The Dirty Independence Question

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

Like Kaos, I'm fine with more votes, but when it becomes the overriding issue all the time, it gets very tiresome.  It's only 8 years since the last referendum - if Remain wins this time, does it mean another one in 2030?

If Leave had won back in 2014, I'm sure many of the nationalists would be telling anyone who wanted a vote to rejoin the UK that they are sore losers. Much like in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.  Sadly Brexit won't be undone and should Scotland leave the UK, I very much doubt it could rejoin - these are massive decisions and shouldn't be on an 8, 10, 12 year cycle (or fewer had the SNP got their way).

Maybe the SNP should focus some of their energy working on improving Scottish schools and the SNHS, rather that seeking another vote.....

Scotland cannot rejoin the EU, it was never a member to b e able to "rejoin".

it'll get to be a new member in about ten years, but on much worse terms to uk membership, plus it'll have to comply with the Copenhagen  criteria, which mean huge  public spending cuts a tory would love.

[steviewevie]

Yeah, sod another referendum. Maybe another war of independence where Scotland wins again?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

@LJS  So is you want for independence - is it at any cost ?   So you would happy to be poorer as long as its Nicola making you poor and not Risihi ?

I have never voted on the basis of whether I think I will be richer or poorer and I find it deeply depressing that that seems to be how many people decide their votes.

I have absolutely no idea whether I will be richer or poorer in an Independent Scotland. I have acknowledged countless times that the first few years of independence will probably be pretty rough but my  vote is for the long term and I don't see any reason why shouldn't do at least as well in the  long term as rUK. ( i realise looking at recent trends that that isn't setting bar very high!!) 

The thing is Barry, its the future and the pesky thing about the future is we don't know what will happen. At the time of indyref, few would have predicted a lot that has happened in the UK since.

But its not all about money. Its about the kind of society we want to live in and the values it reflects. 

 

 

[Neil]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Yeah, sod another referendum. Maybe another war of independence where Scotland wins again?

did scotland ever beat the english? and the current word of the snippers has Scotland more subservient to the English than its ever been "a colony", etc, etc.

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Neil said:

did scotland ever beat the english?

every time.

and they only became a union under a scottish stuart king

something like that.

We should be trying to leave them.

[steviewevie]

We are now poorer and less equal than other comparative european countries, don't blame them for wanting out.

[Neil]

22 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

We are now poorer and less equal than other comparative european countries, don't blame them for wanting out.

Good Govt is not an easy thing as the snp keep demonstrating. Scotland is more shit at building ferries than comparative european countries. 

[LJS]

5 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

So make it worse because ?    Any answers beyond the trolling ? 

[LJS]

19 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

You ignored my other post... why ?

sorry Barry don't feel ignored.

19 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

And this doesn't mean we couldn't make it worse by splitting...

no it doesn't. but it proves that over time leaving the UK is not necessarily a bad thing.  How many folk in ROI do you think woudl vote to rejoin the UK?

     sound familiar?

 here's another one

Edited November 29, 2022 by LJS

[LJS]

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

ROI and Singapore are nothing like Scotland

Really? I'd never noticed  Thanks for keeping me right, Barry.

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

the relationship with the UK...

Yeah, we have a great relationship with the UK. It's government really respects and values is.

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

No one is saying you "can't" go it alone.  Its a matter of the consequences and the pain. 

No pain, no gain.

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

You obviously couldn't care less about the utter pain it will cost the average person. 

Sometimes, briefly, I think you are quite sensible, then you come up with pish like this. Do you really think I support independence, knowing it will cost the average person "utter pain."?

That may be your view, it's not mine.

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

 

Just like the likes of Farage.   

"Yawns"

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

 

I hope the Scottish people take note of people like you who would do them harm. 

I can assure you,  the vast majority of the Scottish people don't even know who I am so you will be glad to know they won't be paying any attention to me.

 

Nor you for that matter.

[Neil]

9 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

You ignored my other post... why ?

And this doesn't mean we couldn't make it worse by splitting...

those bigger than tory cuts you're desperate to have will make it worse by splitting.

[LJS]

I believe this is the first poll since the Supreme Court ruling

& yes it proves absolutely nothing

 

[Neil]

36 minutes ago, LJS said:

I believe this is the first poll since the Supreme Court ruling

& yes it proves absolutely nothing

 

It proves its all gone horribly wrong. Both you and sturgeon said that Johnson as pm would guarantee indy. 

[Neil]

i wonder what Gordon brown's plans are for northern Britain, hopefully full fiscal autonomy, as its the only way i can think of to kill-off support for indie. people will be less keen when they see how much it'll cost them.

[LJS]

14 hours ago, Neil said:

i wonder what Gordon brown's plans are for northern Britain, hopefully full fiscal autonomy, as its the only way i can think of to kill-off support for indie. people will be less keen when they see how much it'll cost them.

Labour clearly respects the will of the Scottish electorate enough to offer offer a few fairly empty and meaningless promises, but of course not

to give them what they have consistently voted for.

[Neil]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Labour clearly respects the will of the Scottish electorate enough to offer offer a few fairly empty and meaningless promises, but of course not

to give them what they have consistently voted for.

sturgeon & snippers reckon the UK isn't allowed to have what it voted for, so snippers should have their own medicine. 😛 

[Neil]

don't enable the people who vote stupid, i reckon.

[kaosmark2]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Labour clearly respects the will of the Scottish electorate enough to offer offer a few fairly empty and meaningless promises, but of course not

to give them what they have consistently voted for.

What they vote 

[LJS]

24 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

What they vote 

democracy didn't end in 2014

 

Oh, ... sorry  ..., actually it did apparently

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, LJS said:

democracy didn't end in 2014

 

Oh, ... sorry  ..., actually it did apparently

Votes happen with varying degrees of frequency. In 2014 there was a vote on this issue touted as "once in a generation". Now life expectancy is going down again, but I don't think a generation is 8 years.

Also, you claimed "consistently voted for". Now considering that there SNP quite often claim their record on other things is an reason to vote for them even if that person doesn't want independence, it feels ridiculous to claim that every time the snp win a seat, that's a mandate for independence.

On top of this, not every time they win a seat, whether in Westminster or Holyrood, do they get 50% of the vote. There's certainly very few seats where they get 50% of available votes (counting no shows and spoiled ballots).

Indy supporters are vocal, and passionate, that's fine. But it's disingenuous to claim that Scotland had consistently voted in favour of independence. 

It is fair to claim that there's strong support for the SNP, whose primary policy is to advocate for independence, and thus discussions about when it would next be appropriate to hold a referendum are worthwhile, but in no way has Scotland consistently voted for independence, directly or indirectly.

Referendums cost time and money, with a cost of living crisis happening. Personally, I don't think it's an efficient use of money to have neverendums, where only one result can be counted as "final".

I think Scotland leaving would be stupid, but the false narratives coming out of the indy campaign are also harmful.

[LJS]

18 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

Votes happen with varying degrees of frequency. In 2014 there was a vote on this issue touted as "once in a generation". Now life expectancy is going down again, but I don't think a generation is 8 years.

I can't be bothered debunking the once in a generation pish again as I have already done it countless times. You believe whatever fantasy you want.

18 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

Also, you claimed "consistently voted for". Now considering that there SNP quite often claim their record on other things is an reason to vote for them even if that person doesn't want independence, it feels ridiculous to claim that every time the snp win a seat, that's a mandate for independence.

Nowhere have I said its a mandate for independence. Its a mandate for a referendum.

18 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

On top of this, not every time they win a seat, whether in Westminster or Holyrood, do they get 50% of the vote. There's certainly very few seats where they get 50% of available votes (counting no shows and spoiled ballots).

What's your point? No UK government has polled 50% of the vote for 50 years (at least) does that mean no UK government has had a mandate for anything? 

18 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

Indy supporters are vocal, and passionate, that's fine. But it's disingenuous to claim that Scotland had consistently voted in favour of independence. 

Which is why I haven't made that claim.

18 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

It is fair to claim that there's strong support for the SNP, whose primary policy is to advocate for independence, and thus discussions about when it would next be appropriate to hold a referendum are worthwhile, but in no way has Scotland consistently voted for independence, directly or indirectly.

Referendums cost time and money, with a cost of living crisis happening. Personally, I don't think it's an efficient use of money to have neverendums, where only one result can be counted as "final".

an opinion you are entirely entitled to. I didn't think the Brexit referendum was a good use of public money but "we" voted in a government who said that's what they would do, so I had (very reluctantly) to accept that. All we are asking is for the UK Government to (very reluctantly ) accept that we voted to have a referendum. Personally, I  have no issue if they put a clause defining how long it would be before another could be held as part of the agreement this time.

18 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

I think Scotland leaving would be stupid, but the false narratives coming out of the indy campaign are also harmful.

Again you are entitled to your opinion. 

[Neil]

20 minutes ago, LJS said:

I can't be bothered debunking the once in a generation pish again as I have already done it countless times. You believe whatever fantasy you want.

Nowhere have I said its a mandate for independence. Its a mandate for a referendum.

What's your point? No UK government has polled 50% of the vote for 50 years (at least) does that mean no UK government has had a mandate for anything? 

Which is why I haven't made that claim.

an opinion you are entirely entitled to. I didn't think the Brexit referendum was a good use of public money but "we" voted in a government who said that's what they would do, so I had (very reluctantly) to accept that. All we are asking is for the UK Government to (very reluctantly ) accept that we voted to have a referendum. Personally, I  have no issue if they put a clause defining how long it would be before another could be held as part of the agreement this time.

Again you are entitled to your opinion. 

No one forced the snp to put once in a generation in their white paper. 

[LJS]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/support-for-scottish-independence-rises-to-56-after-supreme-court-ruling-stv-poll

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, LJS said:

I can't be bothered debunking the once in a generation pish again as I have already done it countless times. You believe whatever fantasy you want.

Nowhere have I said its a mandate for independence. Its a mandate for a referendum.

What's your point? No UK government has polled 50% of the vote for 50 years (at least) does that mean no UK government has had a mandate for anything? 

Which is why I haven't made that claim.

an opinion you are entirely entitled to. I didn't think the Brexit referendum was a good use of public money but "we" voted in a government who said that's what they would do, so I had (very reluctantly) to accept that. All we are asking is for the UK Government to (very reluctantly ) accept that we voted to have a referendum. Personally, I  have no issue if they put a clause defining how long it would be before another could be held as part of the agreement this time.

Again you are entitled to your opinion. 

So if they consistently voted for a referendum, why wasn't last one recent enough?

[LJS]

53 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

So if they consistently voted for a referendum, why wasn't last one recent enough?

Why are you asking questions which you already know the answer to?