If it were before separation the negotiations should cease and there should be a consideration of a further referendum. If after then there would be no problem asking if the successor state was willing to have them back and that was confirmed in a referendum.
I am a democrat unlike Steophan.
A democrat would accept that this referendum settles the matter for at least a generation, would respect the wishes of his fellow countrymen in the matter, and would get on with the business of making his adopted home a better place. A democrat would also make a good faith effort to understand *why *his arguments were rejected by a majority, and would consider how the next generation of separatists could frame a better case. A better democrat than that would consider that loyalty to his nation, or even his part of it, requires thinking what is best for it long-term, and that the best answer may not be the one he has vociferously demanded.
So no, you are not a democrat like Steophan.
If there is indication of a majority for independence, the pressure from the Scottish people for a further referendum will be unstoppable. It would be a democratic nightmare if there was a consistent polling for independence that was ignored by Westminster.
The majority clearly indicated it was not for independence. There was a vote and everything, do you remember? A few polls can no more outweigh that than polls between elections can make the elected government invalid. It is you that doesn’t respect the voters, not me.
And it’s very telling that you continue to speculate about what my answer to you hypothetical would be, ignoring my actual answer to it, which doesn’t fit your absurd prejudices.
In case you missed what happened earlier this year, in a referendum that both sides agreed to be bound by, and the SNP acknowledged as a once in a generation attempt, the Scottish people decisively voted against independence.
Why do you continue to belittle their choice and ignore their wishes?
nm
Politics does not work like that. You need to make contact with the real world. There will in all likelihood be further moves towards devolution over the ext few years and quite possibly another referendum. You need to get used to that idea.
Cameron scrapes the bottom of the unionist barrel, urging nationalist parties to concentrate on terrorism rather than nationalism whilst organising parliamentary time to legislate for English Votes for English Laws. What a hypocrite!
That may well happen, if the party you support goes against its pledge to respect the will of the Scottish people.
It is the right of parties and individuals to change their goals or methods over time. Churchill was a Conservative then a Liberal then a Conservative again. Thatcher quoted Francis of Assisi, on togetherness on coming to office and pulled the country apart.
As MacMillan quipped- events, dear boy, events. The Event that overturns any pledge on the referendum was the Vow and the closeness of the vote.
Nothing you can say will change the mind of a single person in Scotland where politics has changed beyond all recognition over the campaign. This has caused a major shift in the central ground of Scottish politics and I expect this to be reflected seriously in future opinion polls and elections with a natural SNP and moderately nationalistic majority in the country. One thing you are probably overlooking is the additional effect that the replacement of Salmond by Sturgeon will have; many Scots did not warm towards wee Eck whereas Nicola Sturgeon is due a prolonged honeymoon period, will attract more moderates and Salmond haters and also make inroads into the Labour working class female vote that has already been breached.
As I keep on saying, whatever has passed before, if the polls continue to reflect nationalistic tendencies and the SNP continues to become the natural party of government in Scotland, the pressure for a further referendum on home rule or independence or both will become politically irresistible (especially if England elects a Conservative government for the UK again.
I’m not aiming to change anyone’s mind, I’m advocating respecting the, presumably well thought out, views of those who voted against independence. Nothing serious has changed in those 3 months, certainly nothing to suggest that we need a new vote.
I’m astonished that, after criticising Thatcher for tearing the country apart, you continue to advocate for doing exactly the same. Are you even slightly aware of your breathtaking hypocrisy?
The success of the SNP will be a blip, and will end when people realise that they are incapable of serious government - like any small, single issue party. The other parties won’t allow them to dictate to parliament from such a tiny minority position, whether by English Votes for English Laws (which, if it happens, will be the one good thing the SNP have achieved), or by whatever coalition measures are necessary to prevent it.
If the SNP wants to prove its credentials and worth, it needs to either ally with, and respect the views of, one of the major UK parties, or stand for election across the whole UK.
Allowing the minority view of a small region to dominate UK politics for the foreseeable future is what is politically unacceptable. The Scots have decisively stated they don’t want independence, and that view will be respected by the UK government, no matter what a loud minority try to do.
To make it absolutely clear, no amount of polls are enough to overturn the result of the referendum, just as no amount of polls make it right to overthrow a government.
But consistent polls and elected governments can increase the probability of Westminster being persuaded to hold a ne referendum.
The same time the views that Nationalists should be denied their parliamentary seats yet encouraged by you to contest them. We did that with Irish nationalists!You do use very silly examples.
The SNP have governed Scotland as a single party for nearly five years and before that in coalition. They have been so successful and popular that polls suggest that they will continue to govern alone after
The whole of your post is merely your biased and inexperienced opinion.
You put such obviously ridiculous restrictions on political processes that it just compounds the felony of your previous anti-democratic sentiments.
No, the Con/Lib coalition has governed Scotland, along with the rest of the UK, for the last nearly 5 years. The SNP has run a glorified local council.
And I stand by the view that a minority separatist party has no place in government, whether the SNP or Sinn Fein at Westminster, or UKIP in Brussels. If the SNP is prepared to work with the rest of the UK for the benefit of the union, it has a place in government. If not then they don’t, and any reasonable measures to neutralise them should be taken.
As a gesture of good faith, they could easily commit to not voting on non-Scottish issues that are covered by devolution, but I somehow doubt they will. After all, they’ve already shown they have no desire to act in good faith and respect their own voters, let alone anyone else.
Yeah, if views have changed in a couple of decades there should be another referendum.
The SNP abstains on such matters already.
I’ll confess I didn’t know that. Do you know if they plan to stick to that policy, even if it messes up any potential coalition? If they do, it would add a great deal of legitimacy to them in my eyes as far as members of the UK parliament.
ETA Not least because it would help ensure UKIP get nowhere near government. Much as I hope the Conservatives will stick to their guns and refuse them, I’m not convinced. No idea who I’d vote for in a future election if they did do that, but it would prevent me voting for them again.
I’m not sure about that. It seems to me, as an inexpert observer, that the SNP would have little interest in joining a formal coalition of the type we have at the moment. If it came to it, a “confidence and supply” type arrangement would be much more likely.
I think most of their actual and potential voters broadly approve of their current policy regarding non-Scottish matters and that the SNP would be rash to abandon it.
Well that position is a whole lot more reasonable that the one pjen has been claiming for them, wanting to hold the UK parliament hostage to their desires for independence.
1/ The Scottish Government responsibilities are fairly complete save finance, pensions and social security and other miscellaneous functions. At least as much as US states or German Lander. Your characterisation of them as local government only is ill informed. And there is more to come - voting age has been agreed as devolved today to ensure the change is in place for 2016.
2/ Your original proscription was that nationalists should not be admitted to parliament not government.
3/ The SNP already abstains on non Scottish matters in Westminster and intends to continue that. They are talking only of supporting labour via confidence and supply and on Scottish matters.