Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

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

Okay. Presumably, from my Dad being an SDP member when I was a kid, that was for the purposes of electoral announcements or whatever they called the leaflets that we got to send out without stamps (I used to want to slip a birthday card or something inside too when I was a Generalissimo).

Can the SNP get the electoral register for constituencies for the purposes of sending election mail and then use that to call a referendum? For a start it wouldn't have an exhaustive list of 16-17 y/os on it. Secondly it would be out of date unless they got a new version?

The Electoral Commission is answerable to the UK Parliament AIUI.

Whilst I'm banging this drum, lest we forget the Electoral Registry is available from the library so at least the SNP could run a referendum using an out of date list collated by volunteers. What could possibly go wrong.

.string.

Don't forget, Generali, that in the context of this discussion we are guessing the actions of an SNP Goverment that is prepared to do illegal acts. Nuances of legitimacy are not their strongest forte.

On the "Electoral Register" - I am on our local Register of course, but not the published one. So I, or rather people like me in Scotland, would not be able to vote in that last scenario; as you wrote, what can go wrong?

[Deleted User]

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Not been on any of that before - I assume as we're doing an official race that the roads will at least be controlled if not closed? Also the maps don't show it but quite a bit of the work is offroad (although that tends to be running or kayaking)

Certainly looking forward to getting sloshed in Glencoe at the end of it.

We;re camping on the beach in Nairn the night before and then in a field near fort Augustus at the end of day 2. Taking plenty of bug spray!

Enjoy your weekend too

Well, Mistermeaner, I hope you survived the trip. I have to say that the vast majority of the cyclists we saw were absolutely fine.

If you could do me a favour, though, please feel free to give an enormous boot up the @rise to the handfuls of idiots who insisted in cycling 3 abreast in long groups leaving no overtaking space.

Most cycled in single file, and some even waved (no, really.... not rudely) and many cycled in laybys to allow long lines of vehicles past. The Richard Craniums who seemed Hell bent on being 10 mile an hour mobile road block were an effing menace. If they must cycle 3 abreast, could you please ask them to at least have the courtesy to leave the occasional gap for the road users who aren't particularly keen to go uphill looking up cyclists' backsides at under 10 miles an hour? :shocked:

Mull is lovely tonight, by the way. Enjoy the rest of your journey up north :beer:

WR

kabayiri

tberry6686 wrote: »

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

I'm on the side of the voter

I just feel that the referendum left too many things hanging. Important things like formal currency union. People hid behind phrases like "we will continue to use the pound". Of course Scotland can continue to use the pound; but it isn't the same as being in a formal currency union.

Anyway, Shakey has ruled out a currency union now.

So I shall put that in the "known" column

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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.

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. There was nothing in the section 30 of the last referendum precluding another referendum in the future. If the Scots want and vote for another one, then, like devolution, that's exactly what they'll get.

Shakethedisease

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.

It's working rather better than Scottish Labour/Conservatives and Lib Dems saying there won't be one though. Your post is wishful thinking from start to finish.

Shakethedisease

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"?:)

And it did. At the time. However, the SNP gained momentum rather than lose it. And even Gordon Brown now states that the Vow has fallen woefully short of what was promised also at the time.

Circumstances, events and politics have changed. As have electoral maps. ( And is about to undergo another one tomorrow when Corbyn is elected ). A 2014 No, wasn't binding forever more. Whatever gave you that idea ? If upwards of 60% of the Scots electorate want to leave the Union at some point, there's no real way of stopping it. And indeed why would one want to in any case ?

This is the Scots voting public you're talking about. Not the SNP.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

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.

Not really. It's just that the notion of independence is being 'normalised'. Where it would have been absolutely unthinkable just 4 years ago. And no-one can predict the future. What one can decide however, through the ballot box. Is how one would like to be governed and from where. Nothing wrong with that.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Okay. Presumably, from my Dad being an SDP member when I was a kid, that was for the purposes of electoral announcements or whatever they called the leaflets that we got to send out without stamps (I used to want to slip a birthday card or something inside too when I was a Generalissimo).

Can the SNP get the electoral register for constituencies for the purposes of sending election mail and then use that to call a referendum? For a start it wouldn't have an exhaustive list of 16-17 y/os on it. Secondly it would be out of date unless they got a new version?

The Electoral Commission is answerable to the UK Parliament AIUI.

Whilst I'm banging this drum, lest we forget the Electoral Registry is available from the library so at least the SNP could run a referendum using an out of date list collated by volunteers. What could possibly go wrong.

They have the same access as anyone else. And there's been a HUGE drive to register 16-17 year olds too on social media.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm on the side of the voter

I just feel that the referendum left too many things hanging. Important things like formal currency union. People hid behind phrases like "we will continue to use the pound". Of course Scotland can continue to use the pound; but it isn't the same as being in a formal currency union.

Anyway, Shakey has ruled out a currency union now.

So I shall put that in the "known" column

No, that was George Osborne. There's been loads of discussion over currency since for if there's a next time.