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

mwpt

Generali wrote: »

By voting to remain in the UK Scotland voted to be a part of the democratic decisions made by the wider UK. That you, and I, disagree profoundly with one of those decisions is neither here nor there.

The situation has significantly changed and Scotland is being dragged out of a economic union it does not wish to leave. That I may think the economics of Scotland leaving the UK makes no sense is neither here nor there. If we wish to respect the democratic will of the people of the UK then that needs to mean we respect the will of the people of the nations that make up the UK, even if that means going separate ways.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

The situation has significantly changed and Scotland is being dragged out of a economic union it does not wish to leave. That I may think the economics of Scotland leaving the UK makes no sense is neither here nor there. If we wish to respect the democratic will of the people of the UK then that needs to mean we respect the will of the people of the nations that make up the UK, even if that means going separate ways.

The question has already been asked of the Scots. Referenda are expensive and divisive and the last thing the UK needs is another one.

mwpt

Generali wrote: »

The question has already been asked of the Scots. Referenda are expensive and divisive and the last thing the UK needs is another one.

I understand that view but if I were a Scot, being dragged out of a union I wanted to be in, to remain in a union which (to me) represents values I do not share, then I need to have my democratic right to choose between these two. It isn't ideal but I'm afraid that is the course the UK (really England and Wales) have chosen. There is no justification except a superiority father-complex to quell the Scots wishes.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

I understand that view but if I were a Scot, being dragged out of a union I wanted to be in, to remain in a union which (to me) represents values I do not share, then I need to have my democratic right to choose between these two. It isn't ideal but I'm afraid that is the course the UK (really England and Wales) have chosen. There is no justification except a superiority father-complex to quell the Scots wishes.

No, there is a perfectly reasonable justification that is that you can't just keep asking the question until you get an answer you fancy. Britons voted to leave the UK, Scots voted to stay in the UK.

As a result Scotland is just as significant as London or Surrey, both of which also voted to remain.

mwpt

Generali wrote: »

No, there is a perfectly reasonable justification that is that you can't just keep asking the question until you get an answer you fancy.

Under normal circumstances this would be correct, but the situation has significantly changed. I think your view is incorrect.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

Under normal circumstances this would be correct, but the situation has significantly changed. I think your view is incorrect.

Fair enough. I don't which is why I have my opinion.

If the EU referendum hadn't been on the cards prior to the Scottish referendum then I'd have a bit more sympathy for your view but this was a very clear risk at the time of the Scottish referendum.

mwpt

Generali wrote: »

Fair enough. I don't which is why I have my opinion.

If the EU referendum hadn't been on the cards prior to the Scottish referendum then I'd have a bit more sympathy for your view but this was a very clear risk at the time of the Scottish referendum.

Again, I disagree with that. Firstly, the referendum was not a firm concept in many ways. The outcome was obviously completely unknowable, the question to be asked unknown, the look of the UK post referendum in either event, unknown.

I don't see it as reasonable to expect a Scottish voter to second guess what a future politician will or won't do. How can we expect them to base a current vote on some completely unknown future event. I don't think we can. And therefore I maintain that the situation has now significantly changed, and if it is the democratic will of the nation of Scotland to secede the UK and attempt to join or remain in the EU, then there isn't really a moral justification for stopping them.

Clearly you disagree but I think your reasoning is flawed.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

Again, I disagree with that. Firstly, the referendum was not a firm concept in many ways. The outcome was obviously completely unknowable, the question to be asked unknown, the look of the UK post referendum in either event, unknown.

I don't see it as reasonable to expect a Scottish voter to second guess what a future politician will or won't do. How can we expect them to base a current vote on some completely unknown future event. I don't think we can. And therefore I maintain that the situation has now significantly changed, and if it is the democratic will of the nation of Scotland to secede the UK and attempt to join or remain in the EU, then there isn't really a moral justification for stopping them.

Clearly you disagree but I think your reasoning is flawed.

If you live in a country that is a democracy then ultimately you have to accept the democratic decisions of that country.

Scotland hasn't voted Tory since the 50s. Would a second Tory Government create the conditions for a referendum? Or a third? Or a tenth?

What about London? It voted Remain and also votes Labour as a rule and often has Tory Governments imposed on it. Why doesn't London or Surrey get a referendum? Because it's silly, right? Surrey doesn't want to leave the UK so why give it a vote? Scotland also got a vote and demonstrated very clearly that it wanted to remain in the UK.

No more referenda, the UK has had more than enough.

elantan

I'm hearing a lot of " once in a generation" rubbish again ... funny how we can talk about that but not the broken lies of the other side.

The vote " vote No to stay in the EU" " only a No vote will keep jobs in HMRC, build ships etc etc "

The hypocrisy is hilarious.

Shake you said no point in preaching to the converted ... I agree ... but I do feel you have to keep the converted remaining converted as well ... there have been peoole going from Yes to No ... admittedly not as many as go the other way but still not exactly just one or two

Leanne1812

Thankfully it's not up to you Gen.

I'm not entirely happy if we have to go through another Indy ref soon as like most I am referendumed out! But if a deal cannot be reached which keeps Scotland in then it will probably mean another Indy ref. If that's the case then bring it on.

You weren't here in Scotland pre Indy ref or perhaps you have selective memory. Trust me, the most used phrases were" vote Yes and be excluded from the EU" or " vote No to secure our place in the EU" How has that panned out for us?

There was only ever going to be an EU ref if the tories held on to power. In 2014 it was an unknown who the next uk gov would be. Let's face it even David Cameron didn't want to have this ref but he promised and as such we are where we are.

Nicola Sturgeon has said she will do all she can for Scotland to remain in the EU and we are banking on her doing just that. If it means another Indy ref to do so then so be it.