The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

Westminster decided to hold a referendum on it, and England and Wales voted out whilst Scotland an NI voted in.
The people were told that remaining in the UK was the only way to stay in the EU, and then took us out of the EU against our will anyway.

Ignoring the fact the UK as a whole voted out (as per the 1707 Act of Union we became a single Kingdom, not a union of equals) there is no denying Westminster had stated their intention to hold a referendum before the Indy Vote. If voters didn't account for that, that's not Westminster's fault.

Herzlos wrote: »

It was respected, no-one tried to claim it wasn't valid or overturn it.

If its a decisive expression, how can holding another vote on the exact same issue be seen to respecting that decisive expression?

Herzlos wrote: »

And since staying in the EU didn't mean forever, staying in the UK didn't either, right?

If the SNP/Scottish Government didn't want to limit themselves to one vote, or at least give Westminster wording from the Edinburgh Agreement to use as ammunition against them and against a future vote, they shouldn't have accepted it wording as is. I assume they didn't care too much about it as they thought they would win first time round.

Herzlos wrote: »

Not a chance, this independence stuff will keep going until they get what they want. Just like the Eurosceptics took 40 years of complaining to get their way.

I agree with that, that's why I was a bit surprised by Shakethedisease's comment

Herzlos

abz88 wrote: »

Ignoring the fact the UK as a whole voted out (as per the 1707 Act of Union we became a single Kingdom, not a union of equals) there is no denying Westminster had stated their intention to hold a referendum before the Indy Vote. If voters didn't account for that, that's not Westminster's fault.

That's the tricky one, we knew an EU referendum was on the way (I don't think a date had been announced?) but the Better Together campaign made a huge deal about how leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, and that the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in the UK. I don't think anyone (including Cameron) honestly believed they'd vote to leave the EU.


It's not fair to blame voters for voting based on what they were told. Unfortunately like Brexit that was a lot of scaremongering and claims that were walked back on within hours of the result.



Westminster proposed the Brexit referendum (opposed by the SNP), and Scotland voted to Remain in the EU, but is being pulled out anyway. I won't argue that Britain as a whole voted to leave, but we're only talking about Scotland here.

If its a decisive expression, how can holding another vote on the exact same issue be seen to respecting that decisive expression?

Does the same apply to leaving the EU when we voted to join it in 1973? That's another vote on the exact same issue.

You'll retort that it's not the same EU in 2016 as in 1973 and you'd be right, but it's also not the same UK in 2014 and 2020 - the UK chose to leave the EU after that.

If the SNP/Scottish Government didn't want to limit themselves to one vote, or at least give Westminster wording from the Edinburgh Agreement to use as ammunition against them and against a future vote, they shouldn't have accepted it wording as is. I assume they didn't care too much about it as they thought they would win first time round.

What wording change would you suggest? I don't recall there being anything in there limiting it to a single vote.


I will add that it's not as if denying a referendum (and they'd deny it on any grounds, just like they'll ignore the result whatever happens) will put this genie back in the bottle. People don't tend to give up on this stuff when they are being treated as an inferior rather than an equal.


It's been 99 years since Northern Ireland was carved off, and that's still a mess. All of the other territories are still resentful generations later. We can hold a grudge.


As Shakethedisease said, even if we are denied a referendum, there are going to be more and more demands to do something else - acting without consent of the Union, refusing to acknowledge Westminster, doing our own thing anyway.

What is England going to do, occupy us? We've got the nukes.

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Edinburgh Agreement wasn't legally binding. The precedent was that the first referendum giving Scots voters the choice was held at all.

I didn't state legally binding, I said it set a legal precedence, although I should probably have stated political precedence. Just because its not legally binding, doesn't mean the courts won't acknowledge it (similar to the Sewel convention only being recognised by the Supreme Court)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There won't be another Edinburgh Agreement. That doesn't mean a vote can't happen anyway.

Under the current Conservative Government, probably not but if there has been no vote and a future Labour government gets in I wouldn't rule out another Edinburgh style agreement in exchange for SNP support for a minority government.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

A mandate is either a mandate or it's not. For all parties. You can't pick and choose which you 'think' are ok and which aren't just because you don't agree with them or dislike the political party. It's a principle, and it's based on actual people democratically voting for these parties who are promising things in their manifestos. Like you say though, it's only your opinion. In mine the SNP should be treated the same way all other parties are when it comes to mandates.

It's not as black and white as that. A party mandate is not a carte blanche to enforce it, as our political system requires Parliament to vote on it and then Lords to have a say on it. The SNP "mandate" came in the UK elections (which as we have both agreed is not a union of equals but a single kingdom as per the 1707 Act), they are not the governing party in Westminster so are not in a position to push through their manifesto promises.

From the SNP Manifesto, "Before the end of the year, we will demand that the UK Government transfers the necessary powers under The Scotland Act to ensure the decisions about the referendum can be taken by the Scottish Parliament", they have demanded this and been told no, so in effective have carried out their mandate.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, any mandate the SNP or any pro-indy party or majority in Holyrood will be ignored. You're being naive to suggest otherwise.

Possibly/probably but at least its a mandate with no wiggle room to compare seats vs votes.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't think the new indy parties are going to be going for independence via a referendum to be completely honest. I think they feel that that particular route might be closed by Westminster forever as long as indy support remains high ( see ignored mandates etc ). Close off one route and another one opens I guess. They aren't minded to play long nice and polite with Westminster parties such as the SNP have been doing. More likely to call MPs home or along similar lines.

I can't see that having any effect, Sinn Fein don't allow their MP's to sit in Parliament and that hasn't exactly resulted in a unification of Ireland and N.Ireland.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Still, let's see how the week pans out. But in short Westminster saying no right now won't be the end of it. Not by a long shot and not when about half the Scottish electorate say otherwise. There's real people behind the SNP. They didn't get where they are today by magic.

ps. The 'Union of Equals' phrase was a Better Together one. It was that campaign which bandied it around endlessly for 3 years. Take it up with them if your sick hearing it.

I don't see it being the end of it either, but I don't think there will be any movement on it over the short term other than the potential commencement of legal proceedings. I suppose we will find out tomorrow.

It started as a Better Together phrase, but it's routinely brought up by Indy supporters. Similar to the £350 million a week to the EU phrase, it never had any real basis on reality.

abz88

Herzlos wrote: »

That's the tricky one, we knew an EU referendum was on the way (I don't think a date had been announced?) but the Better Together campaign made a huge deal about how leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, and that the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in the UK. I don't think anyone (including Cameron) honestly believed they'd vote to leave the EU.


It's not fair to blame voters for voting based on what they were told. Unfortunately like Brexit that was a lot of scaremongering and claims that were walked back on within hours of the result.

I am not sure if a date had been stated, or a rough time frame, but as I pointed out in an early post it was in both Tory and Labour manifestos in 2005 and 2010 so was on the cards at the Indy vote.
I disagree, the majority of people know that Politicians bend the truth, exaggerate or outright lie. To therefore just accept at face value the claims a political movement make without looking into the wider political landscape and then claiming ignorance isn't a valid excuse.

Herzlos wrote: »

Westminster proposed the Brexit referendum (opposed by the SNP), and Scotland voted to Remain in the EU, but is being pulled out anyway. I won't argue that Britain as a whole voted to leave, but we're only talking about Scotland here.

Not denying that, but again, the EU referendum was on the cards and it was always going to be a UK wide vote.

Herzlos wrote: »

Does the same apply to leaving the EU when we voted to join it in 1973? That's another vote on the exact same issue.

You'll retort that it's not the same EU in 2016 as in 1973 and you'd be right, but it's also not the same UK in 2014 and 2020 - the UK chose to leave the EU after that.

I doubt (although I haven't checked) that the legislation enacted for the original referendum will have stated it was a decisive expression of the people in the UK and a result that everyone will respect. Manifesto's proposing an EU referendum also received over 50% of the 2014 vote prior to the referendum being confirmed, so again, the Indy Parties claim doesn't have as much weight as the Pro-Referendum parties claims.

Herzlos wrote: »

What wording change would you suggest? I don't recall there being anything in there limiting it to a single vote.

Something along the lines of "represents the view of the people of Scotland and a result that will be acted upon by both Parliaments". Having phrases like decisive expression that will be respected makes it sound like its one decisive vote. Why Salmond that throwing the phrase "once in a generation" around was a good idea I don't know as it is easily taken out of context. I still think the SNP thought Indy was a sure thing and didn't consider the fact they would lose.

Herzlos wrote: »

It's been 99 years since Northern Ireland was carved off, and that's still a mess. All of the other territories are still resentful generations later. We can hold a grudge.

Yes, it is still a mess and I would hate for Scotland to end up going through a similar situation and fighting. Even if there is another vote, given how close the last vote was, either way it could lead to a similar situation. Whatever peoples views on Indy are, I would hope they would want to avoid that level of bloodshed at all costs.

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

I didn't state legally binding, I said it set a legal precedence, although I should probably have stated political precedence. Just because its not legally binding, doesn't mean the courts won't acknowledge it (similar to the Sewel convention only being recognised by the Supreme Court)
Under the current Conservative Government, probably not but if there has been no vote and a future Labour government gets in I wouldn't rule out another Edinburgh style agreement in exchange for SNP support for a minority government.

Nah, Keir Stramer is all over the Scottish news at the moment saying a Scottish referendum is for the Scottish people to decide. He's still advocating an indy majority next year as a mandate. And still channeling Federalism a la Gordon Brown. We've heard it all before. Richard Leonard is also all over the papers avocating 'Home Rule'. We've heard all this numerous times before. No one actually believes them anymore.

The Sewel Convention is no more. The Edinburgh Agreement was just that. An agreement. The indy ref itself is the precedent. Westminster in 2014 aknowledged Scotlands right to self-determine. Scotland either has the right or it doesn't. In 2014 Westminster said it does. Now in 2020 it's saying it doesn't. It's one of those things that either exists or it doesn't ( the right to self determine ). Can't have it both ways.

It's not as black and white as that. A party mandate is not a carte blanche to enforce it, as our political system requires Parliament to vote on it and then Lords to have a say on it. The SNP "mandate" came in the UK elections (which as we have both agreed is not a union of equals but a single kingdom as per the 1707 Act), they are not the governing party in Westminster so are not in a position to push through their manifesto promises.

The SNP mandate is from Holyrood 2016. The last referendum was held when the SNP had just 6 MP's at Westminster. 6 MPs. You're not making much sense. Holyrood is where the mandates come from not Westminster. David Cameron agreed at the time.

From the SNP Manifesto, "Before the end of the year, we will demand that the UK Government transfers the necessary powers under The Scotland Act to ensure the decisions about the referendum can be taken by the Scottish Parliament", they have demanded this and been told no, so in effective have carried out their mandate.

Try the 2016 Holyrood manifesto.

The Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.

I can't see that having any effect, Sinn Fein don't allow their MP's to sit in Parliament and that hasn't exactly resulted in a unification of Ireland and N.Ireland.

re NI that's probably going to happen sooner than you think. They have the right to hold a border poll every 7 years in NI. Not so Scotland though ? Newer indy parties will be far more radical in their dealings with Westminster. And while Sinn Feins policy didn't forward their case much... we're talking most of the MP's from Scotland who perhaps wouldn't sit. We'll see though.

It started as a Better Together phrase, but it's routinely brought up by Indy supporters. Similar to the £350 million a week to the EU phrase, it never had any real basis on reality.

It's called lying. Better Together lied for 3 years solid. The SNP are right to bring it up whenever they can.

Shakethedisease

abz88 wrote: »

I am not sure if a date had been stated, or a rough time frame, but as I pointed out in an early post it was in both Tory and Labour manifestos in 2005 and 2010 so was on the cards at the Indy vote.
I disagree, the majority of people know that Politicians bend the truth, exaggerate or outright lie. To therefore just accept at face value the claims a political movement make without looking into the wider political landscape and then claiming ignorance isn't a valid excuse.
.

I was on these boards at the time. I was laughed at repeatedly for suggesting that an EU referendum might end up with the UK and Scotland out of the EU.

It's rewriting history to suggest that most Scots 'knew' that this was what they were voting for in 2014. In fact at the time Milliband was ahead in the Westminster polls and an EU referendum looked like a practical impossibility. That's how it was. And that's how the Better Together campaign were able to get so much milage and traction from the repeated claims that Scotland voting Yes would mean losing EU membership. Most also were assuming a Labour Govt incoming which would never hold an Eu ref. Look at the polling around the few months of the Scottish ref.

Fran_Klee

Herzlos wrote: »

What is England going to do, occupy us?

It's not what England would do that should be worrying you but what would the EU do?
Do you honestly believe that ignoring rules (just as Catalonia tried, remember) is going to endear a little, troublesome nation to the EU as a prospective new member?

Herzlos wrote: »

We've got the nukes.

Oh look, another new low in the standard of debate with nats.

Herzlos wrote: »

People have been attacked, threatened and murdered for pro-EU views.

Have they been threatened with nuclear weapons too like you just have?

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was on these boards at the time. I was laughed at repeatedly for suggesting that an EU referendum might end up with the UK and Scotland out of the EU.

It's rewriting history to suggest that most Scots 'knew' that this was what they were voting for in 2014. In fact at the time Milliband was ahead in the Westminster polls and an EU referendum looked like a practical impossibility. That's how it was. And that's how the Better Together campaign were able to get so much milage and traction from the repeated claims that Scotland voting Yes would mean losing EU membership. Most also were assuming a Labour Govt incoming which would never hold an Eu ref. Look at the polling around the few months of the Scottish ref.

All of that is simply opinion, not fact. (As is what I will post below)

As far as I can remember, people voted in 2014 on whether they wished to stay in the UK or leave the UK.

Unlike yourself, I do not remember the argument that a NO vote was essential to stay in the EU as being a prominent part of the debate.

Perhaps you are exagerating how significant this aspect of the campaign was to suit your present day political agenda?

Shakethedisease

You must have a bad memory then.

mollycat

^^^^ "Prominent part of the debate", I said.

It wasn't.