Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

If that's the case, Scottish people shouldn't have voted No.

There should not be a Neverendum.

Unfortunately, you don't get a say on whether there will be one, two or even ten referendums.:(

There were two for devolution 20 years apart. Both widely recognised as attempts to stop the rise in support for the SNP. The second one resulted in a huge majority for.. after dodgy last minute 40% rules in 1979 ( oh wait, last minute interventions that's familiar ) and all the confusion of the first.. But it seems that establishing Holyrood and a devolved parliament only stalled things, for a while.

Events have simply accelerated things along a bit this time round. Still be a few years yet though. If there is to be a second one. However, like devolution, just because it was a No the first time round.. doesn't mean that there won't be another one along... sooner or later.

Edited to add...
11/09/15

A SECOND independence referendum will be held shortly after the next-but-one Holyrood election in 2021, the former leader of the Yes Scotland campaign has predicted. Blair Jenkins said it was "highly likely" that a re-run of last year's poll would be held, and that Scots would vote to leave the UK...

...helped secure a 45 per cent share of the vote in the referendum.
Since then support for independence has climbed further, with two recent polls showing a majority of Scots in favour of leaving the UK...
..."There would not need to be nearly as long a campaign next time, so the referendum could happen fairly quickly if it were in a winning SNP manifesto.
"It could happen in a much shorter timeframe given all the groundwork has been done this last time."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13713599.Scots_will_vote_Yes_to_independence_in_2021__predicts_Blair_Jenkins/

Generali

Both the SNP and the UK Government agreed this was a once in a generation or even lifetime event. If the Scots wanted independence they should have voted for it when they had a chance in 2014 not told an opinion pollster that they quite fancy it year later.

Life often doesn't give you a second chance. Carpe diem as they say. The separatists had their chance and they blew it.

skintmacflint

I'm not convinced this Neuro Linguistic Programming concept of constantly repeating , another referendum, Independence is just a matter of time blah blah, is actually going to work.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Generali

skintmacflint wrote: »

I'm not convinced this Neuro Linguistic Programming concept of constantly repeating , another referendum, Independence is just a matter of time blah blah, is actually going to work.

Quite the opposite in fact.

I don't think that the Scottish Parliament/SNP could go 'off piste' and call a referendum even if they wanted to as they don't have access to the electoral register and I can't see the Electoral Commission releasing it for an illegal referendum.

tberry6686

kabayiri wrote: »

Yes, it would be fair.

But there's loads on which they have no idea.

They never reached any agreement on a so called currency union. Unknown #1.

There were question marks over acceptance into Europe for the new fledgling nation, despite being an Euro-friendly party. Unknown #2.

They have no idea on timescales. Last time independence would take only 18 months. Now, FFA could take years. They are just guessing on what is needed. Unknown #3.

They have no agreement with Westminster over the future of Trident in Scotland. Unknown #4.

They have a big income gap, plugged currently by Westminster, but no clear way to close this gap. Unknown #5.

Hmm...

1. Westminster clearly stated no currency union. Yes campaign decided that there would be one. Which side do you believe.

2. It was quite clearly stated by EU that Scotland would have to apply to become a new member with all that entails. This did not sit well with the yes campaign so was constantly lied about, denied etc.

3. Timescales - take your pick - anything from 18 moths to 10 years - anyones guess really.

4. The yes campaign were clear on Trident - not in Scotland - no matter how many jobs that policy would cost.

5. There is a small income gap that can be made up by a small amont of borrowing according to SNPonomics. Meanwhile every man and his dog knows that there would be a massive black hole in the finances with the only way of plugging it being massive austerity on a scale similar to Greece (or carry on as things are and go bust in 10 years or so).

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

I don't think that the Scottish Parliament/SNP could go 'off piste' and call a referendum even if they wanted to as they don't have access to the electoral register and I can't see the Electoral Commission releasing it for an illegal referendum.

Actually they do. All political parties including the SNP have access to the full electoral register.

Besides I believe it is LAs who are responsible for maintaining the electoral register, if some higher political authority instructs the returning officers to hold a poll of some kind, and they comply, then you have a poll.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Advisory referenda don't need to be 'legally binding' in order to be held. The legal arguments would come afterwards.....

Whatever happened about the agreement that the previous referendum would "deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect"?:)

Tromking

I think the almost constant talk of independence is in part down to Scotland and the Scottish people becoming a tad drunk on the idea that they are at the centre of the UK political universe and perhaps not wanting to let that go.
As others have said, the next indyref should only be facilitated when those who would see Scotland independent give an honest and clear vision of what that would mean, good or bad , for the Scottish people.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Whatever happened about the agreement that the previous referendum would "deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect"?:)

The problem with that is the wrong side won which makes the result unfair by definition.

You can't argue with extremists as they only have one outcome they see as fair hence all the crap about, "I'm not saying that the referendum was fixed but [MI5/M15, The Vow/BBC/old people/This time it's purrrr-dah (with apologies to the late Mr McManus)]".

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.string. wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I don't know any other way to put it more clearly.

I don't believe you.

Time and again the SNP and it's acolytes have tried to justify their policy of voting on English matters by claiming a link with Scottish funding.

Other rationale are just smoke screens , whether or not they happen to coincide with other SNP policies.

That's fine with me. But there is a link between English spending and the Barnett formula. There's no 'claims a link' about it really.

I was referring to the individual claims, made time and time again to justify voting on English matters, such as that for the NHS for example. During the Referendum process, the SNP keep on and on and on about funding in the English NHS being under threat, linking that to the funding for the Scottish NHS. Yet, as has been pointed out, there was no link applied by the SNP, the relative proportionate expenditures were not applied. This has been pointed out a few pages back.

So such talk is B.S. and hypocritical, trying to mask the weird set of priorities applied by the SNP. The clear intent of voting to increase health expenditure in the NHS to bolster overall funding available for pet projects has little to nowt to do with the health of Scots and nowt to do with the health of the English; venal politics.