I cannot help but conclude that the only reason the Salmond/Sturgeon debacle/scandal is being broadly ignored, even in Scotland, is it's just, "well it's only Scotland" ? Or is it because "it's only Scotland" that Sturgeon thinks she can get away with it?
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
Only 45% of Scots voted SNP in 2019 too
This is a ludicrous argument considering only 43.6% of the UK population voted Conservative and yet you're happy to consider that a wholesale endorsement of their entire manifesto.
The hypocrisy is off the scale.
52% of UK voters also voted to Leave the EU in 2016 which the Tories delivered.
55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
Only 45% of Scots voted SNP in 2019 too
This is a ludicrous argument considering only 43.6% of the UK population voted Conservative and yet you're happy to consider that a wholesale endorsement of their entire manifesto.
The hypocrisy is off the scale.
52% of UK voters also voted to Leave the EU in 2016 which the Tories delivered.
55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
2 completely meaningless statistics as per usual. What did they teach you at Warwick?
If ever I have cause to need to lobby the UK government on anything, I shall set the headhunters on whoever is working in government relations for the travel industry right now!
Union matters should be decided by the Union demos. At the point the Union demos authorises a referendum it is up to the Scottish voters to determine whether they wish to remain part of the Union demos or form a separate Scottish demos
So the EU could have denied the Brexit vote
No as the EU allowed another nation to exit the EU under the Article 50 process.
In the UK however Westminster consent is needed to leave the UK, in Spain the consent of the whole of Spain is needed to leave Spain
Good afternoon everyone. I have serious doubts whether the SNP will win an overall majority in May (assuming the election goes ahead). The Scottish media, and remember they are overwhelmingly anti SNP, will be holding fire on the Sturgeon/Salmond battle until they think they can cause maximum damage. I believe there will be enough evidence to topple Sturgeon. Probably at the start of the official campaign, when it will be too late to replace her. The election will be fought on the media, social and traditional. This will negate the SNP’s traditional advantages in knocking doors, leafletting, street stalls, etc. The trans activists will continue to publicly vilify anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly support them, irrespective of the damage they do to their own party. Unless something changes, traditional SNP voters may abstain, especially on the list. Labour will have the publicity boost of a new leader. If Monica Lennon wins, she could pick up votes from ex Labour voters who have switched to the SNP. Anas Sarwar would be less likely to do so, being part of the old guard that scunnered the ex Labour voters. The Conservatives will lose votes and seats in fishing and farming areas. I would lay an SNP overall majority. Labour for second place looks good value. Someone upthread was asking about a QC. Joanna Cherry is a QC. I don’t think the Sturgeons will survive. Unfortunately, things are going to get even more messy. I don’t think there will be a request for a Section 30 order before 2024.
I'd have both F -> M and M -> F trans in the male cat in sports. Changing rooms and toilets, penises go to the gents, no nob to the ladies maybe
These days individuals are allowed to mutilate healthy tissue. So knob or no knob is irrelevant.
I`d go:
M -> F + knob = M sport loos etc M -> F - knob = M sport loos etc F -> M + knob = F sport loos etc F -> M - knob = F sport loos etc
Folks, this really isn`t difficult.
So are you volunteering for the role of single sex changing area genital inspector @Stocky? Because I have ... questions if that’s the case
Drat! Just beat me with that.
Yes, an interesting new career opens up in the toilet space.
But more seriously, the WC issue is a nonsense. Trans people have been using the facilities for their gender (rather than born sex) for as long as trans people have existed, i.e. since well before this current moral panic.
There are concerns about trans (eg around elite sports and refuges) which I totally get, but there is also such a lot of ill-informed prejudice. Anybody who doubts this should take a plunge into the output of those most vociferous on the anti-trans side of this debate. You do find genuine feminists there. You find good and nuanced arguments. But they are outnumbered by reactionary fossils. There are some quite unpleasant types, trust me, most of them men who give not a single shit about women's rights and gender equality, quite the reverse.
Don't wish to write a long post, but some other points to flag. Transpeople are few in number. They just want to live peaceably and authentically and are no threat to anyone. Women are more supportive of trans people than men are. With both men and women, younger people are more supportive, perhaps because they have more of a "live and let live" mindset. The earlier a transperson physically transitions the better it is for them long term and the less difficult are the societal issues. But as against this you have the need to ensure that children embarking on life changing treatments are making an informed choice.
I cannot help but conclude that the only reason the Salmond/Sturgeon debacle/scandal is being broadly ignored, even in Scotland, is it's just, "well it's only Scotland" ? Or is it because "it's only Scotland" that Sturgeon thinks she can get away with it?
It's a murky factional squabble with, at present, unclear details of exactly what if anything has definitely been done wrong. Its hard to get over invested in it yet.
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
I think we have the answer to that one.
Drunk people are more likely to behave like the idiots they have temporarily become.
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
It's to stop significant numbers of people congregating around in confined areas. Isn't it? Isn't it obvious?
I cannot help but conclude that the only reason the Salmond/Sturgeon debacle/scandal is being broadly ignored, even in Scotland, is it's just, "well it's only Scotland" ? Or is it because "it's only Scotland" that Sturgeon thinks she can get away with it?
I’m on the other side of the debate - I see the problem simply as one of predatory behaviour. Women are no less or more inherently predatory than men.
I dislike any & all manifestations of gender binary sex-segregation - toilets, sports teams, education, social clubs/events etc etc. I think “safe spaces” breed intolerance and runaway narratives of victimhood.
I accept that my position is quite extreme, but IMO the quicker we move to a completely gender-less society, the better.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
I know single examples are certainly not 'typical' but it is certainly the case that some individuals have used trans-rights to commit crimes against women.
The question is how you prevent tis sort of exploitation.
Yes , you cannot just trash the rights of 50% of the population just to suit a miniscule group on one or two points like using women's communal changing rooms, toilets, etc.
Should we have a special prison for transgender criminals?
No, if they have bollocks they are men , if not they are women or pseudo women and can be treated as women
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
On @Charles logic the entire EU should have partaken in the Brexit referendum. It's one of those accepted natural principles that the smaller entity in any sort of union (Gibraltar, Falkland islands, Scotland, the UK in the EU) gets to decide whether it remains part of said union - not the entire larger entity.
I never said that the British electorate should have a vote in the referendum
It is reasonable that a Union sets the basis on which a part of the Union can separate (whether that is not, as in the US, via Article 50 for the EU, or by an occasional referendum in the UK).
The UK rules say that authorising a valid referendum is a matter for Westminster.
Once such a referendum is authorised then it’s up to the Scottish electorate to vote.
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
It's to stop significant numbers of people congregating around in confined areas. Isn't it? Isn't it obvious?
So will it apply to cafes then? Or public transport?
Takeaway alcohol with a meal given to a person in a car does not increase risk or lead to congregation of people in confined spaces. But it is still banned.
If we knew the breakdown of AZN vs Pfizer, EU Comical Ali would be doing charts of only "legitimate" vaccinations i.e. only Pfizer or AZN for under 55s count...that would knock UK right down the leaderboard.
Union matters should be decided by the Union demos. At the point the Union demos authorises a referendum it is up to the Scottish voters to determine whether they wish to remain part of the Union demos or form a separate Scottish demos
So the EU could have denied the Brexit vote
No, the EU had the Article 50 structure. That could have been executed by a UK government without a referendum but they chose (rightly in my view) to consult the people
Union matters should be decided by the Union demos. At the point the Union demos authorises a referendum it is up to the Scottish voters to determine whether they wish to remain part of the Union demos or form a separate Scottish demos
So the EU could have denied the Brexit vote
No, the EU had the Article 50 structure. That could have been executed by a UK government without a referendum but they chose (rightly in my view) to consult the people
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
It's an utterly cretinous idea. The ban on takeaway alcohol (which was allowed during the first lockdown) is costing my Daughter £400 per week - the difference between losing money and - just about - break even. If she is allowed to reopen, support is withdrawn but a pub is not allowed to sell alcohol, there is no point reopening at all. If the government - whether deliberately or through ignorance - wants to close down the entire hospitality sector, why not tell us now so that she and many others like her can hand the keys back and try to get on with the rest of their shattered lives.
What next: cinemas to reopen without films? Theatres without actors? Restaurants with no meals? Hairdressers mustn't cut hair?
This may be stupid kite-flying but try and imagine the distress and worry this is causing my Daughter and her employees and many many people like her. It is quite wicked to behave like this.
Provide proper support while venues are closed (something that is not being done now) so that Covid can be beaten and then when pubs reopen let them do so fully. This is not hard to understand, though it appears to be so for the bunch of numpties in government.
Cannot get myself to be much interested in small provincial matters in England, we have big ticket items like Independence to worry about in Scotland.
On topic, I'm really disappointed that trans rights has become a wedge issue in the SNP, the bigots must be loving this, and those trans people who struggle with so much must be disheartened.
What disappoints me is that there seems to me to be an acceptable range of views. From the scientific man has xy chromosome and woman xx, natural as in seen in nature, to the sex / sexuality has a multitude of shades and differences and people should be able to identify and act accordingly.
Didn't we used to have matters of conscience. It's not as if the traditional side is saying that women should stay at home and work and men must be mechanics!! There is plenty of concern from for example battered wives concerned that a violent husband would have claimed to be a woman to track them down.
A while back someone pointed out all the fears about trans people was very similar to the fears about gay people in the 80s and 90s.
Lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18/16 would lead to serried ranks of gay men standing outside schools which is similar to the fears that men pretending to be women would be visiting women's changings room.
There are other examples.
I know single examples are certainly not 'typical' but it is certainly the case that some individuals have used trans-rights to commit crimes against women.
The question is how you prevent tis sort of exploitation.
Yes , you cannot just trash the rights of 50% of the population just to suit a miniscule group on one or two points like using women's communal changing rooms, toilets, etc.
Should we have a special prison for transgender criminals?
No, if they have bollocks they are men , if not they are women or pseudo women and can be treated as women
On this, we are in complete agreement, thought I might use more temperate language. I think a key principle that’s being forgotten is that for society to function, you don’t risk the rights of 50% to benefit 0.5%. You respect the 0.5% and do what you can for them, but you have to prioritise. And comparisons to the cause of gay rights are facile - we’re talking about things like access to women only spaces, not fundamental rights.
What is more interesting is that despite the internet, which is killing newspapers, specialist magazines (and i don't mean the top shelf variety) seem to be doing ok.
When I was about fourteen I couldn’t understand why every decision in government wasn’t put to the public. I understand a bit more about life now, and sadly I understand why some feel not everyone deserves the vote. The failure of leadership after the brexit was shocking to many. Either implement what you said the vote was or have the guts to say, sorry, you made the wrong choice, we’re not doing it. That’s why governments don’t ask the public - they might get the wrong answer.
I am fully aware that Charles' motive is to prevent the people giving the wrong answer.
No, it’s to respect the 2014 vote.
After a period of time there can be another vote
So, just to be clear. If the SNP put "Having another referendum" in their manifesto and the, on turnout of 100% get 95% of the vote you think it right to bar Scotland from having another referendum until some indeterminate amount of time has passed?
No, I believe the Union is bigger than Scotland. In your scenario they would have 5m (?) votes out of a population of 60m
At the next holyrood election
Union matters should be decided by the Union demos. At the point the Union demos authorises a referendum it is up to the Scottish voters to determine whether they wish to remain part of the Union demos or form a separate Scottish demos
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
What is more interesting is that despite the internet, which is killing newspapers, specialist magazines (and i don't mean the top shelf variety) seem to be doing ok.
Considering that we are currently governed by the Spectator editorial board, it is unusually relevant. How long that continues after the fall of the current regime...
One of the things that most concerns me about this situation is that it's just possible that the nationalist movement in Scotland will continue to be, at once, both too strong to lose a parliamentary election and not quite strong enough to get what it wants. So we therefore end up in an endless cycle of referendums.
That's not only bad for Scotland, it's bad for the rest of us, because we can have no stability.
The Union doesn't exist solely to keep Scotland happy, and nor is it the fault of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that the Scots voted to stay put last time, but that a critical fraction of them want to keep replaying the same game over and over until they get the result that they want. The rest of us deserve some consideration in all of this too.
Quite. The idea that literally a million or two SNP/Indy voters can force the remaining 64+ million into constant uncertainty about the continued existence of their state seems unjust, especially when they were given the democratic opportunity to leave said state so recently and declined to do so. This seems less the tyranny of the majority than the tyranny of the minority.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Your suggestion that the Scottish Parliament is anything like Hanforth Parish Council is insulting. No wonder half of Scots want to leave!
You are just displaying your arrogance and hypocrisy.
There's clearly still a clamour for independence in Scotland. They may very well elect a majority of MSPs who support it. To deny them that is just abhorrent.
You should focus your energies on making suggestions on how to convince Scots to stay rather than your pseudo-fascism because if the Government doesn't then Scottish Independence is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Any unionist should be focusing on hearts and minds not the jackboot.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Agree with that, except that the Union has the right to a modicum of stability. All I’m arguing is that 7 years between votes is too short.
I cannot help but conclude that the only reason the Salmond/Sturgeon debacle/scandal is being broadly ignored, even in Scotland, is it's just, "well it's only Scotland" ? Or is it because "it's only Scotland" that Sturgeon thinks she can get away with it?
It's a murky factional squabble with, at present, unclear details of exactly what if anything has definitely been done wrong. Its hard to get over invested in it yet.
Plenty of evidence if you want to go look for it , but hey it is only Scotland.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Agree with that, except that the Union has the right to a modicum of stability. All I’m arguing is that 7 years between votes is too short.
You don't get to decide that. The Scots do. Who do you think you are? You are supporter of parliamentary democracy normally. If the Scots vote for an independence referendum they should have one. Any other position is just simple hypocrisy.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No, the British electorate. Although in GE2017, Scottish voters famously returned 13 Conservative MPs, without whom May's Conservative government could never have survived, Boris could never have come to power, and Brexit could never have been enacted.
And you say you don't have a major influence on the course of UK politics!
Maybe there would still be 13 Conservative MPS in Scotland if May hadn't ignored their views and kow-towed to the 10 DUP MPs?
I see Telegraph reports that pubs may be allowed to open in April if they agree not to sell alcohol
In other news, wildlife parks will reopen in March 2022 initially allowing only one single dog open to the public. It's been reported that it'll be a shih tzu.
I've never understood the rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not alcohol and now that. Is COVID supposed to be transmitted through alcohol?
It's to stop significant numbers of people congregating around in confined areas. Isn't it? Isn't it obvious?
So will it apply to cafes then? Or public transport?
Takeaway alcohol with a meal given to a person in a car does not increase risk or lead to congregation of people in confined spaces. But it is still banned.
In God's country it appears they will be allowed to sell takeaway alcohol as well as food.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
The old "let's rig it " referendum style that Labour love, count the dead as NO.
@HYUFD do you have the phrase “once in a generation referendum “ assigned to a Ctrl key on your keyboard? If not, you should consider it. It would save you hours of typing.
I’m on the other side of the debate - I see the problem simply as one of predatory behaviour. Women are no less or more inherently predatory than men.
I dislike any & all manifestations of gender binary sex-segregation - toilets, sports teams, education, social clubs/events etc etc. I think “safe spaces” breed intolerance and runaway narratives of victimhood.
I accept that my position is quite extreme, but IMO the quicker we move to a completely gender-less society, the better.
Luckily there are sensible people around and we will never have to suffer your mental ideas.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
While you have been in the counting house counting out your money, the name of the Welsh Assembly was officially changed.
I cannot help but conclude that the only reason the Salmond/Sturgeon debacle/scandal is being broadly ignored, even in Scotland, is it's just, "well it's only Scotland" ? Or is it because "it's only Scotland" that Sturgeon thinks she can get away with it?
It's a murky factional squabble with, at present, unclear details of exactly what if anything has definitely been done wrong. Its hard to get over invested in it yet.
Plenty of evidence if you want to go look for it , but hey it is only Scotland.
I'm happy to wait for the conclusion and be kept up to date via PB. Its bit because its Scotland, it's because the fights not done yet.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Your suggestion that the Scottish Parliament is anything like Hanforth Parish Council is insulting. No wonder half of Scots want to leave!
You are just displaying your arrogance and hypocrisy.
There's clearly still a clamour for independence in Scotland. They may very well elect a majority of MSPs who support it. To deny them that is just abhorrent.
You should focus your energies on making suggestions on how to convince Scots to stay rather than your pseudo-fascism because if the Government doesn't then Scottish Independence is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Any unionist should be focusing on hearts and minds not the jackboot.
Nowhere did I suggest that the Scottish parliament was like any parish council (although they are both elected bodies with prescribed responsibilities for a given area). And it’s certainly not insulting to suggest that different levels have different remits... the only direct comparison I made was the Scottish Parliament to the Welsh Assembly... I believe the Scots have more powers but disagree that’s an insulting comparison.
But please, tell me where you get proto-fascism and jackboots from a suggestion that a referendum on a topic should only be held once a generation?
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
HYUFD doesn’t give a fuck about Scotland becoming independent as long as the tories aren't in power when it happens.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Agree with that, except that the Union has the right to a modicum of stability. All I’m arguing is that 7 years between votes is too short.
You don't get to decide that. The Scots do. Who do you think you are? You are supporter of parliamentary democracy normally. If the Scots vote for an independence referendum they should have one. Any other position is just simple hypocrisy.
I think you have a unique definition for the word “hypocrisy”
Union matters are reserved for the Union level. That is what the devolution settlement says (appreciate some disagree in which case it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide).
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Agree with that, except that the Union has the right to a modicum of stability. All I’m arguing is that 7 years between votes is too short.
You don't get to decide that. The Scots do. Who do you think you are? You are supporter of parliamentary democracy normally. If the Scots vote for an independence referendum they should have one. Any other position is just simple hypocrisy.
Do the Scots currently living in England, Wales or Northern Ireland get to decide or just the ones loving in Scotland?
It's seems a bit strange to allow a country to be split up just because some of its citizens aren't living in the correct post code.
@HYUFD do you have the phrase “once in a generation referendum “ assigned to a Ctrl key on your keyboard? If not, you should consider it. It would save you hours of typing.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
The old "let's rig it " referendum style that Labour love, count the dead as NO.
Do you at least accept the premise that there’s something wrong with just a simple majority of whoever bothers to turn out? I voted Leave and I’m happy with the result, but there’s no way that referendum should have been allowed to stand on the numbers it got compared to its impact.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
While you have been in the counting house counting out your money, the name of the Welsh Assembly was officially changed.
It is now the Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru.
I thought it was the Senedd but couldn’t figure out how to spell it. No offence intended.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
The old "let's rig it " referendum style that Labour love, count the dead as NO.
What about if the question was “Do you want to remain shackled to England? Y/N” with a 50%+1 requirement. Surely nobody could object to that?
That's the right principle and the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" case against it is extremely weak imo. Ok, so the Scots might take to having a Referendum on Independence every other Tuesday and continually voting "No" so as to keep the fun going. They might. Just as hordes of predatory perverts might ID as female just so they can hang around in women's toilets. The 2 arguments are on the same level. Insanely stretched. Divorced from reality. A bit of a nonsense.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Agree with that, except that the Union has the right to a modicum of stability. All I’m arguing is that 7 years between votes is too short.
Yes, but the last 7 years have been particularly turbulent. The last Sindyref happened a political lifetime ago, certainly far more than a political generation. In both opposition and government, not only have the politicians changed, so have the policies. It is oppressive to deny the Scots another vote should they choose. Applying a 20 year rule on a further referendum may well be as much as can be added.
We are a parliamentary and representative democracy not a direct democracy.
You make your choice of government every 5 years and should leave them to it, we have had far too many referendums recently
Do you seriously mean that one should not campaign between elections on such things as human rights, but should leave everything to the elected representatives? Because that's what you appear to the saying.
You can campaign but the elected representatives have no reason to listen beyond implementing the proposals they were elected on under the manifesto they stood on until the next general election
You provide yet more justification for my long held belief; that I will never vote Conservative.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Agree with that, except that the Union has the right to a modicum of stability. All I’m arguing is that 7 years between votes is too short.
You don't get to decide that. The Scots do. Who do you think you are? You are supporter of parliamentary democracy normally. If the Scots vote for an independence referendum they should have one. Any other position is just simple hypocrisy.
I think you have a unique definition for the word “hypocrisy”
Union matters are reserved for the Union level. That is what the devolution settlement says (appreciate some disagree in which case it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide).
It's either:
Hypocrisy: you're happy for a 43% vote to be considered a full endorsement of the Government's manifesto because parliamentary democracy, fair enough, but you apparently consider a majority of the Scottish Parliament to not be enough to indicate what the Scots want on the SNP's flagship policy.
Or:
Pseudo-fascism: you simply don't care what they want because you don't like what they want.
Either it's hypocrisy or its pseudo-fascism. It's one or the other.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Interesting - I'd have said after recent events the notion of referenda has been widely discredited.
Every party produces a manifesto which outlines what they would do in the event of gaining a majority in Parliament. In 1983, had Michael Foot's Labour Party won, we'd have left both NATO and the EEC because that was a commitment and while some might have opposed it, you couldn't argue there was no mandate for the decision.
All Cameron had in 2015 was a commitment to hold a referendum if he won a majority - my recollection was he was hoping to hold that referendum on renegotiated terms of membership not as an IN/OUT vote.
Should a Party seeking to rejoin the EU have to include a referendum as part of the package? I could envisage a future Party manifesto commitment to "seek to enter into negotiations with a view to rejoining the European Union". After all, such talks could last for years and the result of that might be a package for our re-admission to the EU. Now, I could envisage a second election where the manifesto commitment would be to rejoin the EU on the basis of the negotiated package and if said Party won a second election, they would take us back into the EU.
That of course wouldn't stop an Opposition party seeking to withdraw once again and so it goes - it's like endless referenda. At what point does an issue become "settled" once and for all?
To be fair, I've never heard Conservatives seriously advocating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the London Mayoralty all of which they opposed at the time of the respective referenda.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Agree with that, except that the Union has the right to a modicum of stability. All I’m arguing is that 7 years between votes is too short.
You don't get to decide that. The Scots do. Who do you think you are? You are supporter of parliamentary democracy normally. If the Scots vote for an independence referendum they should have one. Any other position is just simple hypocrisy.
I think you have a unique definition for the word “hypocrisy”
Union matters are reserved for the Union level. That is what the devolution settlement says (appreciate some disagree in which case it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide).
It's either:
Hypocrisy: you're happy for a 43% vote to be considered a full endorsement of the Government's manifesto because parliamentary democracy, fair enough, but you apparently consider a majority of the Scottish Parliament to not be enough to indicate what the Scots want on the SNP's flagship policy.
Or:
Pseudo-fascism: you simply don't care what they want because you don't like what they want.
Either it's hypocrisy or its pseudo-fascism. It's one or the other.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: 'Bernard, if the right people don’t have power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get it. Politicians, councillors ... ordinary voters!'
Bernard Wooley: 'But aren’t they supposed to in a democracy?'
Sir Humphrey Appleby: 'This is a British democracy, Bernard!'
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Agree with that, except that the Union has the right to a modicum of stability. All I’m arguing is that 7 years between votes is too short.
Also Haha, the EU's in crisis, get it right up them
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Your suggestion that the Scottish Parliament is anything like Hanforth Parish Council is insulting. No wonder half of Scots want to leave!
You are just displaying your arrogance and hypocrisy.
There's clearly still a clamour for independence in Scotland. They may very well elect a majority of MSPs who support it. To deny them that is just abhorrent.
You should focus your energies on making suggestions on how to convince Scots to stay rather than your pseudo-fascism because if the Government doesn't then Scottish Independence is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Any unionist should be focusing on hearts and minds not the jackboot.
Nowhere did I suggest that the Scottish parliament was like any parish council (although they are both elected bodies with prescribed responsibilities for a given area). And it’s certainly not insulting to suggest that different levels have different remits... the only direct comparison I made was the Scottish Parliament to the Welsh Assembly... I believe the Scots have more powers but disagree that’s an insulting comparison.
But please, tell me where you get proto-fascism and jackboots from a suggestion that a referendum on a topic should only be held once a generation?
Because it's not up to you to decide whether a referendum on the topic should be held once in a generation. It's not up to you to decide whether the Scots stay in the union or not.
Either they do want to leave, and therefore it's unconscionable to keep them against their will, or they don't want to leave, and therefore there's nothing to fear from a referendum.
It's delusional to think that this referendum wouldn't be the last for a long time.
The Speccy drives its sub figs with bribery - essentially they pay people to take it for 12 weeks. I bet a big chunk of their circ at any one time is fake in this respect.
The New Statesman would provide a better comparison. Did he not have their figures?
37800, of which 8000 are freebies.https://www.abc.org.uk/product/549 . Lower than the Spectator but not out of sight. An important difference is that whereas I think many right-wingers with intellectual leanings read the Spectator, relatively few left-wingers buy the New Statesman - I don't actually know anyone who does - though we'll read an article occasionally if someone sends a link. It is neither really authoritative (as e.g. the London Review of Books is, though the Spectator isn't either), nor an especially easy read (which the Spectator is). The market seems to be middlebrow social democrats, who certainly exist but not in huge numbers. There isn't really a popular left-wing magazine in Britain that I know of - all the energy goes into blogs.
Why anyone except a total cynic bothers with Private Eyer has always been a mystery to me, though. Grumpy reactionary sneers served up in almost unreadable format - they have great cover cartoons and that's it.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Your suggestion that the Scottish Parliament is anything like Hanforth Parish Council is insulting. No wonder half of Scots want to leave!
You are just displaying your arrogance and hypocrisy.
There's clearly still a clamour for independence in Scotland. They may very well elect a majority of MSPs who support it. To deny them that is just abhorrent.
You should focus your energies on making suggestions on how to convince Scots to stay rather than your pseudo-fascism because if the Government doesn't then Scottish Independence is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Any unionist should be focusing on hearts and minds not the jackboot.
Nowhere did I suggest that the Scottish parliament was like any parish council (although they are both elected bodies with prescribed responsibilities for a given area). And it’s certainly not insulting to suggest that different levels have different remits... the only direct comparison I made was the Scottish Parliament to the Welsh Assembly... I believe the Scots have more powers but disagree that’s an insulting comparison.
But please, tell me where you get proto-fascism and jackboots from a suggestion that a referendum on a topic should only be held once a generation?
Because it's not up to you to decide whether a referendum on the topic should be held once in a generation. It's not up to you to decide whether the Scots stay in the union or not.
Either they do want to leave, and therefore it's unconscionable to keep them against their will, or they don't want to leave, and therefore there's nothing to fear from a referendum.
It's delusional to think that this referendum wouldn't be the last for a long time.
Why is it delusional when the most recent historical precedent is that as soon as an independence referendum is lost the SNP will immediately campaign for another one and it would apparently be 'abhorrent' (to use your own terms) to say a word against it?
What's to stop them going for a third referendum if they lose the second one?
I'd have both F -> M and M -> F trans in the male cat in sports. Changing rooms and toilets, penises go to the gents, no nob to the ladies maybe
These days individuals are allowed to mutilate healthy tissue. So knob or no knob is irrelevant.
I`d go:
M -> F + knob = M sport loos etc M -> F - knob = M sport loos etc F -> M + knob = F sport loos etc F -> M - knob = F sport loos etc
Folks, this really isn`t difficult.
So are you volunteering for the role of single sex changing area genital inspector @Stocky? Because I have ... questions if that’s the case
Drat! Just beat me with that.
Yes, an interesting new career opens up in the toilet space.
But more seriously, the WC issue is a nonsense. Trans people have been using the facilities for their gender (rather than born sex) for as long as trans people have existed, i.e. since well before this current moral panic.
There are concerns about trans (eg around elite sports and refuges) which I totally get, but there is also such a lot of ill-informed prejudice. Anybody who doubts this should take a plunge into the output of those most vociferous on the anti-trans side of this debate. You do find genuine feminists there. You find good and nuanced arguments. But they are outnumbered by reactionary fossils. There are some quite unpleasant types, trust me, most of them men who give not a single shit about women's rights and gender equality, quite the reverse.
Don't wish to write a long post, but some other points to flag. Transpeople are few in number. They just want to live peaceably and authentically and are no threat to anyone. Women are more supportive of trans people than men are. With both men and women, younger people are more supportive, perhaps because they have more of a "live and let live" mindset. The earlier a transperson physically transitions the better it is for them long term and the less difficult are the societal issues. But as against this you have the need to ensure that children embarking on life changing treatments are making an informed choice.
I agree with all that @kinabalu as long as you are talking about gender (which I think you are).
Live and let live - I agree. As a liberal ... toleration - I`m committed to it ideologically. Tick tick. In fact more than toleration from me - actual support I`d say. I`m all for the "eccentrics charter" that conservatives bash liberalism for being.
They don`t get to change sex though. No - that`s different. For example, they don`t get to go back into history and change birth certificates, mutilate healthy tissue from the public purse, insist on participating in women`s sport or crucify people for "deadnaming" them. They can claim they are women, identify as women but they only get to BE women in terms of gender and not in term of sex.
That's the right principle and the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" case against it is extremely weak imo. Ok, so the Scots might take to having a Referendum on Independence every other Tuesday and continually voting "No" so as to keep the fun going. They might. Just as hordes of predatory perverts might ID as female just so they can hang around in women's toilets. The 2 arguments are on the same level. Insanely stretched. Divorced from reality. A bit of a nonsense.
Exactly. The hysteria about the possibility of Scotland inflicting indy refs on the wise, generous but long suffering English (current count, one in 314 years) is definitely akin to the 'perverts with dicks must only use men's toilets' obsession.
The New Statesman would provide a better comparison. Did he not have their figures?
37800, of which 8000 are freebies.https://www.abc.org.uk/product/549 . Lower than the Spectator but not out of sight. An important difference is that whereas I think many right-wingers with intellectual leanings read the Spectator, relatively few left-wingers buy the New Statesman - I don't actually know anyone who does - though we'll read an article occasionally if someone sends a link. It is neither really authoritative (as e.g. the London Review of Books is, though the Spectator isn't either), nor an especially easy read (which the Spectator is). The market seems to be middlebrow social democrats, who certainly exist but not in huge numbers. There isn't really a popular left-wing magazine in Britain that I know of - all the energy goes into blogs.
Why anyone except a total cynic bothers with Private Eyer has always been a mystery to me, though. Grumpy reactionary sneers served up in almost unreadable format - they have great cover cartoons and that's it.
I drift in and out of Private Eye for exactly the reason you state. At the minute I’m firmly out for the reason you state - it has an underlying assumption that all politicians from all sides are on the make and hypocrites. That simply isn’t true, and it gets quickly boring.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Agree with that, except that the Union has the right to a modicum of stability. All I’m arguing is that 7 years between votes is too short.
You don't get to decide that. The Scots do. Who do you think you are? You are supporter of parliamentary democracy normally. If the Scots vote for an independence referendum they should have one. Any other position is just simple hypocrisy.
I think you have a unique definition for the word “hypocrisy”
Union matters are reserved for the Union level. That is what the devolution settlement says (appreciate some disagree in which case it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide).
It's either:
Hypocrisy: you're happy for a 43% vote to be considered a full endorsement of the Government's manifesto because parliamentary democracy, fair enough, but you apparently consider a majority of the Scottish Parliament to not be enough to indicate what the Scots want on the SNP's flagship policy.
Or:
Pseudo-fascism: you simply don't care what they want because you don't like what they want.
Either it's hypocrisy or its pseudo-fascism. It's one or the other.
Nope...
43% is irrelevant - a party with a majority in a parliament can consider its manifesto endorsed (in practice although in theory they need a majority of elected representatives to support each item individually)
However the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the right to insist on a new referendum. If a party insisting that Texas had the right to secede from the US won a majority in Westminster that would mean diddly squat.
I don’t feel particularly strongly about Scottish independence - it’s up to them and it would be a pity if they voted to leave, but life goes on. So I suppose you are right that I don’t really care what they want... but not in a very fascistic way 😊
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Your suggestion that the Scottish Parliament is anything like Hanforth Parish Council is insulting. No wonder half of Scots want to leave!
You are just displaying your arrogance and hypocrisy.
There's clearly still a clamour for independence in Scotland. They may very well elect a majority of MSPs who support it. To deny them that is just abhorrent.
You should focus your energies on making suggestions on how to convince Scots to stay rather than your pseudo-fascism because if the Government doesn't then Scottish Independence is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Any unionist should be focusing on hearts and minds not the jackboot.
Nowhere did I suggest that the Scottish parliament was like any parish council (although they are both elected bodies with prescribed responsibilities for a given area). And it’s certainly not insulting to suggest that different levels have different remits... the only direct comparison I made was the Scottish Parliament to the Welsh Assembly... I believe the Scots have more powers but disagree that’s an insulting comparison.
But please, tell me where you get proto-fascism and jackboots from a suggestion that a referendum on a topic should only be held once a generation?
Because it's not up to you to decide whether a referendum on the topic should be held once in a generation. It's not up to you to decide whether the Scots stay in the union or not.
Either they do want to leave, and therefore it's unconscionable to keep them against their will, or they don't want to leave, and therefore there's nothing to fear from a referendum.
It's delusional to think that this referendum wouldn't be the last for a long time.
Why is it delusional when the most recent historical precedent is that as soon as an independence referendum is lost the SNP will immediately campaign for another one and it would apparently be 'abhorrent' (to use your own terms) to say a word against it?
What's to stop them going for a third referendum if they lose the second one?
The polls are clear that the most fundamental change to British politics in 50 years, Brexit, has influenced Scottish attitudes to independence. Especially considering that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to Remain compared to rUK.
Wilful disregard of this fact is just dishonest. There's clearly a new case for independence, especially when all the promises made by the UK government during and after the 2014 referendum have been broken.
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK despite everything then there will be no logical, rational, or moral case for another referendum for the foreseeable future.
The one way to secure the Union long term is to win IndyRef 2! This is a fantastic opportunity for unionism.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Your suggestion that the Scottish Parliament is anything like Hanforth Parish Council is insulting. No wonder half of Scots want to leave!
You are just displaying your arrogance and hypocrisy.
There's clearly still a clamour for independence in Scotland. They may very well elect a majority of MSPs who support it. To deny them that is just abhorrent.
You should focus your energies on making suggestions on how to convince Scots to stay rather than your pseudo-fascism because if the Government doesn't then Scottish Independence is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Any unionist should be focusing on hearts and minds not the jackboot.
Nowhere did I suggest that the Scottish parliament was like any parish council (although they are both elected bodies with prescribed responsibilities for a given area). And it’s certainly not insulting to suggest that different levels have different remits... the only direct comparison I made was the Scottish Parliament to the Welsh Assembly... I believe the Scots have more powers but disagree that’s an insulting comparison.
But please, tell me where you get proto-fascism and jackboots from a suggestion that a referendum on a topic should only be held once a generation?
Because it's not up to you to decide whether a referendum on the topic should be held once in a generation. It's not up to you to decide whether the Scots stay in the union or not.
Either they do want to leave, and therefore it's unconscionable to keep them against their will, or they don't want to leave, and therefore there's nothing to fear from a referendum.
It's delusional to think that this referendum wouldn't be the last for a long time.
Why is it delusional when the most recent historical precedent is that as soon as an independence referendum is lost the SNP will immediately campaign for another one and it would apparently be 'abhorrent' (to use your own terms) to say a word against it?
What's to stop them going for a third referendum if they lose the second one?
The voters. That’s the safety net. Keep asking for, and losing, referendums and they’d lose their majority under the Holyrood system soon enough.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
The Speccy drives its sub figs with bribery - essentially they pay people to take it for 12 weeks. I bet a big chunk of their circ at any one time is fake in this respect.
I have to wonder about the Athletic....they have I think 400+ writers now, fantastic content, but the subscription is always available via huge discounted promotions. I got it for £1 a month for 12 months.
i like it, but would I pay £100 a year for it...hmm, no. How many of their several million subs think the same? Is such a business model sustainable long term?
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
Catalonia remains part of Spain
That’s my point. It does, for now, under duress and with a grievance building and almost no chance of a no vote when the referendum comes.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
HYUFD doesn’t give a fuck about Scotland becoming independent as long as the tories aren't in power when it happens.
Actually on present polling Starmer is significantly more popular than Boris in Scotland, so by refusing a legal independence referendum as long as we are in power we Tories are making it more likely Scotland will stay in the Union.
If Starmer became PM and allowed one he would be less likely to lose it than Boris would, however it would be a risk Labour had taken, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed by the Tories hence no risk of it going for independence.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
Catalonia remains part of Spain
Your short-term thinking is embarrassing.
It does explain a lot about his party in Parliament.
The New Statesman would provide a better comparison. Did he not have their figures?
37800, of which 8000 are freebies.https://www.abc.org.uk/product/549 . Lower than the Spectator but not out of sight. An important difference is that whereas I think many right-wingers with intellectual leanings read the Spectator, relatively few left-wingers buy the New Statesman - I don't actually know anyone who does - though we'll read an article occasionally if someone sends a link. It is neither really authoritative (as e.g. the London Review of Books is, though the Spectator isn't either), nor an especially easy read (which the Spectator is). The market seems to be middlebrow social democrats, who certainly exist but not in huge numbers. There isn't really a popular left-wing magazine in Britain that I know of - all the energy goes into blogs.
Why anyone except a total cynic bothers with Private Eyer has always been a mystery to me, though. Grumpy reactionary sneers served up in almost unreadable format - they have great cover cartoons and that's it.
I'm surprised you're so against Private Eye. In recent years it has done more than any other outlet to investigate and report on the misdeeds and corruption of the powerful - government contracts, the media, finance and so on. For example, its coverage of the Grenfell scandal has been excellent. There are also some genuinely funny cartoons and satire, in among the more childish stuff.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Interesting - I'd have said after recent events the notion of referenda has been widely discredited.
Every party produces a manifesto which outlines what they would do in the event of gaining a majority in Parliament. In 1983, had Michael Foot's Labour Party won, we'd have left both NATO and the EEC because that was a commitment and while some might have opposed it, you couldn't argue there was no mandate for the decision.
All Cameron had in 2015 was a commitment to hold a referendum if he won a majority - my recollection was he was hoping to hold that referendum on renegotiated terms of membership not as an IN/OUT vote.
Should a Party seeking to rejoin the EU have to include a referendum as part of the package? I could envisage a future Party manifesto commitment to "seek to enter into negotiations with a view to rejoining the European Union". After all, such talks could last for years and the result of that might be a package for our re-admission to the EU. Now, I could envisage a second election where the manifesto commitment would be to rejoin the EU on the basis of the negotiated package and if said Party won a second election, they would take us back into the EU.
That of course wouldn't stop an Opposition party seeking to withdraw once again and so it goes - it's like endless referenda. At what point does an issue become "settled" once and for all?
To be fair, I've never heard Conservatives seriously advocating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the London Mayoralty all of which they opposed at the time of the respective referenda.
Broadly speaking I approach this on the basis that parliament’s authority is derived from the consent of the people. If they are looking to “change the rules of the game” (eg make the length of a parliament 50 years) or alienate power to an external body (the EU) that needs the consent of the voters.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
HYUFD doesn’t give a fuck about Scotland becoming independent as long as the tories aren't in power when it happens.
Actually on present polling Starmer is significantly more popular than Boris in Scotland, so by refusing an independence referendum as long as we are in power we Tories are making it more likely Scotland will stay in the Union.
If Starmer became PM and allowed one he would be less likely to lose it than Boris would, however it would be a risk Labour had taken, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed by the Tories hence no risk of it going for independence.
I suppose the upside for you is the newly independent England, having thrown off the shackles of the Celtic nations, is a million years of unfettered Conservative governments.
@Charles just runs around in circles trying to intellectually justify his abhorrent position.
He should just admit that the views of the Scottish people are worth less than his desire to keep the country together.
That said, Scottish Independence would be a tragedy and an inherent failure of the political class over the last 50 years.
It still isn’t inevitable but the Government needs to make meaningful changes not just window dressing. That will mean giving up actual, not just theoretical, power in a federalism settlement and risking the union in another referendum.
Lets be honest, if Scotland voted to stay in the UK after everything that has happened with Brexit then that’s it for the foreseeable future. The view that there would be continued clamour for further referendums is delusional.
Not at all. If the Scots vote for independence then it’ll be a shame, but good luck to them.
But I value stability and a parliamentary democracy. As a rule parliament(s) should determine these things themselves. On constitutional matters there is scope for reference to the voters (but these should be rare).
Fundamentally I take the view that this topic has been asked and answered, and that politicians should respect that answer. After a respectable period of time (say 20 years) it is reasonable to ask again.
Like I said, you're running around in circles trying to intellectually justify your abhorrent position.
It has been asked, it was answered, and now the Scots may decide they want to ask themselves again.
You've always been a supporter of parliamentary democracy until its applied to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly an election result doesn't mean anything? Come off it. That's hypocritical to the extreme.
No, I just distinguish between different levels of authority
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
Your suggestion that the Scottish Parliament is anything like Hanforth Parish Council is insulting. No wonder half of Scots want to leave!
You are just displaying your arrogance and hypocrisy.
There's clearly still a clamour for independence in Scotland. They may very well elect a majority of MSPs who support it. To deny them that is just abhorrent.
You should focus your energies on making suggestions on how to convince Scots to stay rather than your pseudo-fascism because if the Government doesn't then Scottish Independence is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Any unionist should be focusing on hearts and minds not the jackboot.
Nowhere did I suggest that the Scottish parliament was like any parish council (although they are both elected bodies with prescribed responsibilities for a given area). And it’s certainly not insulting to suggest that different levels have different remits... the only direct comparison I made was the Scottish Parliament to the Welsh Assembly... I believe the Scots have more powers but disagree that’s an insulting comparison.
But please, tell me where you get proto-fascism and jackboots from a suggestion that a referendum on a topic should only be held once a generation?
Because it's not up to you to decide whether a referendum on the topic should be held once in a generation. It's not up to you to decide whether the Scots stay in the union or not.
Either they do want to leave, and therefore it's unconscionable to keep them against their will, or they don't want to leave, and therefore there's nothing to fear from a referendum.
It's delusional to think that this referendum wouldn't be the last for a long time.
It’s not really up to you either - we’re both just people posting on a politics blog. I’m making an argument, whereas you have called me “hypocritical”, “proto-fascistic” and now “delusional”.
I guess where you don’t have arguments you have to resort to insults
To be fair, I've never heard Conservatives seriously advocating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the London Mayoralty all of which they opposed at the time of the respective referenda.
Here are Conservative candidates for the Senedd who want its abolition.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
HYUFD doesn’t give a fuck about Scotland becoming independent as long as the tories aren't in power when it happens.
Actually on present polling Starmer is significantly more popular than Boris in Scotland, so by refusing an independence referendum as long as we are in power we Tories are making it more likely Scotland will stay in the Union.
If Starmer became PM and allowed one he would be less likely to lose it than Boris would, however it would be a risk Labour had taken, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed by the Tories hence no risk of it going for independence.
I suppose the upside for you is the newly independent England, having thrown off the shackles of the Celtic nations, is a million years of unfettered Conservative governments.
If the House of Commons lost all its Scottish MPs then yes it is likely the Tories would be in power for at least another decade and also that no non Blairite Labour party would ever form a government in rUK again. However we are still stronger as a nation together despite that
That's the right principle and the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile" case against it is extremely weak imo. Ok, so the Scots might take to having a Referendum on Independence every other Tuesday and continually voting "No" so as to keep the fun going. They might. Just as hordes of predatory perverts might ID as female just so they can hang around in women's toilets. The 2 arguments are on the same level. Insanely stretched. Divorced from reality. A bit of a nonsense.
Exactly. The hysteria about the possibility of Scotland inflicting indy refs on the wise, generous but long suffering English (current count, one in 314 years) is definitely akin to the 'perverts with dicks must only use men's toilets' obsession.
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
HYUFD doesn’t give a fuck about Scotland becoming independent as long as the tories aren't in power when it happens.
Actually on present polling Starmer is significantly more popular than Boris in Scotland, so by refusing an independence referendum as long as we are in power we Tories are making it more likely Scotland will stay in the Union.
If Starmer became PM and allowed one he would be less likely to lose it than Boris would, however it would be a risk Labour had taken, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed by the Tories hence no risk of it going for independence.
I suppose the upside for you is the newly independent England, having thrown off the shackles of the Celtic nations, is a million years of unfettered Conservative governments.
Taken in isolation, which of Scotland, Wales and England looks the least like a one-party state?
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Comments
Or is it because "it's only Scotland" that Sturgeon thinks she can get away with it?
55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum
In the UK however Westminster consent is needed to leave the UK, in Spain the consent of the whole of Spain is needed to leave Spain
The trans activists will continue to publicly vilify anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly support them, irrespective of the damage they do to their own party.
Unless something changes, traditional SNP voters may abstain, especially on the list.
Labour will have the publicity boost of a new leader. If Monica Lennon wins, she could pick up votes from ex Labour voters who have switched to the SNP. Anas Sarwar would be less likely to do so, being part of the old guard that scunnered the ex Labour voters.
The Conservatives will lose votes and seats in fishing and farming areas.
I would lay an SNP overall majority. Labour for second place looks good value.
Someone upthread was asking about a QC. Joanna Cherry is a QC.
I don’t think the Sturgeons will survive. Unfortunately, things are going to get even more messy. I don’t think there will be a request for a Section 30 order before 2024.
Yes, an interesting new career opens up in the toilet space.
But more seriously, the WC issue is a nonsense. Trans people have been using the facilities for their gender (rather than born sex) for as long as trans people have existed, i.e. since well before this current moral panic.
There are concerns about trans (eg around elite sports and refuges) which I totally get, but there is also such a lot of ill-informed prejudice. Anybody who doubts this should take a plunge into the output of those most vociferous on the anti-trans side of this debate. You do find genuine feminists there. You find good and nuanced arguments. But they are outnumbered by reactionary fossils. There are some quite unpleasant types, trust me, most of them men who give not a single shit about women's rights and gender equality, quite the reverse.
Don't wish to write a long post, but some other points to flag. Transpeople are few in number. They just want to live peaceably and authentically and are no threat to anyone. Women are more supportive of trans people than men are. With both men and women, younger people are more supportive, perhaps because they have more of a "live and let live" mindset. The earlier a transperson physically transitions the better it is for them long term and the less difficult are the societal issues. But as against this you have the need to ensure that children embarking on life changing treatments are making an informed choice.
Drunk people are more likely to behave like the idiots they have temporarily become.
Let them have lashings of ginger beer.
I’m on the other side of the debate - I see the problem simply as one of predatory behaviour. Women are no less or more inherently predatory than men.
I dislike any & all manifestations of gender binary sex-segregation - toilets, sports teams, education, social clubs/events etc etc. I think “safe spaces” breed intolerance and runaway narratives of victimhood.
I accept that my position is quite extreme, but IMO the quicker we move to a completely gender-less society, the better.
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1357717251231776770?s=21
https://twitter.com/paulste1957/status/1357732823302623234?s=21
It is reasonable that a Union sets the basis on which a part of the Union can separate (whether that is not, as in the US, via Article 50 for the EU, or by an occasional referendum in the UK).
The UK rules say that authorising a valid referendum is a matter for Westminster.
Once such a referendum is authorised then it’s up to the Scottish electorate to vote.
Takeaway alcohol with a meal given to a person in a car does not increase risk or lead to congregation of people in confined spaces. But it is still banned.
There are matters that fall to Hanforth Parish Council. There are matters that are the responsibility of Basingstoke & Deane district council or Hampshire county council. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliaments have their roles, as does the Westminster parliament. And there are some matters which require the explicit consent of the electorate.
You are just displaying your arrogance and hypocrisy.
There's clearly still a clamour for independence in Scotland. They may very well elect a majority of MSPs who support it. To deny them that is just abhorrent.
You should focus your energies on making suggestions on how to convince Scots to stay rather than your pseudo-fascism because if the Government doesn't then Scottish Independence is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Any unionist should be focusing on hearts and minds not the jackboot.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/02/06/liz-trusspeople-kept-telling-tory-finally-accepted-inevitability/
https://twitter.com/agcolehamilton/status/1357705093253062656?s=20
It is now the Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru.
But please, tell me where you get proto-fascism and jackboots from a suggestion that a referendum on a topic should only be held once a generation?
Union matters are reserved for the Union level. That is what the devolution settlement says (appreciate some disagree in which case it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide).
It's seems a bit strange to allow a country to be split up just because some of its citizens aren't living in the correct post code.
Hypocrisy: you're happy for a 43% vote to be considered a full endorsement of the Government's manifesto because parliamentary democracy, fair enough, but you apparently consider a majority of the Scottish Parliament to not be enough to indicate what the Scots want on the SNP's flagship policy.
Or:
Pseudo-fascism: you simply don't care what they want because you don't like what they want.
Either it's hypocrisy or its pseudo-fascism. It's one or the other.
Every party produces a manifesto which outlines what they would do in the event of gaining a majority in Parliament. In 1983, had Michael Foot's Labour Party won, we'd have left both NATO and the EEC because that was a commitment and while some might have opposed it, you couldn't argue there was no mandate for the decision.
All Cameron had in 2015 was a commitment to hold a referendum if he won a majority - my recollection was he was hoping to hold that referendum on renegotiated terms of membership not as an IN/OUT vote.
Should a Party seeking to rejoin the EU have to include a referendum as part of the package? I could envisage a future Party manifesto commitment to "seek to enter into negotiations with a view to rejoining the European Union". After all, such talks could last for years and the result of that might be a package for our re-admission to the EU. Now, I could envisage a second election where the manifesto commitment would be to rejoin the EU on the basis of the negotiated package and if said Party won a second election, they would take us back into the EU.
That of course wouldn't stop an Opposition party seeking to withdraw once again and so it goes - it's like endless referenda. At what point does an issue become "settled" once and for all?
To be fair, I've never heard Conservatives seriously advocating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the London Mayoralty all of which they opposed at the time of the respective referenda.
Bernard Wooley: 'But aren’t they supposed to in a democracy?'
Sir Humphrey Appleby: 'This is a British democracy, Bernard!'
Haha, the EU's in crisis, get it right up them
Either they do want to leave, and therefore it's unconscionable to keep them against their will, or they don't want to leave, and therefore there's nothing to fear from a referendum.
It's delusional to think that this referendum wouldn't be the last for a long time.
Why anyone except a total cynic bothers with Private Eyer has always been a mystery to me, though. Grumpy reactionary sneers served up in almost unreadable format - they have great cover cartoons and that's it.
What's to stop them going for a third referendum if they lose the second one?
Live and let live - I agree. As a liberal ... toleration - I`m committed to it ideologically. Tick tick. In fact more than toleration from me - actual support I`d say. I`m all for the "eccentrics charter" that conservatives bash liberalism for being.
They don`t get to change sex though. No - that`s different. For example, they don`t get to go back into history and change birth certificates, mutilate healthy tissue from the public purse, insist on participating in women`s sport or crucify people for "deadnaming" them. They can claim they are women, identify as women but they only get to BE women in terms of gender and not in term of sex.
The hysteria about the possibility of Scotland inflicting indy refs on the wise, generous but long suffering English (current count, one in 314 years) is definitely akin to the 'perverts with dicks must only use men's toilets' obsession.
Been pissing it down since before I got up. Glad it's due to stop soon.
43% is irrelevant - a party with a majority in a parliament can consider its manifesto endorsed (in practice although in theory they need a majority of elected representatives to support each item individually)
However the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the right to insist on a new referendum. If a party insisting that Texas had the right to secede from the US won a majority in Westminster that would mean diddly squat.
I don’t feel particularly strongly about Scottish independence - it’s up to them and it would be a pity if they voted to leave, but life goes on. So I suppose you are right that I don’t really care what they want... but not in a very fascistic way 😊
Wilful disregard of this fact is just dishonest. There's clearly a new case for independence, especially when all the promises made by the UK government during and after the 2014 referendum have been broken.
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK despite everything then there will be no logical, rational, or moral case for another referendum for the foreseeable future.
The one way to secure the Union long term is to win IndyRef 2! This is a fantastic opportunity for unionism.
i like it, but would I pay £100 a year for it...hmm, no. How many of their several million subs think the same? Is such a business model sustainable long term?
Ein Volk, ein...och, you know the rest.
https://twitter.com/Effiedeans/status/1358013981164777474?s=20
Same thing, but pricier.
If Starmer became PM and allowed one he would be less likely to lose it than Boris would, however it would be a risk Labour had taken, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed by the Tories hence no risk of it going for independence.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1358053618197409792?s=20
England down about 34k vs week ago.
I guess where you don’t have arguments you have to resort to insults
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-55690643
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.