Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on November 23, 2022, 11:06:28 am
-
I see they are up in arms again now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament cannot call an independence referendum.
They are saying it's undemocratic. They are saying they represent the will of the Scottish people. They are saying the Scottish Parliament should decide.
Here's a thing though. The SNP had 50% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament. But it only got 44% of the votes at the last Scottish election. So on something as fundamental as this, how can they claim to represent the Will of the People?
They are as ideologically committed to this as the Brexit Death Cult were to getting us out of Europe. Like them, they will bend every argument and every principle of fairness and logic.
-
I'll ignore the hilarious irony of the OP's final sentence. Suffice to say it made me chuckle.
It isn't only the SNP who campaign for independence in Scotland. So do the Greens and Alba.
A truer picture than the 44% quoted above on this specific issue is that 49.6% of valid votes in the last Scottish parliament elections were for these 3 pro-independence parties who hold 55.8% of the seats in the Scottish parliament.
There may not be a democratic mandate for a referendum on Scottish independence currently but given demographics (older voters are significantly more likely to be against) it's only a matter of time before there is.
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants, not the English, not for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg. Simple.
A predominantly English court should not be used to maintain what becomes a colonial possession. The idea is - as said on the tin - is a United Kingdom - a voluntary union. This is not being respected.
BST has his opinion on the definitions of democracy in this instance. I guess he's in the company of the likes of Rees Mogg.
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants
But God forbid Ukraine do what they want, eh?
-
I'll ignore the hilarious irony of the OP's final sentence. Suffice to say it made me chuckle.
It isn't only the SNP who campaign for independence in Scotland. So do the Greens and Alba.
A truer picture than the 44% quoted above on this specific issue is that 49.6% of valid votes in the last Scottish parliament elections were for these 3 pro-independence parties who hold 55.8% of the seats in the Scottish parliament.
There may not be a democratic mandate for a referendum on Scottish independence currently but given demographics (older voters are significantly more likely to be against) it's only a matter of time before there is.
No "may not" about it. There isn't a democratic mandate for a referendum. Period.
But you wouldn't think that if you listened to the SNP today.
That's the point. They are liars and deceivers. Always have been. Always wi be.
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants, not the English, not for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg. Simple.
A predominantly English court should not be used to maintain what becomes a colonial possession. The idea is - as said on the tin - is a United Kingdom - a voluntary union. This is not being respected.
BST has his opinion on the definitions of democracy in this instance. I guess he's in the company of the likes of Rees Mogg.
People resident on Scotland or Scottish people?
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants, not the English, not for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg. Simple.
A predominantly English court should not be used to maintain what becomes a colonial possession. The idea is - as said on the tin - is a United Kingdom - a voluntary union. This is not being respected.
BST has his opinion on the definitions of democracy in this instance. I guess he's in the company of the likes of Rees Mogg.
People resident on Scotland or Scottish people?
Excellent point.
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants, not the English, not for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg. Simple.
A predominantly English court should not be used to maintain what becomes a colonial possession. The idea is - as said on the tin - is a United Kingdom - a voluntary union. This is not being respected.
BST has his opinion on the definitions of democracy in this instance. I guess he's in the company of the likes of Rees Mogg.
Scotland is not an English colonial possession. It is nonsense to suggest as such: -
- Union did not come about through an act of aggression or invasion but by a mutual decision between the then Scottish and English Parliaments.
- A Scottish person has the just the same democratic right to vote in UK parliamentary elections as someone from England. And therefore the same say.
- Scotland democratically voted to remain in the Union in 2014.
I agree this is a decision for people living in Scotland.
After both sides promised that the 2014 vote was a 'once in a generation' decision there needs IMO to be a 50%+ democratic mandate for this promise to be overturned before a referendum takes place.
As Billy correctly states there is emphatically no such mandate currently.
The SNP should not be allowed to force through a referendum just because the Scottish parliament election results are skewed to give the pro-independence parties a majority in Parliament where they didn't have one in actuality on the popular vote.
The UK Government position to deny the SNP their referendum is currently correct and democratically justified.
The point I was making in my earlier post was that demographic changes are likely to give the SNP their 50%+ democratic mandate for a referendum in the near future - all things being equal.
Then it would be democratically unjustifiable for the UK Government to block a Scottish independence referendum.
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants
But God forbid Ukraine do what they want, eh?
I think you're very confused, I think You mean the Donbas?
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants, not the English, not for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg. Simple.
A predominantly English court should not be used to maintain what becomes a colonial possession. The idea is - as said on the tin - is a United Kingdom - a voluntary union. This is not being respected.
BST has his opinion on the definitions of democracy in this instance. I guess he's in the company of the likes of Rees Mogg.
People resident on Scotland or Scottish people?
People resident in Scotland.
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants, not the English, not for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg. Simple.
A predominantly English court should not be used to maintain what becomes a colonial possession. The idea is - as said on the tin - is a United Kingdom - a voluntary union. This is not being respected.
BST has his opinion on the definitions of democracy in this instance. I guess he's in the company of the likes of Rees Mogg.
Scotland is not an English colonial possession. It is nonsense to suggest as such: -
- Union did not come about through an act of aggression or invasion but by a mutual decision between the then Scottish and English Parliaments.
- A Scottish person has the just the same democratic right to vote in UK parliamentary elections as someone from England. And therefore the same say.
- Scotland democratically voted to remain in the Union in 2014....
....The UK Government position to deny the SNP their referendum is currently correct and democratically justified.....
You're muddying the waters.
The idea of colonial is nothing to do with the original reason for the union but everything to do with how that is maintained. JRM would no doubt also dsagree with me on this.
Whether or not a Scot is voting on UK issues likewise has nothing to do with a largely English Court telling a Scot what to do.
What happened in 2014 is not now. My feeling is a ten year gap between referendums is about right. Isn't that pretty much where we are?
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants, not the English, not for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg. Simple.
A predominantly English court should not be used to maintain what becomes a colonial possession. The idea is - as said on the tin - is a United Kingdom - a voluntary union. This is not being respected.
BST has his opinion on the definitions of democracy in this instance. I guess he's in the company of the likes of Rees Mogg.
People resident on Scotland or Scottish people?
An interesting point. I have deep seated roots in Scotland. I was born in South Yorkshire , but my great great great grandfather, and 10 generations before him were all born in Scotland. I’m unsure I want an independent Scotland. I don’t and will never get to vote on it though. Unless I move thee of course.
-
Scotland is not an English colonial possession. It is nonsense to suggest as such: -
- Union did not come about through an act of aggression or invasion but by a mutual decision between the then Scottish and English Parliaments.
- A Scottish person has the just the same democratic right to vote in UK parliamentary elections as someone from England. And therefore the same say.
- Scotland democratically voted to remain in the Union in 2014....
....The UK Government position to deny the SNP their referendum is currently correct and democratically justified.....
You're muddying the waters.
The idea of colonial is nothing to do with the original reason for the union but everything to do with how that is maintained. JRM would no doubt also dsagree with me on this.
Whether or not a Scot is voting on UK issues likewise has nothing to do with a largely English Court telling a Scot what to do.
What happened in 2014 is not now. My feeling is a ten year gap between referendums is about right. Isn't that pretty much where we are?
No water muddying here.
Allowing Scots an equal democratic right in the UK parliament is fundamental to how the Union is maintained. Each person has an equal say whether from Scotland or England. That is not colonialism by any definition.
It's a wholly UK Supreme Court. Even Nicola Sturgeon has accepted it's ruling btw and isn't questioning it's legitimacy.
Your correct we're not in 2014. The most recent democratic event in Scotland only gave the pro-independence parties a 49.6% share of the vote. So there can be no argument that the UK is holding Scotland in the Union against it's democratic will.
I disagree on the timing of constitutional referendum votes - and anyhow all sides agreed on the once in a generation line in 2014. I know Scottish life expectancy is lower than in England - but not that much lower!
-
They are our Largest trading partner and vice versa, Scotland leaving the Union would be like somebody losing a limb.
Thousands of Doncastians have Scottish ancestry,but they are still Yorkshire folk and can support the Sports teams etc . And walk round the city centre in ladies apparel and get away with it!
-
I wonder how a responsible opposition to Scottish Independence is supposed to deal with the tsunami of lies and deception that the SNP pours out.
A recent one has been the absolute insistence from the SNP that the Westminster Govt would be responsible for paying state pensions already accrued by Scots.
They insisted that the state pension is an accrued, guaranteed right, paid for by individuals' prior contributions. When in fact it is nothing of the sort. It's a benefit, paid for out of the current account.
In normal politics, there are consequences for political parties that deliberately lie to win elections. When they are found out, they can be voted out.
When politicians lie brazenly to win a constitutional referendum, there's no comeback.
The Leave campaign understood that well. The SNP have learned that lesson.
-
It is for Scotland to decide what Scotland wants, not the English, not for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg. Simple.
A predominantly English court should not be used to maintain what becomes a colonial possession. The idea is - as said on the tin - is a United Kingdom - a voluntary union. This is not being respected.
BST has his opinion on the definitions of democracy in this instance. I guess he's in the company of the likes of Rees Mogg.
People resident on Scotland or Scottish people?
People resident in Scotland.
Interesting, just like the last referendum people like my father who now resides in England because he left to join the military get no say in their nationality on your basis. A decision like this should include all Scots imo.
-
BFY who does get to vote. If your dad doesn’t what about any non Scots living in Scotland
-
BFY who does get to vote. If your dad doesn’t what about any non Scots living in Scotland
Anyone who is Scottish by birth or residency should be allowed to vote. It's a no brainer really isn't it?
-
I wonder how a responsible opposition to Scottish Independence is supposed to deal with the tsunami of lies and deception that the SNP pours out.
A recent one has been the absolute insistence from the SNP that the Westminster Govt would be responsible for paying state pensions already accrued by Scots.
They insisted that the state pension is an accrued, guaranteed right, paid for by individuals' prior contributions. When in fact it is nothing of the sort. It's a benefit, paid for out of the current account.
In normal politics, there are consequences for political parties that deliberately lie to win elections. When they are found out, they can be voted out.
When politicians lie brazenly to win a constitutional referendum, there's no comeback.
The Leave campaign understood that well. The SNP have learned that lesson.
The Remain campaign understood that well enough as well.
I agree with you on the SNP and on the consequences for political campaigns/parties that deliberately mislead the public.
There were 2 opportunities for the British public to reverse the Brexit referendum. 2 potential comebacks post vote. So you're wrong there.
In 2017 they could have voted Lib Dem whose central theme was reversing Brexit. They refused.
Whose mistruths were foremost to the public's minds as they voted? Remain and their phantom post vote referendum and mass increase in unemployment.
In 2019 the public could have voted Labour and their 2nd referendum policy to reverse Brexit. They refused.
Whose "bending every argument and every principle of fairness" (to paraphrase your OP) in the 2017-9 Parliament to try to block/delay/water down Brexit was foremost in their minds? Remoaners in Parliament the majority of whom who stood on a 'respect the referendum' ticket on their party manifestos.
So yes you are quite correct that there are consequences for political campaigns/parties that deliberately mislead the public.
I agree with you on the SNP also - there is no guarantee that there will be a comeback opportunity to reverse a pro Scottish independence referendum result should it be secured by SNP mistruths.
-
I would think that being denied an opportunity to have a vote by the courts could stir any waverers to want a say.
-
Branton.
You're way off beam here pal.
In 2019, a clear majority of votes were cast for parties that would have either cancelled Brexit or held a second referendum.
If you're saying that the 2019 election was a national statement on Brexit, the answer was as clear as day.
The problem was that those votes, 52.0% of the total cast were split between Lab, LD, Greens, SNP, PC, SF, SDLP and Alliance. Whereas the pro-Brexit vote (46.7% of the total) was split between only between Con, BP, UUP and DUP (counting parties who got >0.1% of the total vote).
Are you still sure you want to stick to this argument?
When I've pointed this out before, I've been howled down by Brexit supporters who insist that the GE was about far more than Brexit. Which way do you want to play it?
-
BFY who does get to vote. If your dad doesn’t what about any non Scots living in Scotland
Anyone who is Scottish by birth or residency should be allowed to vote. It's a no brainer really isn't it?
Absolutely is. It's amazing how indepenence divides families. My two cousins for example live together but both vote different ways. Quite amazing really.
-
Billy
You're not just off beam but you've fallen through the ceiling in a cloud of dust.
In the 2017 GE 82.4% of the votes were for Tory/Labour who both stated they would leave the European Union. I don't even need to bother adding the trifling votes of UKIP/DUP et al.
I'm not going to claim that meant 82.4% plus of the electorate were in favour of Brexit in 2017. That would be silly. As thereby is your 52.0% claim. (Though it does show a severe lack of interest in reversing Brexit as proposed by the Lib Dems).
Or do you really think that 35% plus of the electorate changed their minds on this issue in 2.5 years? Why?
Or the truth that people vote on a myriad of different issues at a GE?
Notwithstanding that the Labour policy wasn't to reverse Brexit outright but to have a referendum on whether to go ahead with it. Yes a route for right wing Remainers would have been to vote Labour and hope the 2nd referendum went their way (hence it's place in my argument).
But equally a left wing Leaver may have felt that voting for a Labour Government but risking being on the losing side in the 2nd referendum was a risk worth taking to avoid a Tory Government. Which makes your 52.0% hardly resounding does it?!
So your 52.0% argument is a complete and utter nonsense whichever way you cut it.
The country did have the opportunity to vote for a Labour Government in 2019 as it always does - which would have included the 2nd ref policy and an opportunity to reverse Brexit.
If the Leave lies you claim were so pernicious surely that opportunity would have been taken?! Bearing in mind the importance of the issue and how it dominated British politics in this period.
-
Is it still the case that if you move/live in a different country you lose a proportion of your state pension! That would have consequences for U.K. Residents in Scotland and Scots retiring back up north having spent all of their working lives in England, like 2 very good friends of mine.
-
Why were Scots born living in England not given a vote in the last referendum, as technically until they leave, in the union treaty we are deemed one country.
-
Branton.
I asked you which way you wanted to play it. I never expected you to play it BOTH ways!
You're making a whole heap of assumptions about how people made their decisions when they voted. But basically your stance is:
1) People could have voted against supporting Brexit in 2019.
In fact, they did, but then you say:
2) Ah yes but that doesn't mean they didn't want Brexit to go ahead.
It is literally impossible to argue with this approach. If you're going to insist that you know what was in the heads of voters in 2019, you can always argue that you are correct.
Just like you will always find an argument to say Brexit isn't responsible for our perma-slump.
-
Billy
You cannot assume that everyone who voted Labour was voting to reverse Brexit. That was not even Labour's policy.
A vote for Labour was not in fact a vote a vote against Brexit at all.
Your 52.0% claim is therefore nonsense.
Do you think 82.4% of voters were in favour of Brexit in 2017? Answer that question honestly and you invalidate your own argument.
Let me go back to my last but one post and explain it more simply for you.
In 2017 the country's only chance of reversing Brexit was by voting Lib Dem (then vote Remain in their proposed referendum).
They wouldn't need 52% or even 50%+1 of the vote. By historic precedent they'd need c. 42% of the vote or more.
The Lib Dems polled 7.4% of the vote.
In 2019 the country's clear best chance of reversing Brexit was to vote Labour - (then vote Remain in their proposed referendum).
They wouldn't need 52% or even 50%+1 of the vote. By historic precedent they'd need c. 42% of the vote or more.
The Labour party polled 32.1% of the vote.
Two opportunities, as I argued, to reverse the referendum. 2 potential comebacks where you claim there were none.
Initially not even a majority was required just c. 42%.
Neither opportunity was taken - they failed by a considerable margin.
My argument is impossible to argue because it is literally true. I'd suggest obviously so. Just admit you're wrong eh.
-
Branton
Of course I don't believe 82% voted for Brexit in 2017. Because of course General Elections are far more complex than that. Which blows apart your idea that General Elections were chances to overturn Brexit.
Which brings us back to my original point. How do you deal with people lying to win something as important as a referendum? What's the sanction against those lies?
You are wanting it both ways.
Firstly you say that GEs were opportunities to do that. Then you won't accept the truth that 52% voted for parties in 2019 who were not supporting immediate Brexit (I didn't say that voting Labour was a vote against Brexit - please don't put incorrect words in my mouth, it doesn't help a discussion).
-
Billy
'Not all people who voted Labour in 2019 were against Brexit' and 'there was an opportunity to reverse Brexit through voting Labour in 2019' are both true. The truth of one does not invalidate the truth of the other.
I'm not denying the truth of your 52% statistic but stating it's nonsensical to quote this as some kind of democratic proof that the population were against Brexit - just as the 82% statistic in 2017 is not proof the population were massively in favour.
Your insistence on quoting this 52% in this way is peddling a mistruth.
Of course there was an opportunity to overturn Brexit through the 2019 GE. By voting for Labour and a 2nd referendum. If the population (in fact only c.42%) felt strongly enough on this "fundamental" issue they could have voted for this en masse.
To claim otherwise is again peddling a mistruth.
The fact is nowhere near enough people voted to enforce this opportunity.
How do you deal with people peddling mistruths?
As I have in this thread - calmly, clearly and with logic and facts.
And not how some Remainers and Leavers did in 2016 by doubling down on there own mistruths or inventing new ones.
PS I don't think you're peddling your mistruths in bad faith (as the SNP are) but as a result of ideological blinkedness.
-
Branton
You're doing this "I'm going to die on this hill" thing again.
Your call, but it does get tedious after a while.
YOU said that 2019 was an opportunity for all Remain supporters to vote Labour.
But YOU also said that Labour Leave supporters wouldn't vote Tory.
Yet it never seems to come onto your radar that there's just the merest outside possibility that there might have been a reasonable number of Tory Remain supporters who would rather have seen Brexit happen than vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party.
My take is:
1) I don't buy into the concept that 2019 was a Brexit vote. For precisely the reason I've just said.
2) If you accept it was, all you can do is to up the votes for and against immediate Brexit. Anything else is personal opinion.
-
I didn't say all Labour Leave voters wouldn't vote Tory. I did for a start. Just that some wouldn't hence your use of the 52% stat is a mistruth.
Yes also some Tory Remainers would have ultimately preferred Brexit to a Labour Government of course.
But that doesn't mean they didn't have an opportunity to vote Labour to stop Brexit if it was so important to them to do so. As did the entire electorate (except NI).
Just as I didn't want a Tory Government but voted Tory to ensure Brexit happened.
Quite how you can continue to assert that there was no opportunity to vote to reverse Brexit in 2019, in a 2 party system where one of those parties were giving an explicit opportunity to reverse Brexit in their manifesto, is honestly utterly, completely beyond me.
But I think I'll leave this discussion there, unless you have anything new to add, frankly I find responding to your mistruths tedious. But I'll be here to challenge them when you bring them up again (and again and again......).
-
What it must be like to live in a world without shades of grey.
-
Monochrome Billy. They inhabit a monochrome world.
BobG
-
Monochrome Billy. They inhabit a monochrome world.
BobG
Bob
I'm a passionate advocate of Democracy - this belief instructs a great deal of my political thinking.
If you disagree with my opinions that ensue from this you could a) ignore me or b) engage me in intelligent debate as Billy does.
But no, you resort to snide criticism.
Just another sign that the tenor of debate in this country has fallen and divisiveness increasingly rules.
You don't believe in Democracy - by far the fairest and most successful form of Government ever devised.
You would prefer Epistocracy where those deemed as having 'higher knowledge' get a greater say in how a country is run. www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=285034.0
Which would disenfranchise those without 'higher knowledge' presumably the working poor.
And yet ironically you maintain in other posts that you're left wing.
Well if that's the sort of non-monochrome world you advocate then I'm very glad that I'll never have to live in it thanks to the protection of the ballot box.
Ta
Branton Red
-
Monochrome Billy. They inhabit a monochrome world.
BobG
Enlighten us, Bob. Who are "they"?
-
Err, the subjects of the discussion SS!
BobG
-
Err, the subjects of the discussion SS!
BobG
I see you're unrepentant.
Sniping from the sidelines doesn't constitute being involved in a discussion.
I don't expect you to agree with my opinions, but seeing as I always try and explain with reason/data where possible, it would be appreciated if you showed some respect for them.
Or if not, and you're incapable of reasoned debate, keep your snide trap shut.
Ta
Branton Red
-
Has anyone ever took into account the people who voted for remaining in the EU who like myself would now vote to stay out? Thaught not.
-
Err, the subjects of the discussion SS!
BobG
"Subjects" and "they" both refer to the plural, Bob. Only one person was in discussion with BST.
Although "they" can be used in the singular if a person's identity is unknown, in this instance it can't, because the person is named.
You're letting your grammatical ability slip, Bob.
-
I’m a bit confused.
I thought monochrome WAS about different shades.
Could someone explain how a person who ‘lives in a world without shades of grey’ can ‘inhabit a monochrome world’.
-
I work with a bloke who was born in Scotland who’s always going on about Scotland and how there should be another referendum. I said to him why don’t you go and live back up there, he replied that he likes where lives now, which is Gainsborough !!!
-
Angels, dancing....
BobG
-
You know when someone's just had their ass handed to them as the main course on a platter!
anyways,
For all the vicious sniping displayed by the SNP its just a shame that Sturgeon has not had her bluff called, i'd say most rational people would think that over the course of a referendum campaign the facts would be explained to the Scottish electorate again that as before the argument fails to stand up in quite a few key areas.
This in itself would consign the republican debate to another period of "once in our lifetime" but this time it could be properly drafted so that everyone is aware what this means.
I thought back in 2014 and also now that for all their failings the Scots are to canny a folk to be taken in by delusions of grander by that awful first minister who needs to do her day job and improve the lot of your average Scot not totally destroy it.
-
https://twitter.com/rob_w_r/status/1597548240626647040?s=46&t=ljwGb7OlRTrJyaTEWQZChA
What a Wally!
-
https://twitter.com/rob_w_r/status/1597548240626647040?s=46&t=ljwGb7OlRTrJyaTEWQZChA
What a Wally!
Well it didn’t take me very long to trace the address of one of his constituents in Maryhill Road (I’ll not give the name of the city or the number of the property)!
-
Is the start of the end for NS she’s upset a lot of Scot’s with this bill especially women
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/27/snp-suffers-biggest-ever-backbench-revolt-over-transgender-bill
-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3ce3b9ca-e220-11ed-82bc-08d7692e8310?shareToken=080baa2cd239e52a9fd00ef6992a25cd
The SNP doing their best to drive high earners, investors and entrepreneurs out of Scotland with these tax rates.