We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.
Options
Comments
-
Yet they have 35 of the 59 MPs and and 62 of 129 MSPs.I'm guessing the issue for Westminister is whether a single party polling less than 50% in an election is mandate enough for another referendum so soon after the last one.
They've got a lot of elected representatives on a mandate of taking back control and holding another referendum. If they hold it and the people say no, then that'll kill it off until England changes the game again.To a Nat, the threshold only has to be the SNP winning an election, to a UK politician the wishes of the majority of Scots is probably paramount.
I still find it interesting that you use this argument about the wishes of the greater population as an excuse to try and put down Scotland taking back real control, but completely resist the same concept when it comes to England taking back imaginary control.
How well are the Brexit Party and UKIP polling?
Our current government only got 36.7% of the vote share and are hell bent on taking us out of the EU despite (a) not knowing how to and (b) the wider population not seeming to want it.
In the same GE, 36.9% of Scots voted for SNP. So if you're going to play the "less than 50% card" you'll presumably also be dead against a Tory Brexit or are you just a hypocrite?
It does highlight how bad the FPTP system is though.0 -
Yet they have 35 of the 59 MPs and and 62 of 129 MSPs.
They've got a lot of elected representatives on a mandate of taking back control and holding another referendum. If they hold it and the people say no, then that'll kill it off until England changes the game again.
I still find it interesting that you use this argument about the wishes of the greater population as an excuse to try and put down Scotland taking back real control, but completely resist the same concept when it comes to England taking back imaginary control.
Why do you refer to "England" ?
It's either rUK or UK surely?
As to the reason to the split of MPs/MSPs, even a child would be able to tell you that the NO vote is split 3 ways, so number of MP,s has no bearing on the appetite for Independence.
Why can the SNP not be adult and upfront by saying that if their total number of votes exceeds that of the 3 unionists parties, then that provides them with proof that any "indyref2" is appropriate?
Rhetorical question, we all know the answer.
0 -
And, as I said before, it exposes the Union as, well, not exactly a union.
"If an organisation has to forbid you from ever leaving, it's not a club, it's a protection racket."
By all means let the Scots have another once in a generation referendum. Then when they’ve negotiated a withdrawal agreement, should there not be a People’s Vote on the deal?The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.0 -
Because England dominates the union, it's essentially England + Scotland, Wales and NI.Why do you refer to "England" ?
England outnumbers everyone else combined nearly 5:1 in Parliament (533 seats in Westminster with everyone else getting a combined 117), so England can steamroll the provinces every time and their say is pretty much worthless. I'm only commenting on Scotland because I live there, but Wales and NI get just as badly shafted as we do.
Would you be saying the same in BXP got half of the seats?As to the reason to the split of MPs/MSPs, even a child would be able to tell you that the NO vote is split 3 ways, so number of MP,s has no bearing on the appetite for Independence.
Though there is a point there, SNP is about a lot more than independence, so an SNP government doesn't correlate directly to independence though it was part of their manifesto.
Would BXP or Tories do the same?Why can the SNP not be adult and upfront by saying that if their total number of votes exceeds that of the 3 unionists parties, then that provides them with proof that any "indyref2" is appropriate?
The point of indyref2 is to directly ask the question and get an unambiguous answer - something the unionists seem determined to avoid.Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »By all means let the Scots have another once in a generation referendum. Then when they’ve negotiated a withdrawal agreement, should there not be a People’s Vote on the deal?
I'm all for that, though the deal was pretty well spelled out in the white paper so it's not as if we have no idea what it'd look like.
But then, I'm all for asking the people their views on major economic decisions.0 -
The point of indyref2 is to directly ask the question and get an unambiguous answer - something the unionists seem determined to avoid.
I'm all for that, though the deal was pretty well spelled out in the white paper so it's not as if we have no idea what it'd look like.
Indyref1 already asked that question and got an unambiguous answer - something that the Nats seem determined to ignore.
And what deal was spelled out in what White Paper?The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.0 -
he has certainly played a blinder . a stoater of an own goal ... just playing into the SNP hand silly boy
You can also argue that the other way round. Scots who want to remain in the Union might be highly relieved to hear that.The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.0 -
Because England dominates the union, it's essentially England + Scotland, Wales and NI.
England outnumbers everyone else combined nearly 5:1 in Parliament (533 seats in Westminster with everyone else getting a combined 117), so England can steamroll the provinces every time and their say is pretty much worthless. I'm only commenting on Scotland because I live there, but Wales and NI get just as badly shafted as we do.
Would you be saying the same in BXP got half of the seats?
Though there is a point there, SNP is about a lot more than independence, so an SNP government doesn't correlate directly to independence though it was part of their manifesto.
Would BXP or Tories do the same?
The point of indyref2 is to directly ask the question and get an unambiguous answer - something the unionists seem determined to avoid.
I'm all for that, though the deal was pretty well spelled out in the white paper so it's not as if we have no idea what it'd look like.
But then, I'm all for asking the people their views on major economic decisions.
Why is every legitimate point made about the validity, legality and mandate for a 2nd referendum countered with this "aah but what about the Tories/ Brexit etc, ect"?
Whataboutery of the highest order. We're talking about the desirability of Independence and the impact that would have on the people who live here.
As a Remainer I dislike Brexit, but i can't fathom the logic in promoting an alternative (Independence) that will harm our prosperity much more than a hard brexit.
The people of Scotland will suffer much less under any undesirable but temporary government of Boris/Corbyn, than they would under a permanent independence.
Still haven't heard the case for Scots live's being better outwith the UK .
People wont vote away their own and their children's futures over some spurious belief that WM doesn't respect us (manufactured grudge), we need to make our own decisions (we already do, unlike other areas of the UK that don't necessarily vote for the government of the day), or we can rejoin the EU (we cant, not without rampant austerity).
If you truly feel "dominated" by WM/England (your words), how would you feel living in a political system that didn't subsidise Scotland to the detriment of the rUK .
The politics of the scapegoat only run in one direction with no stop signs; in 10 years time in a fantasy iScotland, the disatisfied and disenfrancised would be looking for another "reason" life isn't working for them. Who is the next Scapegoat?
The Brussels "elite"? The Edinburgh govenment?
Life in that iScotland would be grim and in that scenario there would be legitimate grievance, against those that led the vulnerable and gullible down that path.0 -
Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »You can also argue that the other way round. Scots who want to remain in the Union might be highly relieved to hear that.
they very well may be ... we will find out soon enough
p.s did u work out what England has to keep 55 million people going ? or were you just bumping your gums as well?0 -
they very well may be ... we will find out soon enough
p.s did u work out what England has to keep 55 million people going ? or were you just bumping your gums as well?
England would be fine. There are plenty of your fellow Scots on here who seem to have a more realistic view of what Independence would entail.The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards