|
Post by ozneil on Sept 25, 2014 22:00:59 GMT -1
Keep on making excuses
The "NO" vote had a majority of over 300,000 that's over 20% more votes.
Accept it the people have spoken.
The chances of another referendum in the foreseeable future are remote. It has to be agreed to by the UK parliament and why would they? The result isnt close enough to raise doubt as to the people's wishes.
You say you believe in democracy and on first real test it would appear you only pay lip service to it. Your way is right and the majority is wrong. Sure you will find excuses, and that's all they are, as to why you are right and they are wrong but it doesnt alter the fact the majority wish to stay within UK.
Live with it you are part of the UK. Its done and dusted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 22:55:42 GMT -1
Have to say I find that post a wee bit disrespectful, Oz. I think it's fair to say everyone here who's come out for YES has considered the options, taken in the info, looked at both sides of the argument then come to a decision. Perhaps it's easy from your distant POV to admonish us from afar, and give it judgement. From a country that's independent and runs its own affairs yet still pays lip service to the UKE. Gotta laugh, really.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 25, 2014 23:41:53 GMT -1
Have to say I find that post a wee bit disrespectful, Oz. I think it's fair to say everyone here who's come out for YES has considered the options, taken in the info, looked at both sides of the argument then come to a decision. Perhaps it's easy from your distant POV to admonish us from afar, and give it judgement. From a country that's independent and runs its own affairs yet still pays lip service to the UKE. Gotta laugh, really. Im sorry you find my post "a wee bit disrespectful" I would expect it would be fair to say that the "NO" voters " considered the options, taken in the info, looked at both sides of the argument then come to a decision". Do you, the "Yessers", consider yourselves cleverer than them and think they need your guidance? I am disappointed with your superior attitude to the "hoi-polloi" Bit elitist dont you think? The thing is I am neutral I dont care! so I can look at vote from the outside and see you "45%ers" trying to flout the will of the people. Only thing I am sure of is the majority of the people wish to remain part of UK and that as they say is the bottom line. Democracy rules!!! That's a new one! what lip service to UK do we pay? Cant think of any.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 26, 2014 4:23:03 GMT -1
Have to say I find that post a wee bit disrespectful, Oz. I think it's fair to say everyone here who's come out for YES has considered the options, taken in the info, looked at both sides of the argument then come to a decision. Perhaps it's easy from your distant POV to admonish us from afar, and give it judgement. From a country that's independent and runs its own affairs yet still pays lip service to the UKE. Gotta laugh, really. Im sorry you find my post "a wee bit disrespectful" I would expect it would be fair to say that the "NO" voters " considered the options, taken in the info, looked at both sides of the argument then come to a decision". Do you, the "Yessers", consider yourselves cleverer than them and think they need your guidance? I am disappointed with your superior attitude to the "hoi-polloi" Bit elitist dont you think? The thing is I am neutral I dont care! so I can look at vote from the outside and see you "45%ers" trying to flout the will of the people. Only thing I am sure of is the majority of the people wish to remain part of UK and that as they say is the bottom line. Democracy rules!!! That's a new one! what lip service to UK do we pay? Cant think of any. Well there's the monarchy.............. Going back to your "its a referendum" point - well given that a general election takes place around every 4/5 years, how come the losers don't wait until say 2/3 months before election before criticising the incumbent government - after all the people have spoken for a government to last that length of time. Or even when the NO side break the rules on purdah - no one bats an eyelid media wise or even has a brassneck to sat tough shit we do as we please when it comes to agreed rules - not exactly democratic Or what about the NO side viewing postal ballots and measuring teh vote from them illegally - a criminal offence, freely admitted to by one of their leaders in front of millions on the TV Or even a glasgow lieboor-scum party mp phoning pensioners up directly and telling them that their pensions would stop - which is not the case Or what about the UK government running TV adverts for the forces network that are illegal to show to the normal population - because they tell lies The above aren't democratic in the slightest - yet you complain about us still wanting to change things As mentioned previously - if a political party gets elected to government with a manifesto promise to hold an independence referendum - should they not bother as it goes against your notion of ahem, democracy Or what about a government who get a policy defeated in parliament - then a few years later try again after being re-elected - is that undemocratic too
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 26, 2014 19:19:10 GMT -1
Response to Nota
Wrong! Liz is Queen of both Australia and UK but there are no constitutional links between them. Here she is constitutionally solely Queen of Australia. Has been since early 70s. Same in NZ & I think Canada.
As for the rest quit whinging the majority of Scots' voters voted to remain in UK by a majority of over 20%. Live with it and work together to get best deal out of your parliament.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 26, 2014 20:31:07 GMT -1
Response to Nota Wrong! Liz is Queen of both Australia and UK but there are no constitutional links between them. Here she is constitutionally solely Queen of Australia. Has been since early 70s. Same in NZ & I think Canada. As for the rest quit whinging the majority of Scots' voters voted to remain in UK by a majority of over 20%. Live with it and work together to get best deal out of your parliament. You seem to be struggling a bit with this statement I ACCEPT THE RESULT OF THE REFERENDUM, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE TO LIKE IT. IF that's whinging, then, you must be awfully easy miffed, because the only whinging going on is frae you and yer rather , throw yer toys oot ra pram, attitude to us not being deliriously happy at the result. Rolll on the 2016 Scottish election, then we can elect a government again, with a mandate ( you do understand what that is?) to hold a referendum on independence. Even if we don't succeed its only another four years until the next election and the same after that, We only have to be lucky once............... Now are you denying that its democracy if the people elect a government with that as a manifesto promise, funny how you seem to ignore that part. The UK governments down the years hav a track record in ignoring or usurping the democratic will of the people, no matter who they are, do you need some examples?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 20:45:48 GMT -1
I've got to agree with Nota's point. This was not a party political vote but every other election we ever do, IS. And you don't stop believing in Tory/Lab/LibDem/Green/Whatever values that you hold dear just because your party loses one election, do you, Oz? No, you don't. You fight for the values you stand for. And you counter your opponents' argument with argument. THAT'S democracy
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 26, 2014 22:29:56 GMT -1
Rolll on the 2016 Scottish election, then we can elect a government again, with a mandate ( you do understand what that is?) to hold a referendum on independence. Even if we don't succeed its only another four years until the next election and the same after that, We only have to be lucky once............... Now are you denying that its democracy if the people elect a government with that as a manifesto promise, funny how you seem to ignore that part. The UK governments down the years hav a track record in ignoring or usurping the democratic will of the people, no matter who they are, do you need some examples? And by the same token, once we've achieved independence by these means then we can revert back to the UK when we elect a unionist government again. Good God, what a poor argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 23:56:48 GMT -1
Not sure I understand your point, Demo. Scotland voted the SNP in for a second term on a landslide. For two reasons, I believe: 1) That the key point of their manifesto was to work towards Independence and 2) Because they have delivered effective government in the best interests of the Scottish people,and with very high public ratings on their quality and effectiveness. I think it would be a mistake to ignore the swing towards SNP, Greens, SSP in Scotland just now. All pro-indy parties have seen a huge surge in membership. Come 2016 I believe pro-indy parties will hold a HUGE majority and if they're clever about banding together and not splitting the vote, there will be a mandate for another Indyref within 5 years. The thing that upsets me most is this awfully pervasive attitude amongst NO voters that YES voters are somehow hopelessly idealistic and misguided. Like we'd preside over the destruction of everything we want to preserve, promote and cherish. Like we're stupid or something.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 27, 2014 5:07:35 GMT -1
I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for another referendum in 5 years.
The first thing that will be said is that you had a referendum in 2014 when it was defeated by a 22% margin so what has changed now?
Rolo rote
Didnt work the referendum was lost in every area except round Glasgow and Dundee. Why?
Come out here to look for some lost facts, I'll help you look for them, and see how State / Central Government works.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 27, 2014 6:15:55 GMT -1
Our system does NOT work for Scotland Oz and anyone who lives in Scotland and does not think we are given an unfair settlement by Westminster is living in another universe. Even NO voters recognise we have a problem, they mostly just prefer to stay with the UK and attempt to change things from within. In my opinion that will never happen. I am not sure I understand what Demo means by voting in a unionist parliament? If we vote for running our own country again, then we can not go back and as every other country who has left the UK, including Eire, NO ONE seems keen to go back. Should Eire be camping at the gates of Westminster begging to be taken back by the Westminster cabal? I wonder why they do not? Lol
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 27, 2014 6:59:10 GMT -1
Rolll on the 2016 Scottish election, then we can elect a government again, with a mandate ( you do understand what that is?) to hold a referendum on independence. Even if we don't succeed its only another four years until the next election and the same after that, We only have to be lucky once............... Now are you denying that its democracy if the people elect a government with that as a manifesto promise, funny how you seem to ignore that part. The UK governments down the years hav a track record in ignoring or usurping the democratic will of the people, no matter who they are, do you need some examples? And by the same token, once we've achieved independence by these means then we can revert back to the UK when we elect a unionist government again. Good God, what a poor argument. If ANY government is elected on a mandate to do something, then that should be respected - not agreeing with whatever that mandate entails is a different arguement But using the scenario you have raised - that's all very well in saying that, or any government doing that but alas it needs the agreement of whoever the rUK government is or indeed the people of the rUK via a referendum of their own to agree to such a thing Scotland voting to leave the Uk is a matter for the people who live in Scotland - an independent Scotland wanting to become part of the UK is a matter for the people of the rUK as well as Scotland
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 27, 2014 7:12:11 GMT -1
I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for another referendum in 5 years. The first thing that will be said is that you had a referendum in 2014 when it was defeated by a 22% margin so what has changed now? Rolo rote Didnt work the referendum was lost in every area except round Glasgow and Dundee. Why? Come out here to look for some lost facts, I'll help you look for them, and see how State / Central Government works. Really? And why would that be? Who is going to stop a duly elected Scottish Government from implementing its policies vis-a-vis a referendum on independence? Will it mean the Westminster government putting tanks on the streets of Glasgow again, or some other such folly? Regarding your state/central government point - it may very well do in australia's case but here in the UK it wont work very well if at all- some reasons are, the Scottish Parliament can be disolved at any time by westminster, its powers can be recinded at any time, th eUK doesn't have a formal written constitution guaranteeing, without doubt, anything whatsoever Your states and similarly with Canada's provinces have massively more responsibility than anything proposed by westminster for Scotland
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 27, 2014 8:20:42 GMT -1
This is very simple in my eyes. Major constitutional change, in this case independence, requires a quite exceptional mandate from the electorate. Quite rightly this is achieved by the use of a single issue referendum. The matter at issue is seen as too fundamental to be parcelled up with the normal democratic process of electing a Scottish or UK Parliament. I heard no one arguing otherwise in the run up to the referendum and the fact that they now are speaks of their despair at the result and a feeling that the chance of independence has gone for a generation.
To now declare that a simple majority in the Scottish Parliament will allow the SNP to announce a UDI is dangerous and completely undemocratic. The danger comes form believing that if your cause fails then the way ahead is to unilaterally reinvent the rules and constitutional framework to assert yourself. The consequences of that are frightening to say the least and all of us should be very afraid of following that path. The undemocratic part is quite simple, a large majority of people living in Scotland have just rejected independence and if you choose to ignore that in your disappointment then you betray your democratic principles.
Why did the SNP win an outright majority at the last Scottish elections? Will it naturally be repeated at the next one? Different discussion with a large amount of variables to be taken into consideration but what I would say at this stage is that the economic and political landscape at the time of the last Scottish elections was such that even traditional Scottish Labour voters had had enough of new Labour and were prepared to voice their disquiet in a very large protest vote. The fact that the SNP made it clear that the independence issue was inextricably bound to a referendum made it easier for disaffected Labour voters to cast their protest vote. I accept that the political landscape has changed significantly since then and interesting times lie ahead, however, I'm certain that Nichola Sturgeon's SNP will not go into the next election without making it clear that there will be no UDI. To not do so would be political suicide and she isn't about to be so foolish. She may make a further independence referendum part of the SNP manifesto but I wouldn't be certain of that. She has a difficult balancing act to achieve for sure.
On the other points made, Scotland is in a close partnership with the other countries in the UK and is not a previous colony of Britain, or comparable with any other country for that matter, which achieved independence. The comparison is not particularly valid in my opinion. Therefore if you want to go down the UDI route with a parliamentary majority being your mandate for independence then you should be fully prepared for the potential for that to be reversed if a pro union party then won an election. Therein lies the danger of acting in an unconstitutional manner and removing essential safeguards. To argue that re entry to the UK, in the UDI scenario, would also require the agreement of the rest of the UK is missing the point entirely. The fact is that you will have changed the rules and opened Pandora's box, allowing for any political persuasion to act in an arbitrary manner to further their cause.
In all these considerations you cannot hide from the glaringly obvious truth. The referendum was won by a sizeable majority and to ignore that is folly. It doesn't suggest an appetite for a further poll in the medium term to me and once the dust settles, which it will, we will have a clearer picture of where our country goes from here. I know how disappointing it is when something you so fervently desired has not come to pass but that is democracy in action.
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 27, 2014 9:16:14 GMT -1
The thing that upsets me most is this awfully pervasive attitude amongst NO voters that YES voters are somehow hopelessly idealistic and misguided. Like we'd preside over the destruction of everything we want to preserve, promote and cherish. Like we're stupid or something. That's not how I view Yes voters and I doubt very much that the majority of No voters do either. As you said elsewhere, we all want the best for Scotland but disagree on how to achieve it. At the beginning of the referendum debate my instinct was to vote No but I was open to persuasion and fully prepared to listen to the arguments in favour of independence and to adjust my view accordingly. The reasons never came, over two years I desperately sought out detailed information of how independence would benefit us economically but the Yes campaign (more accurately the SNP) chose to play to the lowest common denominator and go down the 'trust us, we know what we're doing' line. It didn't even come close and how many felt the same as me? What I'm saying is that if your instinct was that independence was the correct way to go then it's in no way idealistic or misguided, in my view you were let down by the very people who took you to the brink of what you wanted. The reverse side of what you feel is the view I've heard many independence supporters voice of No voters. Deceived by Westminster lies, lacking the confidence to go it alone, older people letting down the younger generation ( a fallacy later exposed by more detailed and accurate research)......... I could go on but suffice to say these are all insulting and wrong. If you want to break Scotland from the rest of the UK then you should have an outstanding economic argument for so doing and should have the confidence in the intelligence of the electorate to share it with them in detail. The SNP didn't have that argument and failed to persuade the likes of me that independence was desirable and beneficial. Their failure to do so is the reason we're still part of the UK.
|
|