Undemocratic

[Right_winger]

You're resistant to facts, aren't you? There wouldn't be a second referendum any time soon if the UK wasn't dragging Scotland out of the EU against its will. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that it was the EU referendum result, not the independence result, that is what decided that there would have to be a second independence referendum so soon after the first.

And you actually buy that? Do you have any idea what the SNP stand for and the reason for there existence?

The EU vote was merely the excuse to agitate for this call.

[Right_winger]

Just for you IT seeing as you like evidence and that.

Before the EU referendum.

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/14 ... _majority/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

Just for you IT seeing as you like evidence and that.

Before the EU referendum.

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/14 ... _majority/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What do you think that is evidence of? Is there something wrong with her continuing to make her case for independence?

[Right_winger]

What do you think that is evidence of? Is there something wrong with her continuing to make her case for independence?

I was proving you incorrect from your earlier posts.

Well considering the divisive campaign in the 2014 referendum which was only 18 months previous to the article yes there is something wrong.

It causes division, stunts investment and generally causes mass uncertainty. Not to mention the cost of all these campaigns which could be put towards better use? Don't you think?

I'd rather they just get on with the "day job " of administering the country rather than constantly mining grievance to agitate for independence.

What do you think IT?

[Imploding Turtle]

I was proving you incorrect from your earlier posts.

Well considering the divisive campaign in the 2014 referendum which was only 18 months previous to the article yes there is something wrong.

It causes division, stunts investment and generally causes mass uncertainty. Not to mention the cost of all these campaigns which could be put towards better use? Don't you think?

I'd rather they just get on with the "day job " of administering the country rather than constantly mining grievance to agitate for independence.

What do you think IT?

I see nothing in that article that proves me incorrect at any stage in this thread. Maybe i'm missing it though so you should explain it.

What do I think? I think they were elected to government by an electorate that knows what their position is on independence and so I have absolutely no problem with the First Minister trying to persuade the public on the issue. The fact that you do see a problem with it suggests that youre worried that she might actually persuade the electorate to vote for independence.

UKIP were never elected to national government yet I assume you had no problem with them trying to persuade the electorate to their view, and their leader even said he would continue the argument had they lost the EU referendum, so it's pretty hypocritical to turn around and complain about someone else doing something that you would have supported had it been Nigel Farage doing it.

[Right_winger]

I see nothing in that article that proves me incorrect at any stage in this thread. Maybe i'm missing it though so you should explain it.

What do I think? I think they were elected to government by an electorate that knows what their position is on independence and so I have absolutely no problem with the First Minister trying to persuade the public on the issue. The fact that you do see a problem with it suggests that youre worried that she might actually persuade the electorate to vote for independence.

UKIP were never elected to national government yet I assume you had no problem with them trying to persuade the electorate to their view, and their leader even said he would continue the argument had they lost the EU referendum, so it's pretty hypocritical to turn around and complain about someone else doing something that you would have supported had it been Nigel Farage doing it.

I'm sure having read the article, the flavour is continued Persuasion of the electorate towards independence, so are you suggesting that they would never ever have pushed for one in the near future had Brexit not happened?

The SNP had lost a fair amount of seats from the previous election and are a now a minority administration. There are more unionist votes than nationalist, it's just they were split up over 3 main parties as opposed to one. If they had wiped the floor again as they did in 2011 then I'd say you had a point. All of the evidence suggests that the majority of people in Scotland would like to remain British. There has been 1 or 2 flash polls which suggest that it's nearer 50/50 but the general trend is around 60% U.K. And 40% Indy. Again I'd have no problem if there was sustained evidence that the majority favoured Indy. They don't and as it was so close to the last "once in a generation" vote then they have no business demanding referendums so soon.

If they feel so strongly about it then I'm sure they would call for an election with the specific aim of gaining a cast iron mandate. They were nervous about doing this recently when their budget was looking like stalling so that would suggest they have no confidence.

Iv never mentioned UKIP once, but nice try.

The Tories have a large Eurosceptic section aswell I'm sure your aware. As do Labour

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm sure having read the article, the flavour is continued Persuasion of the electorate towards independence, so are you suggesting that they would never ever have pushed for one in the near future had Brexit not happened?

The SNP had lost a fair amount of seats from the previous election and are a now a minority administration. There are more unionist votes than nationalist, it's just they were split up over 3 main parties as opposed to one. If they had wiped the floor again as they did in 2011 then I'd say you had a point. All of the evidence suggests that the majority of people in Scotland would like to remain British. There has been 1 or 2 flash polls which suggest that it's nearer 50/50 but the general trend is around 60% U.K. And 40% Indy. Again I'd have no problem if there was sustained evidence that the majority favoured Indy. They don't and as it was so close to the last "once in a generation" vote then they have no business demanding referendums so soon.

If they feel so strongly about it then I'm sure they would call for an election with the specific aim of gaining a cast iron mandate. They were nervous about doing this recently when their budget was looking like stalling so that would suggest they have no confidence.

Iv never mentioned UKIP once, but nice try.

The Tories have a large Eurosceptic section aswell I'm sure your aware. As do Labour

There is a cast iron mandate already.

And are you seriously suggesting that they should call a general election solely on the question of whether they should have a referendum? Why not just have the bloody referendum? It'd be far cheaper to just have one referendum than a general election and then a referendum.

You're also arguing against the referendum based on there not being a clear and sustained desire for one but that's ignoring the fact that that's not why they're calling for another referendum. They promised a second referendum is the UK took Scotland out of the EU against Scotland's will. I don't know why i have to explain this to you so many time but it's obviously not sinking in. The mandate is already there. If she doesn't call for a second referendum then she would not be doing something her party's manifesto said she would do.

Why are you arguing in favour of a politician breaking her promise?

[AndrewJB]

I thought this thread might be about the Tory expenses scandal.

[mdd2]

It is amazing in so far there was uncertainty before the last referendum as to how Scotland would get back into the EU with some evidence that Spain might veto a bid. The SNP want a stand alone Scotland and will find any excuse to get it. I for one would be happy for them to go it alone if that is what they want and would not even bother to have our Government bother about fighting the referendum but once they voted to leave they would have to wait a few years to untie the knot given what has to be done vis a vis Brexit.
I am pretty sure that the non-Scots in the UK are getting pretty cheesed off with what the SNP keeps spouting.
If Alex Salmond is typical having met him on a few occasions, Gawd help them

[ablueclaret]

Sturgeon was elected on a mandate that included applying for a referendum if there was material change in the position of Scotland, and Brexit provides that. May should be applauding this wish for independence as she sees it as the best way forward for England.
The genii has been let out of the box and patriotic nationalism is the order of the day, democracy really isn't the issue.
Few voted for hard Brexit but once you have power you can do whatever you like.
The less well off like in America are going to realise they backed the wrong horse but then when have the Tories or Republicans ever cared about them.

[Imploding Turtle]

...but once they voted to leave they would have to wait a few years to untie the knot given what has to be done vis a vis Brexit.

That makes no sense and comes across as petty as fcuk. Why should Scotland be forced into a witing period just because England decided to force themselves into a waiting period to leave the EU? What has one got to do with the other?

[Paul Waine]

There is a cast iron mandate already.

And are you seriously suggesting that they should call a general election solely on the question of whether they should have a referendum? Why not just have the bloody referendum? It'd be far cheaper to just have one referendum than a general election and then a referendum.

You're also arguing against the referendum based on there not being a clear and sustained desire for one but that's ignoring the fact that that's not why they're calling for another referendum. They promised a second referendum is the UK took Scotland out of the EU against Scotland's will. I don't know why i have to explain this to you so many time but it's obviously not sinking in. The mandate is already there. If she doesn't call for a second referendum then she would not be doing something her party's manifesto said she would do.

Why are you arguing in favour of a politician breaking her promise?

Good morning, IT. A bit challenging to maintain a debate when the subject is split across two threads, but never mind.

As on other thread, there are occasions when a mandate cannot be fulfilled - especially when the mandate also requires others to acquiesce. Do you argue that UK PM should break the mandate to maintain the union between the member countries of the UK? On the last referendum, the people of Scotland voted to maintain the union. At the last general election there was no mandate from any group to break this union.

I don't consider SNP mandate will have been "broken" if Sturgeon asks and May says "no, not yet." It's just that she's promised something that she might not be able to fulfil. We all know that politicians of all shades make those types of promises. Reality of life, thank goodness many of their promises aren't delivered.

BTW: why should the electorate outside Scotland have an obligation to support SNP trying to fulfil this mandate? If they support the union it's not in their interests to offer this support.

[HatfieldClaret]

That makes no sense and comes across as petty as fcuk. Why should Scotland be forced into a witing period just because England decided to force themselves into a waiting period to leave the EU? What has one got to do with the other?

The UK decided IT. FFS !!

[Paul Waine]

That makes no sense and comes across as petty as fcuk. Why should Scotland be forced into a witing period just because England decided to force themselves into a waiting period to leave the EU? What has one got to do with the other?

I think the period to complete Brexit is determined by EU treaty - and not by UK choice.

The link is that UK needs to leave EU and, unfortunately that needs to be completed before IndyRef2 can be considered. Would the electorate of Scotland, having recently voted in favour of the union thank anyone who decided to hold a 2nd ref at the wrong time?

Yes, allow a 2nd ref, if the people of Scotland want one after the other business is complete. But, not before.

[Imploding Turtle]

The UK voted knowing that it'd take a long time to sort out Brexit and we still voted for it.

[Paul Waine]

The UK voted knowing that it'd take a long time to sort out Brexit and we still voted for it.

Agree. The electorate is patient and understands some things require certain period of time.

[Man of Kent]

So I presume you wanted the whole of the EU to have the chance to vote in the referendum last year?

No, that was the first vote. I'd really be happy for them to be involved in the second vote - as is the case with my point here!

[RingoMcCartney]

Teresa May, first and foremost, has a duty to the UK.

90% of the UK is not Scotland.

The chippie, angry, "everything is the fault of the English" SNP, need to realise the UK has bigger fish to fry.

[BennyD]

Keighley, if Scotland do leave and get an opt out from the Euro, what currency will they use? If they use Sterling they will leave control of their economy with Westminster in the same way that Brussels would control their economy if they entered the Euro. If they do vote out, the Scots would be better off going back to their traditional fiscal policy of bartering, poaching or trading sheep. This isn't about Scottish Independence, it's about the legacies of the main protagonists.

[Roosterbooster]

Explain to me when Scotland had a vote on leaving the EU?

As far as I'm aware only the UK has had a vote.

But as the referendum was legally non binding, and only advisory, we can infer that Scotland have advised Parliament that they would like to stay in the EU.

Based on a similar premise to the Falklands, where the Islanders advised they would rather be British than Argentinian, is it not fair (considering the SNP manifesto), that whilst Scotland are happy to be part of the British union whilst also members of the EU, they should also be allowed to advise on whether or not they would still like to be part of the British union after we have left the EU.

May has said they could get this vote after we have left the EU. That will be in 2 years according to her. So why not agree to a referendum in June 2019?

Because she will look weak 11 months before a GE as Scotland almost certainly vote to leave.

That would make the GE a bit of a farce. What would happen to Scottish MP seats in the interim before they left? Would Wales follow suit with NI and Gibraltar?

I'm not sure this is about democracy. I think it's about control. And May wants control, and power.

[Roosterbooster]

The UK voted knowing that it'd take a long time to sort out Brexit and we still voted for it.

I'd wager most people voting had never heard of Article 50, or had any idea what it would entail, on the day they voted.

[RingoMcCartney]

But as the referendum was legally non binding, and only advisory, we can infer that Scotland have advised Parliament that they would like to stay in the EU.

Based on a similar premise to the Falklands, where the Islanders advised they would rather be British than Argentinian, is it not fair (considering the SNP manifesto), that whilst Scotland are happy to be part of the British union whilst also members of the EU, they should also be allowed to advise on whether or not they would still like to be part of the British union after we have left the EU.

May has said they could get this vote after we have left the EU. That will be in 2 years according to her. So why not agree to a referendum in June 2019?

Because she will look weak 11 months before a GE as Scotland almost certainly vote to leave.

That would make the GE a bit of a farce. What would happen to Scottish MP seats in the interim before they left? Would Wales follow suit with NI and Gibraltar?

I'm not sure this is about democracy. I think it's about control. And May wants control, and power.

As the Prime Minister of the UK, Teresa May already has the control and power. That, my friend, is called democracy.

[Imploding Turtle]

Exactly like UKIP

[Sidney1st]

That makes no sense and comes across as petty as fcuk. Why should Scotland be forced into a witing period just because England decided to force themselves into a waiting period to leave the EU? What has one got to do with the other?

Would you rather the break up was rushed and strewn with errors?

There's a lot to split up too and to agree on.

[Sidney1st]

Teresa May, first and foremost, has a duty to the UK.

90% of the UK is not Scotland.

The chippie, angry, "everything is the fault of the English" SNP, need to realise the UK has bigger fish to fry.

Bigger fish to fry?
They just want their Mars Bars fried, not fish.

[Imploding Turtle]

Would you rather the break up was rushed and strewn with errors?

There's a lot to split up too and to agree on.

I don't believe i expressed an opinion on whether it should take time or not, only that it shouldn't take time just because Brexit takes time.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm as pro-Union as anyone, but if the UK means that we vote for whats best for the English 90% of the time, then it really is time for it split.

Thats not a union, its an occupation.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's called tyranny of the majority.

[Damo]

I could warm to this idea.
I doubt very much that some of the moaners on here would put their money where their mouth is, up sticks and move to the far north though

http://tinyurl.com/kf5o3qz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sidney1st]

I don't believe i expressed an opinion on whether it should take time or not, only that it shouldn't take time just because Brexit takes time.

Why shouldn't it take time though?

Should it happen at the same time as Brexit?
If it did, doesn't it run the risk of being done poorly?
I'm sure the Scots would be upset and narky if Scotland leaving the UK didn't get May's full attention.

[Damo]

It should happen when it suits the rest of the UK.
I think it's fair to say we are fairly pre occupied with brexit at the moment. Then, as someone pointed out, we will be on the run up to the G.E. after that, the standing prime minister should sit down with the first Minister and make plans for another independance vote

[Lancasterclaret]

You know that stuff that was written on the side of the bus to get really simple people to vote for it?

That is the same thing

Meaningless fluff in other words

[Imploding Turtle]

Why shouldn't it take time though?

Should it happen at the same time as Brexit?
If it did, doesn't it run the risk of being done poorly?
I'm sure the Scots would be upset and narky if Scotland leaving the UK didn't get May's full attention.

I'm not saying it shouldn't take time, i'm saying it shouldn't take time just because something else takes time.

[Sidney1st]

Now you're just waffling...

So you're not saying it shouldn't take time, but it shouldn't take time because the Uk leaving the EU takes time?

Splitting Scotland from the rest of the Uk could actually take longer because everything is far more intertwined then the Uk is with the EU.

[Imploding Turtle]

Now you're just waffling...

So you're not saying it shouldn't take time, but it shouldn't take time because the Uk leaving the EU takes time?

Splitting Scotland from the rest of the Uk could actually take longer because everything is far more intertwined then the Uk is with the EU.

Are you deliberately being dense? I don't mind it taking time, but if the only reason it takes time is because it is being artifically dragged out longer because of Brexit taking time then the English can **** off.

There, is that easy enough for you to understand? What the **** is wrong with you?

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm as pro-Union as anyone, but if the UK means that we vote for whats best for the English 90% of the time, then it really is time for it split.

Thats not a union, its an occupation.

Who said anything about being 90% English?!

I said that May is the PM of the UK.
90% of which is not Scotland.
The 90% is made up of Wales Northen Ireland and England.
But she has a duty to 100% of the union. (Within that union there are the Scots. And the MAJORITY of them don't want a 2nd referendum!!!)

[Sidney1st]

Are you deliberately being dense? I don't mind it taking time, but if the only reason it takes time is because it is being artifically dragged out longer because of Brexit taking time then the English can **** off.

There, is that easy enough for you to understand? What the **** is wrong with you?

Nothing wrong with me.

Why should Scotland leaving the UK happen during Brexit, that's all I want to know?

Brexit is more important to the rest of the UK then another Scottish independence referendum.

You won't like that answer, but its the simple truth.

A Brexit done properly doesn't mean its being artificially dragged out to **** off the Scots, despite your thoughts.
It will be dragged out so we can sabotage the Scots efforts to join the EU of course

[Lancasterclaret]

Sorry Ringo, you are quite correct

90% of the Uk isn't England yet, but the way we are going, it will soon be 100%

Whether we like it or not, if you ignore or are seen to ignore/belittle the minority parts of the union, then they will probably think they can do better on their own.*

*even though from a purely economic point of view, they would really struggle

[RingoMcCartney]

Sorry Ringo, you are quite correct

90% of the Uk isn't England yet, but the way we are going, it will soon be 100%

Whether we like it or not, if you ignore or are seen to ignore/belittle the minority parts of the union, then they will probably think they can do better on their own.*

*even though from a purely economic point of view, they would really struggle

Fair enough lancs. I don't think May is belittling the Scots. She hasn't ruled a 2nd referendum out. I think she said something on the lines of "nows not the time". She's simply prioritising.

The SNP will obviously paint it an entirely different way though. It's gamesmanship, dammed if she does, dammed if she doesnt. Personally, I'd let them crack on. I'd prefer the Scots to go. I'm all for self determination, more local accountability, and democracy. That's why I'm pro brexit, pro Scots independence (Welsh and Irish IF THEY WANT IT) and pro abolishing the house of Lords.

I'm up in the north east with the in laws now and the amount of public money , per person , that goes to them, compared to the Scots is scandalous. And don't think for one moment they aren't aware of it. There's a real resentment here. And when the Scots( well the SNP!) are seen as being in a perpetual state of spoilt, child-like tantrum, if they were ever to get the chance to split, with the chance of getting , what they see as their fair share, they would.

Sturgeon and cronies had better be careful what they wish for. If I was their fairy God mother (try to put that image out of your head!!!!) I'd grant them their wish.

[nil_desperandum]

I'm up in the north east with the in laws now and the amount of public money , per person , that goes to them, compared to the Scots is scandalous. And don't think for one moment they aren't aware of it. .

Fair enough point about funding for the NE, but many people in the NE voted for Brexit, thus potentially depriving themselves of the millions of support that they have been receiving from the EU.
Do you seriously think, that contrary to historical precedent, a Tory government in London will suddenly massively increase funding to the region to compensate?
Teeside in particular has been a major beneficiary of EU funding, as has Sunderland.
Once / if Scotland breaks away from the UK, then those in the N East will be the most remote from the establishment and probably the last in the queue.
At least people up there will have got what they voted for though - so perhaps that's ok.
(It is, by the way, a statistical fact that the North East has done proportionately well out of the EU budget, with only the West Country and West Wales doing better)

[RingoMcCartney]

Fair enough point about funding for the NE, but many people in the NE voted for Brexit, thus potentially depriving themselves of the millions of support that they have been receiving from the EU.
Do you seriously think, that contrary to historical precedent, a Tory government in London will suddenly massively increase funding to the region to compensate?
Teeside in particular has been a major beneficiary of EU funding, as has Sunderland.
Once / if Scotland breaks away from the UK, then those in the N East will be the most remote from the establishment and probably the last in the queue.
At least people up there will have got what they voted for though - so perhaps that's ok.
(It is, by the way, a statistical fact that the North East has done proportionately well out of the EU budget, with only the West Country and West Wales doing better)

This "EU budget" of which you speak!?

As massive net contributers, it's our money coming back.

[nil_desperandum]

This "EU budget" of which you speak!?

As massive net contributers, it's our money coming back.

Yes, but you clearly fail to understand my point.
The tax take in the NE is relatively small compared to the big cities such as London, Manchester, Edinburgh etc.. Out of those taxes a relatively small part goes to the EU, then a chunk of it comes back to the UK. It has mainly been going to the poorer regions like the NE who have not been supported by central government. In other words money has been re-distributed to the poorer regions by the EU.
Of course the UK is a net contributor to the EU, but that fee gives us access to the single market and contributes to things like security, intelligence, borders etc. We will still have to pay for these outside the EU, or of course trade under WTO rules, but it will still cost us money, so all these figures plastered on the side of buses were just fantasy, and have been acknowledged as such.
Now of course there were many reasons why people voted to leave, and that's fine, but anyone who thinks that a lot of Tories down south voted leave in order to help the North East is highly likely to be disappointed.

[Imploding Turtle]

Why should Scotland leaving the UK happen during Brexit, that's all I want to know?

Literally no one in this thread has said it should. Or shouldn't.

[Paul Waine]

Yes, but you clearly fail to understand my point.
The tax take in the NE is relatively small compared to the big cities such as London, Manchester, Edinburgh etc.. Out of those taxes a relatively small part goes to the EU, then a chunk of it comes back to the UK. It has mainly been going to the poorer regions like the NE who have not been supported by central government. In other words money has been re-distributed to the poorer regions by the EU.
Of course the UK is a net contributor to the EU, but that fee gives us access to the single market and contributes to things like security, intelligence, borders etc. We will still have to pay for these outside the EU, or of course trade under WTO rules, but it will still cost us money, so all these figures plastered on the side of buses were just fantasy, and have been acknowledged as such.
Now of course there were many reasons why people voted to leave, and that's fine, but anyone who thinks that a lot of Tories down south voted leave in order to help the North East is highly likely to be disappointed.

Hi nil_d, agree with you re the south east/London bias of politicians - labour are the same as tories in this respect. I'd move parliament to Manchester - at least for the period while they re-build Westminster. Make sure that the northern power house is delivered. Maybe, longer term, have a parliament that moves around the country.

And, yes House of Lords can go and all the "lords and ladies" and other political honours. I'd have a second chamber: Knowledgeable Persons (KPs) whose role is to make sure that laws (including tax laws) are what they were intended to be, no "gaps" no loop holes.

EDIT: And, I've lived in London for past 3 decades - we need to move the politicians away from London.

[Sidney1st]

Literally no one in this thread has said it should. Or shouldn't.

You don't see why it should wait until after Brexit though.

[Paul Waine]

Literally no one in this thread has said it should. Or shouldn't.

Hi IT, unless I'm mistaken you've asked why should Scottish indeyref2 wait until Brexit is completed. Something along the lines of SNP honouring their mandate? And, I think you said something about the "English" not be allowed to delay indyref2.

Or, does "literally" mean something new?

[Saxoman]

How I long for the days of 'great' Britain during thatchers time, excessive beer consumption, English hooliganism at home and abroad, embarrassing tracks like 'star trekkin' topping the charts, wide spread strike action inc riots and violence and unemployment, race riots like broadwater farm and Paul Gascoigne's heyday of Italia 90, fake breasts and all..

[Imploding Turtle]

You don't see why it should wait until after Brexit though.

Why should it?

Edit to add: I don't kind if the split does wait till Brexit is sorted, as long as there's a good reason. Making it wait for no other reason than the fact that the UK has to wait is not a good reason.

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, unless I'm mistaken you've asked why should Scottish indeyref2 wait until Brexit is completed. Something along the lines of SNP honouring their mandate? And, I think you said something about the "English" not be allowed to delay indyref2.

Or, does "literally" mean something new?

Youre right, I don't think l the referendum should wait for Brexit but that's not what I said no one was saying.

[RingoMcCartney]

Yes, but you clearly fail to understand my point.
The tax take in the NE is relatively small compared to the big cities such as London, Manchester, Edinburgh etc.. Out of those taxes a relatively small part goes to the EU, then a chunk of it comes back to the UK. It has mainly been going to the poorer regions like the NE who have not been supported by central government. In other words money has been re-distributed to the poorer regions by the EU.
Of course the UK is a net contributor to the EU, but that fee gives us access to the single market and contributes to things like security, intelligence, borders etc. We will still have to pay for these outside the EU, or of course trade under WTO rules, but it will still cost us money, so all these figures plastered on the side of buses were just fantasy, and have been acknowledged as such.
Now of course there were many reasons why people voted to leave, and that's fine, but anyone who thinks that a lot of Tories down south voted leave in order to help the North East is highly likely to be disappointed.

I do understand your point. Southern tories won't have voted in order to help the North. However, if the north feels as though it's being short changed by the south, it should vote a party that would address it's concerns. If there aren't enough of us to give us a government that would, then hey, that's democracy.

Local accountability, and democracy are things that the EU could never offer, and if the numbers go against you. So be it.