Vote SNP, Get Tory seems to be the plan of The Proud 45.
It is more likely that the SNP will agree confidence and supply with Labour. If the Tories do make an offer, then it may be accepted as Westminster has steadily reducing powers to affect the situation in Scotland. With both Labour and Tories agreeing to keep to the same budget it makes little difference here- the same money will be available to provide services that Scotland wants. Additional powers will almost certainly follow in the next twelve months.
Yes - you have a vote and you lost. So much for your opinion polls. You and your Nationalist crowd are the ones that have no respect for a democratic decision of your beloved “people of Scotland”. Not a vote on an overall manafesto but the SPECIFIC question of Independence. We said NO. We have determined and that should be it for the promised generation. No ifs no buts - it’s been decided and it was a NO. Why can’t you idiots just accept that like you promised you would?
What you CANNOT have is a referendum every Parliament just because the SNP maintain Independence as part of their manifesto and manage to be the ruling party. People may vote for the SNP for all sorts of reasons We are not governed by referenda, let alone the opinion polls. We are not Switzerland. Scotland cannot dictate to the Union, the power should remain reserved to Westminster as currently.
I have just heard our next First Minister on BBC Breakfast telly that she hopes to secure Independence for Scotland whilst she is in post! Jesus H Christ - when will this crap ever stop? Unless she plans to be First Minister for the next twenty years she should not even be allowed to float such destructive ideas.
What Scotland needs is a period of stability where business and people like myself can plan for a ten year minimum period, ideally twenty years, on the basis that key constitutional issues are largely decided - the degree of devolution to the nations of the Union (not independence) being the only work in progress.
I get more angry by the day with the SNP and hope there is a backlash from the majority NO voters to their rabble rousing.
No, not really. Europe is going to end up looking like the Holy Roman Empire at this rate as every “ethnic group” with a grievance, or who thinks “their” money is being unfairly spent elsewhere (and let’s face it, there’s a pretty strong correlation between a region’s perceived wealth and separatist intent in Europe), tries to splinter off from the big countries.
What was originally intended as a mechanism for reversing the product of European imperialism in the developing world is now being used to fracture stable European countries and turn the Continent into a series of shitty little states at each other’s throats.
Frankly, the big players on the Continent should put an end to this madness by making it clear that any region that separates will be ruined economically by the rest and made a permanent pariah.
So this is actually turning into the Quebec-style “neverendum” everybody with a brain knew it would?
You seem to have a problem with the concept of democracy. If a majority of people want independence (which current polls suggest) and they elect a government with a call for a referendum in the (which well almost certainly be the case in 2016), why should they not have the right to ask themselves whether or not Scotland should be independent ( or at least vote formally for home rule) . Why should Westminster have the power to stop the Scottish government asking the Scottish people what they want to do? Where is the democracy in that? It seems like you want to bind the Scottish people to a 2014 decision even if they have had a collective change of view.
As I said, no respect for democracy.
Not your conception of it, no.
What is your conception of democracy other than government by the will and permission of the peel?
It might be possible to argue that subsidiary political entities (such as Catalonia or US States) do not have the constitutional right to secede. In the case of Scotland, Westminster has acted already that Scotland does have that right. All that is in question now is whether Westminster has a veto on future referenda.
That is precisely my conception of democracy, which is why I reject the “right” of a minority of the people to simply take their ball and go home when they don’t like how “their” tax money is being spent. Taken to its logical conclusion, this imaginary “right” would ultimately see any region of any country that paid more in tax than they got back in services, or voted differently to the rest of the country, to declare independence. It’s completely anti-democratic.
As for your final point, Westminster has conceded no such thing. The referendum was held with the permission of Westminster. Salmond had to go cap in hand to Cameron to allow a legal referendum. Even then, the referendum was ultimately only advisory. Independence would be on Westminster’s terms, not Holyrood’s.
You truly are an idiot - you simply do not read or, if you do, choose to ignore what posters say. Much like the SNP ignore the settled will of the Scottish people.
A referendum has just been conducted, or did you miss it?
We have a result - it is a firm NO. All sides undertook in advance to respect that democratic outcome. In the run up the Nationalists declared it was a once in a generation, sometimes a once in a lifetime, decision.
It is you that have no respect for democracy. Nations cannot be governed by continual referendums - they need stable government. I have said this before and you are blinkered to the facts.
Scotland should indeed by bound by that decision for a at least generation - roughly twenty years. That’s what respect for the outcome means.
But if the people elect a government on a manifesto proposing a referendum with more than fifty percent of the vote (as looks likely for 2016 given the Labour collapse) and the opinion polls show a majority for independence (as they currently do), why should the clear will of the people be denied.
The constitutional position of Scotland is different from the separation of a piece of a sovereign state. As a previous sovereign state that entered freely into a union, rather than a simple region of an established state, different rules apply as recognised in the Westminster agreement.
The same argument was deployed in 2012 by Westminster to try to avoid a referendum. It failed then and it will fail in future if it is the clear will of the Scottish electorate to hold another referendum.
Abuse tends to mean that you know that you have no substantive argument.
You may believe that the matter should no longer be discussed, but if the will of the Scottish people is for Independence, it is likely to be followed in a democracy. I am not trying to force this on anyone (I am a reluctant nationalist) but if the current groundswell of opinion continues up here, another referendum is almost certain.
Back on subject. At the SNP conference today Nicola Sturgeon confirmed that the SNP would not support a future Conservative government but might support a Labour government by some means- more likely confidence and supply rather than coalition. She said that she had really enjoyed her time when the SNP was a minority administration between 2007 and 2011 and could see that being repeated at Westminster.
Given governments can change every 5 years that’s presumably the amount of time that can happily be seen as ‘stable’; so how about another referendum in 5 years?
10 years?
Well said. No one expects a referendum next year but a timetable of agreement to Scotland being given the right of deciding to have a referendum as of right next year (perhaps as part of a confidence and supply arrangement with Labour), new snp majority government (with more than 50% of the vote and more than half the seats in Holyrood) with a new referendum in the manifesto in 2016. Followed by legislation for a referendum and a national conversation about Devo Max to Home Rule to Independence (a bit like a royal commission) from 2017-2018 to set the questions, and then a referendum in 2018/19- five years or so after the last one.
Sounds possible and maybe even probable.
Salmond has just warned that unless Westminster unlocks its control over decisions on future referenda on Scotland’s future, the Scottish people and parliament are likely to support unilateral legislation claiming that right and so create a constitutional crisis.
I have been reading back to attitudes before the referendum was agreed in 2012 and find the same arguments for the impossibility of a Scottish referendum being raised then as now. Real politik and respect for democracy ensured that Westminster caved in last time over most issues to avoid being seen as colonial and over-bearing and all the indications are that the same would happen next time.
Also form the SNP conference the thinking behind the suggestion that non-SNP members may be chosen to fight seats in Westminster in 2015. The thinking is that with the first past the post system, many votes might be lost from non SNP voters- SSp, Greens, neutrals and even Labour. The proposition seems to be that the SNP would campaign on a YES coalition platform with joint candidates in some constituencies in order to maximise leverage in any future coalition/independence negotiations. They seem to have their campaign materials printed already!
As Greens and SSP have no chance under FPTP, they may well stand down candidates for a guaranteed MP each. Interesting times.
Another one that does not bother to actually read posts.
My view is clearly in the post you part quoted - 20 years. I’ll give you +/-5…
As for being able to infer anything from abuse, if that were the case then the number of British politicians with substantive arguments would be nil. I reserve the right to abuse all nationalists, be they English, Scots, Welsh, Russian etc etc. Show me a nationalist and I will show you (generally) a scumbag.
I am the least nationalist person going, having grown up between two cultures and accepting neither! I have spent much of the past month decrying the faux nationalism masquerading as remembrance. I humorously fly a Cornish flag and see myself as European rather than particularly British. But I do believe in the devolution of power to the lowest level where appropriate. Dont assume!
Additionally your abuse just lowers the tone of the debate- not that you seem to have offered much to the debate save your prejudices.