There is no law governing spacing of referenda (unless I have missed it).
Depends on whether the swing back took place before or after successful nevotiations.
No, there’s custom.
No, it doesn’t, if you claim to actually represent the views of the people. Clearly, you in fact don’t, and only represent (badly and unclearly) your own. I really hope that, should Scotland gain independence, no-one with views like yours is let anywhere near the negotiating table, else you’ll be laughed out and the worst case scenarios I’ve mentioned will be far more likely to come to pass.
Which custom- your humble opinion?
Are you really unaware that large amounts of the UK political system runs on custom? It’s generally acknowledged that the result of a referendum binds for a generation.
That can, of course, be changed if there’s good reason - or bad reason, I suppose, if there’s political will for it. If the SNP end up sitting in Westminster and advocating for the break-up of the union (something they shouldn’t be allowed to do in my opinion), there may end up being the political will for another one. Hopefully far enough into the parliament that people can see how useless the SNP are at actual government, not the toy parliament they’re used to, and they end up like the Lib Dems are now.
Well I have been involved in politics for fity years and never heard of that convention- probably just your humble opinion.
No, but the SNP did say it was a “once in a generation” chance. What I’m taking from this is that if they push for it then the SNP are just as untrustworthy as other politicians.
No I want you to produce it or admit it doesn’t exist.
So you equate the Scottish Parliament as a “toy parliament”?
Here’s a list of 5 things that are devolved:
Health, education, law, social work and local government.
Maybe things have changed since I got my politics degree but I was taught those things are quite important.
Do you think calling it a “toy parliament” is helpful to the debate or do you just like making inflammatory statements because you’re angry that not everyone wants to be in the union?
Well, I’m not claiming I’m better than anyone, and I’m an actual born-in-Scotland Scottish person. I’m no zealot. I agree the oil revenue was wasted in the UK though, used to cover the cost of unemployment benefits in the 1980s. Should have been used on infrastructure.
Well, they’re devolved, aren’t they? They’re not inherent, they are powers allowed to the Scottish Parliament by the senior government, and could just as easily be removed.
Do you think Pjen’s posts are helpful to the debate?
You know, I’m American/Canadian and I’m perfectly aware of how much the government in the UK runs on custom. All you have to do is look at the potential powers of the Queen, and what she actually does.
Bit of both, really, although I’m not so much angry that some people don’t want to be in the Union as I’m angry that they’re relying on misleading people about the financial and political realities of independence to try to convince them.
The point I made, with some hyperbole, that the Scottish Parliament is not comparable to a national government, I stand by.
The fact that they can just as easily be removed is one of the reasons why many people voted Yes.
The fact they could ber removed still doesn’t take away from the fact that currently the Scottish Government is responsible for many areas of great importance.
Not really, much of his rhetoric is of the type that persuaded people I knew that were on the fence to vote No.
There was just as much misleading information from the other side as well.
The truth lay somewhere in between the two camps and I think most reasonable people knew that no matter where their loyalties were.
It may not be comparable to a fully autonomous national government but denigrating it does nothing but antagonise.
Not all political chat has to be adversarial.
Forgive me if I’m misremembering, but the Scottish parliament cannot vote for taxes, right? They are only deciding how the money given to them is spent, not how its raised? If that is the case then “toy” parliament isn’t far of the mark.
They can vote income tax to change.
It used to be that all bands had to be changed in parity with each other but that is changing.
They’ve recently changed stamp duty.
No control over VAT or corporation tax though.
Which is something they want.
Presumably you think local governments are “toy” as well then?
I saw far less misleading information from the “No” campaign - but that may be because I didn’t look so hard at their arguments. IMO, there are more than enough good arguments against independence, from the perspective of both Scotland and the UK as a whole, that I didn’t look closely at the particular ones used.
What misleading information did you see them give out?
I’m pretty much responding to pjen in kind. Her “colonialist English” rhetoric is far stronger than anything I’ve used.
Yeah, “she started it” isn’t a wonderful defence… But if people want to debate in a more friendly way, I’ll try to match that tone. But I’m sadly a bit of an arsehole, so I might fail.
If you mean municipal governments then they raise money through and control property taxes here. They set fees for city services. So, no.
Do you not think that a “government” that only controls spending would be a much different (and smaller) beast than one that controls revenue as well?
This will help you.
From next year they will be as entrenched is possible in the British system- the transfer of powers will declare that such a transfer is permanent as are all previous devolved powers.
Hardly binding though. As I have said repeatedly, if the Scottish people continue to elect a a nationalist parliament and government and the opinion polls show that Scots desire another referendum, the political pressure will be such that a referendum will become necessary to avoid further harm to the democratic system.