Deleted User wrote: » In fact, what democrats generally believe is that you implement the result of one vote, then decide, in a second later vote, whether to alter the directional course. What's generally frowned upon is having a vote taken, then having a second vote demanded by the losers in order to overturn the first before it has been implemented.
Deleted User wrote: » People vote for a variety of reasons. For some, it's about keeping Corbyn out, so they'll hold their nose and vote Conservative. But it's the same in Scotland. Not everyone who votes for the SNP want independence. The statistics on independence polling bear this out (see above).
Deleted User wrote: » I've stated, at least half a dozen times, that another Scottish referendum should be held in a post-Brexit world. Something tells me that, like in 2014, even if the Scots vote to Remain, you would not accept that vote either. It appears that it's not that you want Scotland to have a vote, it's that you cannot accept them voting for the Union. That's what's irritating you.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » So you ignore the mandate post? You ignore the Lord Ashcroft poll?https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/08/my-scotland-poll-yes-to-independence-takes-the-lead/
Deleted User wrote: » The results of the survey stand, regardless of what the Sun - which I don't read - states or misstates about the poll results. The results I stated stand. I've already stated that I welcome a poll post-Brexit on whether Scotland remains within the Union, or leaves and joins the Euro and EU.
Strazdas wrote: » Where does the idea of a one off referendum whose result cannot be changed actually come from?
CelticRambler wrote: » If, thanks to the inherent quirks of FPTP, the Lib Dems achieved a majority of seats on the back of less than a majority of the vote, I would say no, they didn't have a mandate to revoke Art.50
Deleted User wrote: » Some have argued that if a Liberal Democrat majority were to take hold, they would have a mandate to revoke Article 50. Are you amongst their number?
Deleted User wrote: » Not according to some of your fellow Remainers here. Some have argued that if a Liberal Democrat majority were to take hold, they would have a mandate to revoke Article 50. Are you amongst their number?
CelticRambler wrote: » Even better. So seeing as we can't interpret the results of the forthcoming election as any kind of mandate for Brexit, the party/ies that eventually end up forming a government should really check with the people before they hit the Big Red Button ... shouldn't they? I mean that would be good democracy.
Deleted User wrote: » For some, Corbyn is worse than Brexit - and I agree.
CelticRambler wrote: » Yeah ... I think the sarcasm whooshed past you. But thank you for confirming clearly and irrefutably that a vote for the Conservative Party in this election is not a vote for Brexit. :cool:
Deleted User wrote: » People vote for a variety of reasons. For some, it's about keeping Corbyn out, so they'll hold their nose and vote Conservative.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Facts???http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2019/10/on-scale-of-confusion-from-0-to-10.html
Why cant you grasp the simple point that it should be for the people of Scotland through their elected representatives, and not Borris Johnson, to decide if they have a referendum on independance.
Deleted User wrote: » Right, but it's possible to vote for the SNP and not want independence? Why can't anyone grasp this simple point? For example: if I felt that the SNP's politics were best for Scotland, I would vote for them regardless of the independence question. Second, Angus Robertson held a massive poll of 2,000 people last month. Most people in that poll now support the Union. Again, let's not make up facts to suit our claims. Let's focus on the evidence.
CelticRambler wrote: » Dunno. It's very simple. Maybe it'd be easier for people to understand if it were phrased "it's possible to vote for the Tories and not want Brexit?" Would you accept that as a valid comparison?
Deleted User wrote: » The last time that European countries were sewed together under one supranational political organization. Look how well that turned out...
Deleted User wrote: » Second, Angus Robertson held a massive poll of 2,000 people last month. Most people in that poll now support the Union. Again, let's not make up facts to suit our claims. Let's focus on the evidence.
Deleted User wrote: » Right, but it's possible to vote for the SNP and not want independence? Why can't anyone grasp this simple point?
Imreoir2 wrote: » I am not trying to force anything on Scotland, perhaps you failed to comprehend it, but I just said that it should be for the elected representatives of the people of Scotland to decide, not you, or me, or Borris Johnson or Corbyn for that matter. You seem to support treating the Scotish by rules that you would never accept if they were applied to the UK by the EU.
A poll commissioned by a pro-independence organisation has “backfired spectacularly”, it has been claimed, after it showed that one in six Yes voters in 2014 now want to remain in the Union. The Survation survey found that 37 per cent of voters “completely support” Scotland staying part of the UK while just 26 per cent “completely support” breaking-up Britain. Supporters of the Union said it was no surprise the poll for Progress Scotland, which is headed by Angus Robertson, the former SNP leader at Westminster, had been posted online with “no fanfare”. It also found, after surveying more than 2,000 Scots at the start of the month, that 16 per cent of those who backed Yes in the 2014 referendum now support remaining in the UK, while only four per cent of No voters have switched to favour independence.
CelticRambler wrote: » Perhaps you're too young to remember a country called Yugoslavia? That split into several new independent countries, based on their historical populations, and most of which have since opted to join the EU because "better together" you know. There is, however, one former Yugoslav territory that is a long way from EU membership - one that shares a number of uncomfortable parallels with England.
Deleted User wrote: » That is a very dangerous international precedent to set - even quite extreme; the idea that any population can unilaterally declare independence.
Deleted User wrote: » But they voted in 2014 to Remain? Not 1970, 1954, or 1923. Why do you keep implying that Scotland is being held against its will? Clearly, quite a lot of Scots are happy to remain in the UK. The 2014 result affirms that, as does the most recent mass survey by a pro-independence organization. I cannot understand why you're trying to force Scottish independence on a people who are giving you a very different result. I have a feeling that, if Scotland voted to Remain in another referendum in 2023, say, you would still refuse to acknowledge the result.
Deleted User wrote: » The world is a big place, filled with many minorities and complex political situations. These situations are highly delicate. Unilateral declarations of independence sound fluffy and non-violent, but things on the ground are often very, very different. Seriously, I'm starting to think some people refuse to listen. The UK is not holding Scotland hostage for the past 300 years. They have intense connections. That's why, in 2014, the Scots voted for Remain. Now, if the Scots vote to Remain in a post-Brexit referendum, will you finally accept that result?
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » We keep getting told that the UK is a Union of constitient countries so why is it a dangerous percedent to allow one of the creating countries of the union to leave? Can you imagine the rage in the UK if there was no EU article 50 process?
CelticRambler wrote: » A major "threat" to the Scots in 2014 was that out of the UK, they would lose their access to the EU. Applying your slightly bizarre electoral logic, two years later, they (again) voted to remain in the EU, but now England decided that it was in England's interest to be out of the EU and Scotland had to follow suit. And to make sure that the Scots don't upset the English applecart, the Tories are trying to reclaim devolved powers from the Scottish Parliament.
Deleted User wrote: » But they voted in 2014 to Remain? Not 1970, 1954, or 1923.
Deleted User wrote: » If the situation was as stark as you've portrayed, Scottish independence would have been 90% Leave in 2014. Clearly, with the 2014 result, the Scottish people do not see themselves as "dominated" by their southern neighbour.
Deleted User wrote: » That is a very dangerous international precedent to set - even quite extreme; the idea that any population can unilaterally declare independence. After all, it's the "population" who get to define their own identity and use it as a measure for independence. What "authorities" believe does not matter. In 2014, just 5 short years ago, Scotland opted to Remain in the UK (in a % higher than the Brexit vote). Why do you find it challenging to accept this relatively recent decision? It comes across, dare I say, that you're almost longing for Scottish independence, even if they don't vote for it.
Imreoir2 wrote: » It should not be for me, or you, or Borris Johnson to decide. It should be for the Scottish people, through their elected representatives to decide. If the Scottish do not want an independance referendum, they should stop voting for those who support independance.
Deleted User wrote: » That is a very dangerous international precedent to set - even quite extreme; the idea that any population can unilterally declare independence. In 2014, just 5 short years ago, Scotland opted to Remain in the UK. Why do you find it challenging to accept this relatively recent decision? It comes across, dare I say, that you're almost longing for Scottish independence, even if they don't vote for it.
Deleted User wrote: » In 2014, the Scottish people had their say; you portray this as if the UK has never offered Scotland its choice to Leave. If they did Leave (I supported it at the time), we would have to respect that choice. But they opted to Remain, so we must respect that too. Personally, I believe another Scottish referendum should be held perhaps 3-5 years post Brexit. Why? For two reasons: first, to let Brexit settle in, so people understand the consequences fully and, second, to let the Scottish people have their say on whether they - in a post-Brexit world - want to remain part of the UK or wish to join the EU and the Euro and so forth. As I said, the UK is almost a country in itself; and it must abide by its constitutional norms. We cannot have a situation in which one part of the UK unilaterally requests independence, in the same way we cannot have Catalonia doing the same. If you have no constitutional norms, what's stopping Munster becoming an independent nation? Separatism is a challenging constitutional subject.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » The UK is nothing like Spain and Scotland is nothing like Catalonia or Munster. Scotland and England gave up their parliaments to create the UK in the Act of Union so either of them should be able to unilaterally end the arrangement and reinstate their own parliament.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
