(BBC) Boris Johnson has written to Nicola Sturgeon formally ruling out a second Scottish Independence Referendum. Unsurprisingly, NS isn't happy with that.

I suspect that's not the last we've heard of this....

ElectroClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:48 am

(BBC) Boris Johnson has written to Nicola Sturgeon formally ruling out a second Scottish Independence Referendum. Unsurprisingly, NS isn't happy with that.

I suspect that's not the last we've heard of this....

Surely not, I think little Jimmy Krankie will accept this decision with a silent grace.

Go Boris!!

That's a shame. What chance have we of losing them if we won't let them vote on it?

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:55 am

Go Boris!!

Looks like you might have had a reprieve from your re-patriation Steve. But the locals might get mad now and come for you with the burning torches and pitchforks shouting 'long live William Wallace'.

The Fishy one will now just shout more loudly about the English Parliament keeping them in chains...still it's given her something to live for.

houseboy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:49 pm

Looks like you might have had a reprieve from your re-patriation Steve. But the locals might get mad now and come for you with the burning torches and pitchforks shouting 'long live William Wallace'.

I love watching the regional Scottish news
Up here,Boris has smoke spouting out of wee Jimmy's ears.

houseboy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:52 pm

The Fishy one will now just shout more loudly about the English Parliament keeping them in chains...still it's given her something to live for.

Is Gwyneth Paltrow now identifying as Scottish

Bosscat wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:58 pm

Is Gwyneth Paltrow now identifying as Scottish

Do you know Boss I just KNEW someone would connect this post with the Paltrow one after I wrote it...and I thought about you.

Nicola Sturgeon should slow down a little and wait for Boris to disappoint the electorate or even cockup, which he will.

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:58 pm

I love watching the regional Scottish news
Up here,Boris has smoke spouting out of wee Jimmy's ears.

Tell you what Steve I always found Sturgeon to be incredibly irritating in the way of all cause seekers, you know the ones who just won't shut up and f*ck off, but now I think she has become slightly a parody of herself. I often wonder what the hell she would do if the Scots ever got independence...she would have nothing to exist for afterwards.

houseboy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:05 pm

Tell you what Steve I always found Sturgeon to be incredibly irritating in the way of all cause seekers, you know the ones who just won't shut up and f*ck off, but now I think she has become slightly a parody of herself. I often wonder what the hell she would do if the Scots ever got independence...she would have nothing to exist for afterwards.

Doesn't seem to stop Farage

houseboy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:05 pm

Tell you what Steve I always found Sturgeon to be incredibly irritating in the way of all cause seekers, you know the ones who just won't shut up and f*ck off, but now I think she has become slightly a parody of herself. I often wonder what the hell she would do if the Scots ever got independence...she would have nothing to exist for afterwards.

I think they would still vote to stay in the union if they had another referendum....just to really pi$$ her off.

sick of their moaning . can we vote to get rid of them?

SNP don’t even represent 50% of the votes cast in the last election.

SNP got 1.24m votes and 48 seats the “unionist” parties got 1.47m votes and 11 seats (this includes Labour who got 511k votes and 1 seat!!)

Time for the Electoral Commission to redraw the boundaries so Scotland has fewer MPs 60mps representing such a small population is ridiculous

Goobs wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:27 pm

Doesn't seem to stop Farage

Can't seem to recall him pushing for Scottish independence...must have missed that.

Unless things have changed or my memory of British politics has clouded since my college days the weird anomaly about the whole situation is that Scottish MPs get to vote on English matters but the reverse is not true. The West Lothian Question as it became known has been quite an argument for some years after devolution. It was also referred to as the Blackburn Question due to our beloved neighbours having Scottish MPs voting on things that affect them but English MPs having no say in matters about Blackburn in West Lothinhan. Of course this is only about devolved powers not those concerning the UK as a whole (such as waging war etc.). The nearest we have come to a solution is that English only matters must have a majority of English MPs in favour but Scottish MPs still get to vote.

What we need is independence from Scotland. When do we want it...now. Get rid of the Scottish oppressor. You may take away our lives but you will never take our freedom...away with you, you Scottish hoards.

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:06 pm

SNP don’t even represent 50% of the votes cast in the last election.

SNP got 1.24m votes and 48 seats the “unionist” parties got 1.47m votes and 11 seats (this includes Labour who got 511k votes and 1 seat!!)

Time for the Electoral Commission to redraw the boundaries so Scotland has fewer MPs 60mps representing such a small population is ridiculous

That's one of the foibles of first past the post though. The Lib Dems got over 3.5m votes and only got 11 seats, the conservatives needed fewer votes per seat than labour and a few years back UKIP got about 4m votes and no seats.

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:06 pm

SNP don’t even represent 50% of the votes cast in the last election.

SNP got 1.24m votes and 48 seats the “unionist” parties got 1.47m votes and 11 seats (this includes Labour who got 511k votes and 1 seat!!)

Time for the Electoral Commission to redraw the boundaries so Scotland has fewer MPs 60mps representing such a small population is ridiculous

It's not just the boundaries that need reviewing, the whole system needs to be overhauled. PR is long overdue in this country.

It's worth noting that the current government received less than 44% of the votes cast yet got 56% of the seats. Anyone who believes in democracy must recognise this is wrong.

What I can't understand is that the SNP are vehemently opposed to leaving the EU because we are better as a group but when it comes to being in a group of 4 in the UK that somehow doesn't work quite the same and they will be better and stronger out of the union. Strange that. And of course there is no guarantee that if they did get a referendum and the Scots voted to leave the UK that they would ever meet the criteria to join the EU.

Cryssys wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:12 pm

Anyone who believes in democracy must recognise this is wrong.

No they mustn't. Try and avoid the viewpoint that there are only two opinins - your opinion, and the wrong opinion. You cannot be the arbiter of all that is right and wrong.

There are advantages and disadvantages of the current system.

Quite frankly the sooner Scotland can free itself of this toxic, bigoted country the better for them.

ClaretMoffitt wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:03 pm

Quite frankly the sooner Scotland can free itself of this toxic, bigoted country the better for them.

I know people don't like Nicola Sturgeon but to call her a name like "Country" is a bit harsh b*tch would be slightly preferable, although bigoted and toxic fit her perfectly...

I agree though, the sooner Scotland rid themselves of the toxic, bigoted ***** (Jeanette Krankie lookie likey) the better for them

ClaretMoffitt wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:03 pm

Quite frankly the sooner Scotland can free itself of this toxic, bigoted country the better for them.

It's pretty toxic not to mention bigoted in Glasgow on Old Firm day's.

Corky wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:45 pm

What I can't understand is that the SNP are vehemently opposed to leaving the EU because we are better as a group but when it comes to being in a group of 4 in the UK that somehow doesn't work quite the same and they will be better and stronger out of the union. Strange that. And of course there is no guarantee that if they did get a referendum and the Scots voted to leave the UK that they would ever meet the criteria to join the EU.

Because they want more powers to be devolved to them from Westminster but are happy with the framework and regulations / power that the EU hold. It’s a pretty sensible position to adopt really - why do they need or want Westminster MPs / government making decisions and determining policy, investment etc in Scotland when they believe they are better placed doing this themselves ?

Clearly some of Scotland don’t want this - or didn’t last time they voted but it is something that the SNP by their very definition and being will always push for.

Bosscat wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:08 pm

I know people don't like Nicola Sturgeon but to call her a name like "Country" is a bit harsh b*tch would be slightly preferable, although bigoted and toxic fit her perfectly...

I agree though, the sooner Scotland rid themselves of the toxic, bigoted ***** (Jeanette Krankie lookie likey) the better for them

Apparently, she doesn't mind the " wee Krankie " jibes, but she gets really wound up when her opponents refer to her as " Elsie " ...... because whatever goes wrong with SNP run Scottish Government, it's always someone " elsie's " fault !

aggi wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:00 pm

That's one of the foibles of first past the post though. The Lib Dems got over 3.5m votes and only got 11 seats, the conservatives needed fewer votes per seat than labour and a few years back UKIP got about 4m votes and no seats.

Annotation 2020-01-14 145736.jpg

Looks like Thatcher's constituency boundary changes really paid off.

Alba Gu Brath

Boris is right to point out that she should be concentrating on sorting out the problems of Scotland, which are far more important than another referendum. It isn't Westminster that is screwing up the health service and education in Scotland. Once voters start looking outside the circle, they'll realise that the SNP has done very little for them other than sing 'O Flower of Scotland'.

Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:15 pm

Boris is right to point out that she should be concentrating on sorting out the problems of Scotland, which are far more important than another referendum. It isn't Westminster that is screwing up the health service and education in Scotland. Once voters start looking outside the circle, they'll realise that the SNP has done very little for them other than sing 'O Flower of Scotland'.

Too much Daily Mail

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:48 pm

Looks like Thatcher's constituency boundary changes really paid off.

It's 30 years ago this year since Thatcher left office, there's been substantial Boundary changes since then and the system strongly favours Labour at present....

Under the new proposals, with Parliament going from 650 to 600 MP's. the Conservaties would have a majority of 104, rather than 80 ...

Does England really need an eternal Tory government to keep us all serfs?

Can I suggest that a plausible alternative be provided, so that the people may vote for it ?

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:46 pm

No they mustn't. Try and avoid the viewpoint that there are only two opinins - your opinion, and the wrong opinion. You cannot be the arbiter of all that is right and wrong.

There are advantages and disadvantages of the current system.

So, do you believe that it is right that a party A gets 1.2M votes gets 48 MPs whilst party B gets 3.6M votes only gets 11 MP's?

Is that fair and representative?

Cryssys wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:21 pm

So, do you believe that it is right that a party A gets 1.2M votes gets 48 MPs whilst party B gets 3.6M votes only gets 11 MP's?

Is that fair and representative?

After Joxit it won't be a problem

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:18 pm

Too much Daily Mail

Wouldn't waste my money Ian.
But what is happening to the day to day running of Scotland, when Sturgeon spends 24-7 on one topic......

Look at the issues of NI because Stormount was inactive, the damage it causes. If Holyrood takes the same route, because of a fixation with Independence, then IMO it wont be Boris getting the blame.

There are many better things going on in Scotland, set up by the Scottish Gov, for the people, rather than the wealthy, as in England.

Corky wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:45 pm

What I can't understand is that the SNP are vehemently opposed to leaving the EU because we are better as a group but when it comes to being in a group of 4 in the UK that somehow doesn't work quite the same and they will be better and stronger out of the union. Strange that. And of course there is no guarantee that if they did get a referendum and the Scots voted to leave the UK that they would ever meet the criteria to join the EU.

Theres absolutely no chance Spain would agree to allowing Scotland to joining the EU as it would encourage Catalonia and Basque independence ambitions.

Cryssys wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:21 pm

So, do you believe that it is right that a party A gets 1.2M votes gets 48 MPs whilst party B gets 3.6M votes only gets 11 MP's?

Is that fair and representative?

Is that a loaded question so that if I say yes you can accuse me of being a fascist who doesn't agree with democracy?

As it happens, I prefer the first past the post system to strict proportional representation. I think that it's good that an MP is dependent on his own electorate and not on a party list system; I think it's good that we as individuals have our own MP whose duty is to serve his relatively small number of constituents, rather than one of many who are notionally responsible for a vast area; and I think it's good that FPTP produces strong government that can go ahead and govern.

Strict proportional representation doesn't always produce strictly fair results either. You would be far more likely to get results like the 2017 election, where the DUP got 292,000 votes and had hugely disproportionate influence on government. Minority parties can get vast influence on small numbers of votes quite often in PR systems. Or you get positions like the last year or so in Parliament where nobody could do anything. which, looking at our politicians, might not be such a bad thing sometimes - but as a system, it has its drawbacks.

Both systems have advantages, both have disadvantages. I like the current system better.

Like it or not, a Referendum is probably going to happen in the next 15 years . Mrs Sturgeon has yet to answer some interesting questions relating to their currency, defense, border controls with England ( Needed, if they join the EU ),and many others ..
The 2014 Referendum was supposed to settle the question for a " Generation ". The Scots voted 55-45 to remain a part of the Union, and as such, presumably, to accept the result of Union wide National Elections & Referendums etc.

If we had another Referendum next year, and it's won again by the Unionists, will Mrs Sturgeon want another one in 2025, if the SNP get another majority of Scottish seats ? We're then into a world of " Never-Endums " ....

Clarets4me wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:54 pm

If we had another Referendum next year, and it's won again by the Unionists, will Mrs Sturgeon want another one in 2025, if the SNP get another majority of Scottish seats ? We're then into a world of " Never-Endums " ....

Leaving aside the merit (or otherwise) of Scottish independence. I think that's totally wrong.
The SNP currently have a very strong case for a referendum purely based on the fact that Cameron, (and others) told them that if they voted for independence from the UK then they would be voting to leave the EU as well, and the only way they could have guaranteed to stay in the EU was to vote against independence.
Now Cameron, (in his arrogance) of course, never anticipated losing the EU referendum, which consequentially results in Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will and contrary to Cameron's pledge made prior to the first Indyref.
So (irrespectve of the merits or not of Scottish Independence) there is at present a certain legitimacy in asking for Indyref2. (i.e. it was indeed stated that it was a once in a generation vote, but it was also argued that the only way to remain in the EU was to vote against independence, but this has turned out not to be true).
So if there were to be a 2nd Scots referendum and the Unionists were to win, then surely the argument would be over. They would be voting to stay in the UK and leave (remain outside) the EU.

nil_desperandum wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:13 pm

Leaving aside the merit (or otherwise) of Scottish independence. I think that's totally wrong.
The SNP currently have a very strong case for a referendum purely based on the fact that Cameron, (and others) told them that if they voted for independence from the UK then they would be voting to leave the EU as well, and the only way they could have guaranteed to stay in the EU was to vote against independence.
Now Cameron, (in his arrogance) of course, never anticipated losing the EU referendum, which consequentially results in Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will and contrary to Cameron's pledge made prior to the first Indyref.
So (irrespectve of the merits or not of Scottish Independence) there is at present a certain legitimacy in asking for Indyref2. (i.e. it was indeed stated that it was a once in a generation vote, but it was also argued that the only way to remain in the EU was to vote against independence, but this has turned out not to be true).
So if there were to be a 2nd Scots referendum and the Unionists were to win, then surely the argument would be over. They would be voting to stay in the UK and leave (remain outside) the EU.

I would agree that. The caveats would be that it would be not for at least a couple of years, so that the Brexit position has settled down, and that it would come with a cast iron "no more referendums for 30 years" guarantee.

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:12 pm

Because they want more powers to be devolved to them from Westminster but are happy with the framework and regulations / power that the EU hold. It’s a pretty sensible position to adopt really - why do they need or want Westminster MPs / government making decisions and determining policy, investment etc in Scotland when they believe they are better placed doing this themselves ?

Clearly some of Scotland don’t want this - or didn’t last time they voted but it is something that the SNP by their very definition and being will always push for.

They want more power, by becoming less powerful? I guess this is a bit like Brexit isn't it. The SNP will say anything as a one trick pony type of political party to get what they want. There is absolutely no evidence that they will be better off as a stand alone country. They can't even agree on what their currency will be. Employment will likely rise, shipbuilding will almost certainly cease given UK policy on warship building overseas. And just to reiterate what I said before that there is no guarantee that they will ever meet the criteria to join the EU.

nil_desperandum wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:13 pm

Leaving aside the merit (or otherwise) of Scottish independence. I think that's totally wrong.
The SNP currently have a very strong case for a referendum purely based on the fact that Cameron, (and others) told them that if they voted for independence from the UK then they would be voting to leave the EU as well, and the only way they could have guaranteed to stay in the EU was to vote against independence.
Now Cameron, (in his arrogance) of course, never anticipated losing the EU referendum, which consequentially results in Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will and contrary to Cameron's pledge made prior to the first Indyref.
So (irrespectve of the merits or not of Scottish Independence) there is at present a certain legitimacy in asking for Indyref2. (i.e. it was indeed stated that it was a once in a generation vote, but it was also argued that the only way to remain in the EU was to vote against independence, but this has turned out not to be true).
So if there were to be a 2nd Scots referendum and the Unionists were to win, then surely the argument would be over. They would be voting to stay in the UK and leave (remain outside) the EU.

I hardly think the SNP would say the matter is settled, if they lost another Referendum ...