[LJS]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If the Scottish brexiters had voted remain, remain would have won.

You can reject simple maths if you want to and you have.

You are funny, Neil. Your argument is that because 100% of Scots didn't vote remain, Brexit is our fault. 

Your desperation is really quite sad.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

You are funny, Neil. Your argument is that because 100% of Scots didn't vote remain, Brexit is our fault. 

Your desperation is really quite sad.

I'm simply pointing out that all regions of the UK played it's part in the result and that Scotland is only slightly different to England with its Brexit views, completely different to how you like to portray it.

And remember, your glorious leader demanded that votes in Scotland be worth 10 times my vote. 

But no one thinks Scotland is exceptional, right?

[viberunner]

50 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If the Scottish brexiters had voted remain

Moving the goalposts from what they DID do to what they SHOULD have done. (As distinct from abstain, spoil ballots).

Well, if Australian Aboriginals had invaded Britain, occupied us, and cancelled the Referendum, we wouldn't be leaving the EU either. So blame the Bushwalkers? IF ONLY THEY HAD ACTED SO DIFFERENTLY.

[viberunner]

32 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And remember, your glorious leader demanded that votes in Scotland be worth 10 times my vote.

Nope. Your country does not have the right to destroy mine.

And vice-versa.

Edited October 8, 2020 by viberunner

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, viberunner said:

Moving the goalposts from what they DID do to what they SHOULD have done. (As distinct from abstain, spoil ballots).

as I said, you want to wipe their existence.

 

9 hours ago, viberunner said:

Well, if Australian Aboriginals had invaded Britain, occupied us, and cancelled the Referendum, we wouldn't be leaving the EU either. So blame the Bushwalkers? IF ONLY THEY HAD ACTED SO DIFFERENTLY.

wave a flag like a brexiter, spout brain-dead bollocks like a brexiter to keep on swerving reality like a brexiter.

same as with brexit, reality hits and becomes proper shit when you get your dream.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, viberunner said:

Nope. Your country does not have the right to destroy mine.

the UK has the right to vote stupid*, and it did.

(* includes 4 out of 10 Scots).

Just like Scotland has the right to vote stupid* if it gets another indyref.

(*according to polling currently includes around 5.5 out of 10 Scots, with much more cross-over than you'd like to admit).

But you're the geezer supporting the party that thinks the UK shouldn't have the right to vote at all even when a majority in Scotland supports the UK structure - and thinks if the UK does vote, Scottish votes are ten times more special than English votes.

What high-minded democratic principles, eh? And definitely nothing driven by the same xenophobia as brexit.  

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But you're the geezer supporting the party that thinks the UK shouldn't have the right to vote at all

I have no problems with UK votes on issues that affect them. So if the UK votes Brexit, the UK should leave. But only the UK should have voted on Brexit. The other 27 EU countries might have a right to vote to kick the UK out, but they do not have a right to vote to force the UK to remain.

Similarly if Ulster wants to join Éire that is something for Ulster to vote on. It is not for Wales, England and Scotland to vote to force Ulster to remain in the UK if Ulster wishes to leave.

Same with Scotland. If Ulster, Wales and England wish to vote to kick Scotland out of the unions, okay. But they do not have a right to force us to remain.

If Scotland wants to leave the UK we should have that right.

The idea of a foreign country having self-determination from Westminster has historically nauseated a lot of Englishmen, but that nausea didn't prevent a lot of liberation from Westminster: Afghanistan, Antigua, Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Dominion Newfoundland, Egypt, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Hong Kong, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, St Lucia, St Kitts & Nevis, St Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Somaliland, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, UAE, US, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Sooner or late you won't be able to stop us, the bullying and delaying of your England-voted English bigot in power will not be sufficient. Scotland will become independent. Ulster will leave.

And that'll leave you and the Welsh. And honestly? I feel sorry for the Welsh.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, viberunner said:

I have no problems with UK votes on issues that affect them. So if the UK votes Brexit, the UK should leave. But only the UK should have voted on Brexit.

that's good, but perhaps tell Nicola that you don't think Scottish votes should be worth 10 times an English vote...?

14 minutes ago, viberunner said:

Éire

just FYI (cos it's something I had to learn not so long ago) : do you say Espania or Deutschland? Then you should say 'Ireland'. The Irish will appreciate it.

 

15 minutes ago, viberunner said:

If Scotland wants to leave the UK we should have that right.

It appears that Scotland has that right. Scotland got a vote on just that only 6 years ago.

There's no right of neverendums at the drop of a hat.

We'll see how serious Sturgeon is about indy in the spring, when she announces her plans. If she says it should be Sept 2024 or after she's serious about it, and if she says before she's not serious about indy but very serious about trying to pull your grievance string.

 

19 minutes ago, viberunner said:

Sooner or late you won't be able to stop us

That's for the Scottish people to decide, not you.

 

19 minutes ago, viberunner said:

, the bullying

PMSL  

I wish someone would bully me with £10Bn every year.

 

19 minutes ago, viberunner said:

and delaying of your England-voted English bigot in power will not be sufficient.

Delaying? Or doing exactly what the leader of the SNP - and his deputy - said in the white paper for independence just 6 years ago?

Spaffer is great at bullshit. And so are snippers, bullshit any brexiter would be proud of.

 

19 minutes ago, viberunner said:

Scotland will become independent.

That's for the Scottish people to decide, not you.

 

19 minutes ago, viberunner said:

Ulster will leave.

Another Irish problem of yours just there, btw.

[viberunner]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There's no right of neverendums at the drop of a hat.

We agree that a headwear/gravity test is no mechanism for running a modern liberal democratic country like Scotland.

A better test would be to be elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum and for that manifesto commitment to be ratified by the lawfully assembled parliament. That has already happened (and has been rejected by Westminster) in this the 5th Scottish parliament. An SNP victory in May next year and the 6th Scottish parliament calling for a referendum should of course be respected by Westminster - don't you agree?

[kaosmark2]

Sturgeon considers Jaffa Cakes biscuits, clearly a disgusting being.

[viberunner]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

Sturgeon considers Jaffa Cakes biscuits, clearly a disgusting being.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/food/survey-results/daily/2017/03/06/802a0/3

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, viberunner said:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/food/survey-results/daily/2017/03/06/802a0/3

How come you respect majority rule here? 

[viberunner]

41 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

How come you respect majority rule here? 

I think it's funny fat people have classification wars over confectionery.

 

[mcshed]

11 hours ago, viberunner said:

We agree that a headwear/gravity test is no mechanism for running a modern liberal democratic country like Scotland.

A better test would be to be elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum and for that manifesto commitment to be ratified by the lawfully assembled parliament. That has already happened (and has been rejected by Westminster) in this the 5th Scottish parliament. An SNP victory in May next year and the 6th Scottish parliament calling for a referendum should of course be respected by Westminster - don't you agree?

There is a difference between a vague statement in a manifesto which confirms a continued support for independence and a specific manifesto commitment to hold a referendum in the course of the next parliament. It was such a specific manifesto commitment that led to the 2014 referendum and I would expect another one in next year's manifesto before I would agree that the SNP have a mandate for such a referendum. If the SNP do campaign next year specifically for a referendum and win a majority then it would be a democratic outrage if Scotland is denied one.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, viberunner said:

A better test would be to be elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum and for that manifesto commitment to be ratified by the lawfully assembled parliament. That has already happened (and has been rejected by Westminster) in this the 5th Scottish parliament. An SNP victory in May next year and the 6th Scottish parliament calling for a referendum should of course be respected by Westminster - don't you agree?

No. 

You're talking bollocks, giving a reason that even you don't agree with.

Do you similarly think that (say) Bristol should be allowed an indyref at the drop of a hat if a majority were in favour? Nope, you've already done your chest-beating about how "country" is what gives the right and not a majority.

And would similarly think that (say) Shetland or the borders should be allowed to stay in the UK if they rejected indy? Nope, you've already done your chest-beating about how "country" is what gives the right and not a majority.

And there was a majority favour for an EUref, both in the UK parliament and in the population, but the SNP came up with endless bollocks for why they thought a democratic vote shouldn't be allowed.

Also, there was also a previous formal commitment to the last ref being "once in a generation" (or similar, I forget the exact wording), and not "we'll have one everytime we can". Which takes precedence?

To avoid that argument - because there's no sensible way of arriving at a definitive answer - is to consider the real-life effect of each way of doing things (massive civil disruption and the effective suspension of govt), as well as whether the SNP or snippers would consider the opposite to be right and proper, of never-ending "rejoin the UK" refs after indy if circumstances-of-the-moment allowed, and we both know the answer to that.

The international norm is 15+ years for a repeat of a referendum of such magnitude. The SNP accepted that general idea right up until they lost.

Personally, I think 10 years would be acceptable given all circumstances. Let's see if Sturgeon really wants indy or only wants to pull your string.

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, mcshed said:

If the SNP do campaign next year specifically for a referendum and win a majority then it would be a democratic outrage if Scotland is denied one.

no it's not.

That's only true is it's a similar democratic outrage for the borders to have to remain part of Scotland if the borders reject indy.

We have elections every 5 years, not every time opinion has changed. 

Etc, etc, etc.

Edited October 10, 2020 by eFestivals

[mcshed]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

no it's not.

That's only true is it's a similar democratic outrage for the borders to have to remain part of Scotland if the borders reject indy.

We have elections every 5 years, not every time opinion has changed. 

Etc, etc, etc.

It's not the same if the borders reject independence, it's the same if the borders elect representatives who stand specifically on a platform on ceding from indy Scotland and joining rUK. Which I'd they did you'd be hard pressed to ignore those demands. 

On the subject of changing opinions, I do think that we should have clearer rules on matters of constitutional change and it should either require a supermajority or to be the result of multiple referenda over a set period of time. Huge constitutional change on a one of small majority seems wrong headed but any debate about such rules would be best had at a distance from any such issue as otherwise the discussion about it is framed by the issue at hand.

[eFestivals]

45 minutes ago, mcshed said:

It's not the same if the borders reject independence, it's the same if the borders elect representatives who stand specifically on a platform on ceding from indy Scotland and joining rUK. Which I'd they did you'd be hard pressed to ignore those demands. 

Snippers everywhere would scream "Scotland is a country". They'd easily squash those demands.  

 

 

45 minutes ago, mcshed said:

On the subject of changing opinions, I do think that we should have clearer rules on matters of constitutional change and it should either require a supermajority or to be the result of multiple referenda over a set period of time.

yeah, I agree with the general idea of this. Just because people might vote indy - or brexit - on a particular day doesn't mean it's an opinion that's going to hold long-term.

Almost all indy refs around the world have been won by huge majorities, rather than scraped over the line as scindy is likely to do if it ever wins.

But the precedent has been set for Scotland, I don't really think there's any going back. 

 

45 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Huge constitutional change on a one of small majority seems wrong headed but any debate about such rules would be best had at a distance from any such issue as otherwise the discussion about it is framed by the issue at hand.

Yup.

The saddest thing is there's demonstrable hypocrisy from all parties to do with the safeguards they feel should be in place when their 'side' is under threat.

[viberunner]

6 hours ago, mcshed said:

There is a difference between a vague statement in a manifesto

(a) it's not that vague unless you are wilfully misreading and (b) a call to hold the referendum successfully went through the Scottish parliament.

[viberunner]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That's only true is it's a similar democratic outrage for the borders to have to remain part of Scotland if the borders reject indy.

The borders are not a country. Scotland is.

If the borders want independence from Scotland then they need to elect Independence-From-Scotland MPs and MSPs, but no such party exists and no such elected politicians exist because no such appetite exist.

[viberunner]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Do you similarly think that (say) Bristol should be allowed an indyref at the drop of a hat if a majority were in favour? Nope, you've already done your chest-beating about how "country" is what gives the right and not a majority.

 

The international norm is 15+ years for a repeat of a referendum of such magnitude. The SNP accepted that general idea right up until they lost.

If Bristol (etc.) wishes Independence then they should from political parties that argue for it and those parties should be come the majority of elected officials.

 

Ah... now the Englishman is saying what Scotland is and is not allowed to do in Scotland and you have given us English time-frames. Jeeze... FANK YOU MASSER (doffs cloth cap, averts eyes). Anyway, please make all your statements on Scottish forums during the next referendum as you alone will add 10 points to the final Indy YES vote.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, viberunner said:

The borders are not a country. Scotland is.

so, you don't believe that a majority vote creates a case for indy.

You believe that ancient blood and soil borders and something which hasn't existed for 220 years creates a case for indy.

It's a view. Just not a view based on democracy but based within your prejudices.

 

17 minutes ago, viberunner said:

If the borders want independence from Scotland then they need to elect Independence-From-Scotland MPs and MSPs

and if they did, you'd say ....?

See above.  

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, viberunner said:

If Bristol (etc.) wishes Independence then they should from political parties that argue for it and those parties should be come the majority of elected officials.

Yep, they should. But I've already exposed your view that it's not about democracy, but about something else to you.

Job done.

 

Quote

Ah... now the Englishman is saying what Scotland is and is not allowed to do in Scotland

you laughable grievance monkey.  

I've simply given my own view equal to your own view of how I think constitutional referendums should work - a consistent view, btw, and not a self-serving laughable version of what isn't and is allowed.

 

Quote

and you have given us English time-frames.

No, i've given you international timeframes.  

 

Quote

Jeeze... FANK YOU MASSER (doffs cloth cap, averts eyes). Anyway, please make all your statements on Scottish forums during the next referendum as you alone will add 10 points to the final Indy YES vote.

you laughable grievance monkey.  

I love how Scots like you don't think Scots are able to do anything for themselves.

And how you think the indy vote is driven by hatred. Very revealing.

Edited October 10, 2020 by eFestivals

[mcshed]

1 hour ago, viberunner said:

it's not that vague unless you are wilfully misreading

Compare 2016:

We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

with 2011:

We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation's future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our Referendum Bill in this next parliament. 

Only one manifesto clearly states that there will be a referendum the other states that another referendum should be possible. I don't think there should be another referendum, it seems like a divisive distraction at a time of International crisis but I would support there being another one if the SNP win a majority with a specific commitment to hold one. There really aren't enough constitutional checks in place but this seems like a simple one, campaign that you are holding a referendum if you want to hold one.