How about one cite for the UK being a colonial power? 
Acting like…
Perhaps you missed the scare quote marks.
Perhaps you could explain your choice of words on a topic where legal specificity is the basis, then.
It is a matter of style.
I.e. more claymore-waving bombast, no actual substance. That is unfortunately typical for you here.
All of this was debated publicly at length. The “sovereign people of Scotland” considered it and voted No. It would serve you much better to understand why, and consider how to address the objections in a convincing way, than to continue as you have been. You might even convince yourself that way. But not with the approach of “We’re Scots and the rest of the world will have to give us everything we want, fuck yeah!”. That’s ignorance on the hoof.
Straw man arguments again.
If there is an SNP government in 2016 and opinion polls are showing a majority for independence, it will be almost impossible politically to refuse it.
How do you think a minority Labour or Conservative government would deal with this?
To repeat: The debate was already held. The *vote *was already held. You lost.
Now what is your understanding of *why *you lost?
Much like parliaments, the electorate can change its mind. If the Scottish people clearly desire independence, no Westminster government would be able to deny another referendum
To repeat: What is your understanding of why you lost? :dubious:
We received fewer votes than the NO campaign.
The polls had moved from 30/70 to 45/55 over the campaign.
Analysis of the votes show that the over 65s provided a large amount of the NO votes and the younger one was (save the 16-20 year olds), the more likely each decile was to vote YES.
Since the referendum all the indications are that the popular mood has moved further towards both devolution and independence.
This will be tested in a new referendum…
Please. :rolleyes:
Once more, with fading hope of a serious answer: What is your understanding of WHY more of the “sovereign people of Scotland” voted No than Yes? Why? :dubious:
Or try it this way, since you’re obviously having trouble facing the topic: What arguments would you have put forth, other than the one that proved decisive, that you would expect to persuade a majority of the “sovereign people of Scotland” in the hypothetical next vote, and why would you expect them to work?
The obvious solution for the crowd that wants to establish an independent Tartaniphate is to cut health funding for the elderly.
As old folks die off in greater numbers from neglect, each Neverendum will stand a greater chance of success, and eventually will triumph.
It’d be a bit harsh on Granny and Gramps, but it’s for the greater good, after all.
It is you that has the problem. Political views are not set in stone- they change over time. The Scottish electorate moved from only 30% of them wanting independence in 2009 to 45% in 2014. The political landscape here seems to have changed beyone all recognition with the probable transfer of many parliamentary seats from labour to the SNP. A considerable portion of the votes on both sides of the election were determined by previous party politics which were chosen independent of the views of the person on nationalism. What happened during the campaign was that many people who had voted Labour and kept to Unionist principles all their lives (and probably through several generations in their families) changed not only their view on Independence but also lost their party affiliation. Being Labour had meant being unionist (Labour were terrified of losing Scotland as its possible majority at Westminster- they now look like they will lose many of their Scottish MPs while Scotland remains in the union.)
I believe that there has been a seachange in Scottish politics that is gradually leading to a confidence to vote for Independence should it be offered again. I also believe that should such a sentiment become very clear by the election of Scottish Governments and the through the opinion polls, that it will be impossible for Westminster to either grant something approaching home rule, or allow a further referendum on independence.
Scottish death rate is already higher than the UK average thank you. It is gradually returning towards the norm for the UK over the past decade. This has been a generational and lifestyle problem. Last night’s news led on the drop in alcohol consumption in Scotland over the last decade by 9% and the concomitant drop in alcohol related illnesses.
Older people (I am on the cusp at 64) remember a more cohesive union than currently exists; the new generations see things without the influence of those times and views are changing as generation replaces generation.
Welp, speaking as an rUKer who nearly had his country destroyed by a few million twerps, in a future where Scotland declares independence I will be voting for the Government that plays hardball the most. Sod the Jocks.
Not much choice really as any government in Westminster is likely to rely on SNP assent for the next Parliament. Newsnight covered this comprehensively last night.
Any English complaints about not having the government you voted for (conservative UKIP) needs to be seen against a background of Scotland being ruled by Tories when they send only one to Westminster.
The obvious way to deal with this is federalism or home rule with limited supra-national power, but England is too conservative with a small ‘c’ to take this step.
Either we shall see separation or federalism- there is little chance of anything else working.
I’m talking about the negotiations for independence, should they ever happen. It would be unacceptable for the rUK government to then be in the hands of the SNP.
And how about the numerous times England’s had Scottish people governing mostly-English departments in Westminster? This so-called colonialism goes two ways.
No, it’s because England is too large. I’d favour breaking England up into smaller regions as an alternative, myself.
I suspect you’re right. But that’s not what we’re disagreeing with you on, here. You continuously assume Scotland has all the advantages and will be able to dictate to the rUK. There’s already considerably less good-neighbourliness on both sides of the border because of the SNP not keeping their promise of respecting the independence vote result, and of being as nasty to the English as UKIP are to East Europeans.
I suspect the SNP don’t really care about whatever proposals the Smith Commission would have put forward. Seeing as their end goal is independence, anything short of that they will always pick holes in.
But that might be the case. Maybe there would have to be a new election, but that might still result in a government dependent on minor parties including the SNP. There is no method to exclude representatives from Parliament purely because they are separatists. That would be a little undemocratic.
There is an arguable difference between Scots elected for English constituencies and those for Scottish ones. Those elected by an English electorate are English MPs. Similarly any[RIGHT] Scot who becomes a minister of the crown does so only with the assent of the entire British Parliament.
This is essentially a non-issue.
What is an issue is when English conservatism enforces Tory principles on a left leaning Scotland or when Scottish votes swing the government of conservative England socialist. The way to cope with that is either federalism or independence.
This is an English problem. They were offered regional government and refused it. They are now being offered a bastard city federalism. None of that speaks to the problem of Scotland unless we formally federalise the whole of the UK. Maybe that is the way to go.