Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Sturgeon et al lose indyref2 court case



keaton

Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
Nov 18, 2004
9,786
Sturgeon knew she would lose the case and is playing games to try to increase a sense of grievance.

I hope Sunak and future PMs will engage more with Scotland, the Johnson government was a dream for the SNP and centred itself on English nationalism and division.

As for SNP I know they hate Brexit, but they should also look at its failure. The smaller party that chooses to break away will always come off worse, a break with the UK would be no different.

If there ever is any Vote to break up the UK, its a Vote for also all not just the Scots and should require a super majority.
But at the time one of the main arguments against Scottish independence was that it would mean they were outside of the EU.

That seems reason enough to let them have
The last one was in 2014 so I assume Sturgeon and the SNP would accept having one each nine years, should they get their wish to have a second referendum in 2023?

That way, should it all go pear-shaped, the good people of Scotland would be given the opportunity to reverse their decision in 2032 and re-join the union.

Or is it as you say, just keep going until the desired outcome is achieved and then never talk about it again?
But remaining in the EU was pretty much the main point put forward for not having independence in the first vote.
 




Curious Orange

Punxsatawney Phil
Jul 5, 2003
10,068
On NSC for over two decades...
I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain how the English can have their cake and eat it by not allowing another referendum.
I doesn't have anything to do with the English or England, it is the UK Government not allowing another referendum.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
53,040
Faversham
The Scots should have thought it through before they sent their king down south to take over England and Wales too, then. :)

Referendum after referendum until you get the 'right' result isn't an appropriate way of doing things. Forty years between referendums seems about right - they should be truly a generational thing, not every five minutes because some people didn't like the result.
Referendum isn't the appropriate way of doing things.

There is no consensus on how soon a referendum can be rerun, and that's because a referendum is just a trick to force (or stop) change by leaders too weak or useless to have an informed position from which to act.

The right method is to have political parties with a range of different plans, and then the electors can vote for what they prefer - with (my preference) the winning party taking all. Every government is made up from compromised positions and imperatives. For me, it is best to vote for parties, who lay out the spectrum of their compromises, so that when you vote you know what you are voting for, and that you are either going to get what you want, or not. Having some sort of PR means you never get what you want, albeit it can be argued that you may get more of what you wanted if your preferences are in the 'minority' than you would have done in a FPTP system. And if you support things that are never going to be adopted by the 'big' parties that always 'win' then of course you will strongly favour PR owing to the added 'fairness' (aka a greater chance you may get some of your minority desires made law).

As for the jocks, I don't have a dog in this fight, albeit feel they should probably get what they want.

And......at the end of the day, we have to cut the jocks some slack or it will only lead to friction.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
53,040
Faversham
I doesn't have anything to do with the English or England, it is the UK Government not allowing another referendum.
Basically, the English. I'm English, not UKish. Having other countries (Wales, Scotland) have seats in the English parliament is daft, but I can tolerate it if it makes them feel part of something (the UK).
 


Notters

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2003
24,881
Guiseley
The Scots should have thought it through before they sent their king down south to take over England and Wales too, then. :)

Referendum after referendum until you get the 'right' result isn't an appropriate way of doing things. Forty years between referendums seems about right - they should be truly a generational thing, not every five minutes because some people didn't like the result.
I'd agree if they were binding referenda and required a supermajority. If you're suggesting that a marginal vote to leave the EU on a particularly day that could of gone the other way on a different day and dramatically disadvantaged the country and the populace should be set in stone for 40 years, then think again.
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
53,040
Faversham
They have and they did.
Rather like Brexit. Perhaps another vote on that is in order?
We had two referenda on being in the common market. The common market changed to be the EU while we were in it. Our politicians were too disengaged to oppose this, not bothering to send people to committees, and the nation sleepwalked into another place. Then some of the MPs flounced and then duped the nation into having a second referendum.

There is nothing to stop the jocks having another vote. I say that as someone opposed to any referendum. If the Tories passed a law to say that the UK will never have another referendum on anything, ever, I'd support that.

But they won't because it would take away one of their methods of gaming the political system in their favour when it suits them.
 


Curious Orange

Punxsatawney Phil
Jul 5, 2003
10,068
On NSC for over two decades...
Basically, the English. I'm English, not UKish. Having other countries (Wales, Scotland) have seats in the English parliament is daft, but I can tolerate it if it makes them feel part of something (the UK).
What was daft was that when the Scots ran the UK and brought in devolution they didn't consider it an option for England.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
53,040
Faversham
What was daft was that when the Scots ran the UK and brought in devolution they didn't consider it an option for England.
Are you referring to Blair and Brown? If so, I agree. Devolution makes sense only if it is the start of a journey to independence, which is why I opposed it (as proposed and executed) on a nation basis (and, to boot, excluding England from the fun, with no English parliament as such). If England were an equal partner in a devolved UK that would probably keep everyone happy (apart from the Welsh, who seem very happy to cling on the English coat tail, and the Ulstermen who think they are more Loyal than the English). Instead we have an English dominated 'UK' and half-arsed devolution for the jocks and Welsh.

If you are referring to King James, I feel that too much water has passed under that bridge. May as well call for a reintroduction of slavery.

:thumbsup:
 




portlock seagull

Why? Why us?
Jul 28, 2003
17,498
ha ha, as the old saying goes…

…Scotland! You will leave the Union when ENGLAND says so! :lolol:
 


portlock seagull

Why? Why us?
Jul 28, 2003
17,498
I doesn't have anything to do with the English or England, it is the UK Government not allowing another referendum.
But you know is the nasty English holding everyone else back, with our brutal suppressing dictatorship and constant Edward the 1st celebrations, as we throw meal leftovers over Hadrians wall to the starving Celts who long for freedom from the yoke of English rule. It’s only fair they now get a chance in 2022 to own televisions, have electricity and running water and build an NHS that will be perfect. Not to mention welcome everyone of all persuasions (so long as they’re not English), especially the millions of Scots happily living elsewhere (who left for better jobs, education, healthcare, food, football, transport, the weather etc etc)
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,590
But at the time one of the main arguments against Scottish independence was that it would mean they were outside of the EU.

That seems reason enough to let them have

But remaining in the EU was pretty much the main point put forward for not having independence in the first vote.
the main argument was how they'd structure their economy, where they receive considerably more funding than they raise in revenue. at the time they expected to rely on north sea oil, which they consider theirs. with the carbon free future, they've shot that fox. they also proposed keeping the pound and keep their considerable financial industry back stopped by Bank of England. independance except when it suits not to. now they propose the similar hybrid, most the same compromises and flaws in the plan.
 




Curious Orange

Punxsatawney Phil
Jul 5, 2003
10,068
On NSC for over two decades...
Are you referring to Blair and Brown? If so, I agree. Devolution makes sense only if it is the start of a journey to independence, which is why I opposed it (as proposed and executed) on a nation basis (and, to boot, excluding England from the fun, with no English parliament as such). If England were an equal partner in a devolved UK that would probably keep everyone happy (apart from the Welsh, who seem very happy to cling on the English coat tail, and the Ulstermen who think they are more Loyal than the English). Instead we have an English dominated 'UK' and half-arsed devolution for the jocks and Welsh.

If you are referring to King James, I feel that too much water has passed under that bridge. May as well call for a reintroduction of slavery.

:thumbsup:
Blair and Brown. I agree that devolution was half-arsed, it was certainly met with apathy in Wales where I was living at the time and the turnout on the vote was barely 50%.
 


Questions

Habitual User
Oct 18, 2006
25,071
Worthing
I thought this was going to be about dodgy caviar smuggling
 


Cheshire Cat

The most curious thing..




Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,932
You are of course assuming something you don't know - whether the EU would admit them. Apart from their dodgy economy if not joined to England, the EU might not be too keen on a land border with England.
I think we've moved on from this issue since the war in Russia started. The EU have fast-tracked Ukraine and Moldova's applications to join and have already granted them candidate status since the Russian invasion. There is no way they would admit those two yet deny Scotland membership.

I think where we are now is the EU will admit any independent countries that want to join from Western Europe, especially those like Scotland that were once part of the EU anyway.
 


Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,932
Think a Labour government would be bad news for in independence movement, the relationship is likely to be more constructive than under the universally hated Tories.

I could be wrong but Johnson was peak Sturgeon, and even then getting over 50% in any polls was been a struggle
I think that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg re the negative economic effects of Brexit. Yes, hatred for Boris boosted the SNP and this will be diminished but be replaced with increasing anger at the Tories for foisting Brexit upon Scotland. The Scots have only to look at Ireland to see what benefits EU membership can bring to a small, English-speaking member of the group.
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
60,814
The Fatherland
The Scots have only to look at Ireland to see what benefits EU membership can bring to a small, English-speaking member of the group.
Very much this. The Irish economy has done incredibly well and offers a balance of sectors with a mix traditional and modern industries. An Indy Scotland can do the same.
 




Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
66,122
Withdean area
Very much this. The Irish economy has done incredibly well and offers a balance of sectors with a mix traditional and modern industries. An Indy Scotland can do the same.
A tiny economy, gained by being a tax haven for cheats such as Dell. Which the EU Commission was furious about. That plus colossal grants created the Celtic Tiger.

A phrase not heard for a very long time now, because it effectively collapsed in 2008 with Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy. It was built on faux economics.

Last month Irish homeowners came out of negative for the first time in 14 years. Their property boom was construed by criminally corrupt bankers working with now disgraced developers.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here