Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

24% more people voted no than yes. To present the vote as a near miss for Yes is to misrepresent the views of the 3,600,000+ voters.

People just put it like that to justify forcing Scotland out of the Union against the views of the people or keeping up a neverendum.

You can put your spin on the figures all you want. Mine are still correct just as yours are?

I've no idea what you mean by justifying forcing Scotland out of the union? Scotland will only secede the union when it's the democratic will of the people. There's certainly no talk of another referendum this side of the border anyway. Maybe the rest of the UK will choose to boot us out after begging us to stay, subsidy junkies that we are ;-)

ruggedtoast

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'll never understand why, when Scotland is supposedly subsidised by billions of pounds the establishment fought tooth and nail to keep Scotland in the union. Why were they so desperate to keep us in the union?

I wonder can anyone answer this?

Once again I will state that Yes lost. I accept that Yes lost. It hasn't gone unnoticed that those who harp back to the referendum the most are the supposed 'winners' :-)

Sure. I'll explain.

It's because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. The people who happen to be resident there now have no more right to claim it for their exclusive use than the people of Tower Hamlets do to annex Stepney Green and declare it part of the Soverign nation of Bangladesh. I'm not suggesting they want to.

Do you know who else doesn't want to annexe the place they live? The people of Scotland! They were asked in a proper referendum and everything and said no.

You see Leanne, it's not who can raise the most flag waving nationalist numpties in a 100 mile radius that is always right, or who always gets to have things all their own way just because they make the most noise.

Phew. That was complicated to explain. I hope I made it simple enough so even the Scottish Nationalists could understand it. I have a feeling that they will be struggling for a long time to come though.

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

The current plan of the SNP seems to be to find another means of gaining independence beyond the democratic process. I suspect that they would do a neverendum if they thought they could get away with it.

However, as the SNP aren't stupid they realise that if the referendum couldn't be won with the backdrop as it was it will probably never be won hence the need to find an extra-democratic way to do it.

You'll need to enlighten me as to what this plan is. I live in Scotland. I am a member of the SNP yet I have no idea what it is you are talking about. Is the media somewhat biased where you are too?

Leanne1812

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Sure. I'll explain.

It's because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. The people who happen to be resident there now have no more right to claim it for their exclusive use than the people of Tower Hamlets do to annex Stepney Green and declare it part of the Soverign nation of Bangladesh. I'm not suggesting they want to.

Do you know who else doesn't want to annexe the place they live? The people of Scotland! They were asked in a proper referendum and everything and said no.

You see Leanne, it's not who can raise the most flag waving nationalist numpties in a 100 mile radius that is always right, or who always gets to have things all their own way just because they make the most noise.

Phew. That was complicated to explain. I hope I made it simple enough so even the Scottish Nationalists could understand it. I have a feeling that they will be struggling for a long time to come though.

Ah, it wasn't always so though was it? We weren't always in a loving, equal union were we?

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

Mr Salmond has been quoted in the Scottish and British media as saying that independence can happen by means other than a referendum.

If you could post a link to that I'd be most grateful :-)

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

Mr Salmond has been quoted in the Scottish and British media as saying that independence can happen by means other than a referendum.

Of course it could; Maggie Thatcher herself said if the SNP got a majority of the Scottish seats in the Westminster parliament, they'd be entitled to negotiate independence. 37 seats was the number she mentioned, as at the time Scotland had 72 MPs. Is that what anti-democratic means?,

Fact is we don't hear talk of the SNP standing in May on a "negotiating indy" ticket, for good reason. The people have spoken. They're not going to change their mind anytime soon.

However, if they stand on a "negotiating further devolution" ticket (which I'm sure they will), job's a good'un.

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

Sure

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scotland-could-declare-independence-without-referendum-says-alex-salmond-9747555.html

:-)

Cheers for the link.

Did you read it?

You'll note Zag's post above.

Nothing to shout about.

I love how this minor politician can really have people flapping. Can't wait till his return to Westminster which looks very likely. Hamish will be apoplectic! :rotfl:

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

So what changed?

Yougov today :- Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election (YouGov) :

SNP 48% (+1)
Labour 27% (n/c)

Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 49% (+1)
No 44% (-1)

Don't Knows removed, that works out as...

Yes 53% (+1)
No 47% (-1)

Both the Unionists and Nationalists agreed that this was a once in a lifetime or generation opportunity to vote for whether Scotland should remain in the Union or become a separate country. Now it wasn't a once in a generation or lifetime opportunity to vote for whether Scotland should remain in the Union or become a separate country.

Hell, it's not even going to be a year between the referendum and the General Election.

Nationalists complain that Westminster politicians keep saying one thing and doing another. I guess the possibility of becoming a Westminster MP is rubbing off on Mr Salmond.

Salmond isn't even on the radar any more. It's all about Nicola Sturgeon. "The FM has a +42 approval rating compared to Murphy's -10."

45% voted Yes, 55% voted No 18th Sept. That would have been all well and good if it wasn't for the Vow and all the Devo-Max stuff at the end. But it is what is. 45% voted Yes no matter what, didn't believe in the Vow, that any Devo max would be offered, or that anything much would be coming Scotland's way via the main three party promisies. I dare say there were lots of waverers made their minds up at the last minute.

55% voted No... It's the 'waverers' who voted No at the last minute that are now slinging their weight behind the SNP. The more powers thing hasn't worked out. Hasn't worked out well enough even for Scottish Labour, or Gordon Brown, the man who actually introduced it to us all. What does that say about it ?
There is no danger of a new referendum anytime soon. So there's no point going on and on about 'for a generation'. No one is suggesting one. However, the SNP has garnered a lot of democratic support recently. Nothing wrong with that, they're a legally recognised UK party after all. Why would there be Gen ?

They'll have to abide by what their voters wish them to do. Which is what all parties do. Most SNP intentioned voters want further powers, Devo-max if possible. It's not exactly looking like a 'vote loser' is it ? Scottish Labour are trying it out for themselves too.

At the end of the the day the SNP are trusted more. And further powers, much more in the way of further powers actually, is what the Scots electorate seem to want. The SNP 'surge' is a reflection of that, not the cause..( if they were the cause they would have won the ref ! ).
I'm not silly enough to believe that percentage of the vote in polls = seats on an equal swing basis. There are mountains to climb.. and unrealistic expectations of wipeouts. But, I'd be even sillier to believe that the SNP are going anywhere soon. Nor what they stand for or their record in devolved government so far.

There is no Labour v's Tory v's Lib Dem with a bit of UKIP thrown in up here. It's only Labour v's SNP or SNP v's Lib Dem in the game at the moment. I think you need to appreciate that when you start throwing stuff about Westminster MP's around.

Labour and Lib dem's aren't doing so good... but there's no point trying to 'wish' the SNP away on vague airy hand wafty stuff like 'but it was agreed' or 'said once in a generation'... Politics doesn't work like that. Never has, and never will. Rest assured there won't be another referendum called until the SNP/Yes groups think there will be a resounding endorsement of it. Until then, it's just Westminster and Holyrood. Hello MP for Moray Salmond !

I guess the possibility of becoming a Westminster MP is rubbing off on Mr Salmond.

He's had plenty of experience there before too. Disrupting Nigel Lawson's 1988 budget a high point for me.. I'm sure he'll be a bit more reserved this time around.;)

If a situation occurs in which there is grave disorder and the Speaker is unable to keep control over the proceedings, he or she may end the sitting without putting the matter to a vote for such a time as is thought necessary.
There was grave disorder in the House of Commons during Nigel Lawson's 1988 Budget speech.
Alex Salmond (SNP) leapt to his feet and shouted at the chancellor.
He was "named" by the Chairman of Ways and Means - the deputy Speaker - and suspended from the House for a week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/82157.stm

purch

The SNPs new tactic of boring us into submission is starting to work.

.string.

I like the new proposal by the Tories regarding voting in the House of Commons. They propose that, in voting on English matters, all MPs can vote and debate but if a majority of English MPs vote against a motion then it will not pass.

So much for the SNP plan to ratchet up the cost of the English NHS.

It's not a clincher but it's one element favoring a Tory vote.