The SNIP

[HughJars]

IMO you are tripping yourself up with your knee-jerk, emotionally driven response. I respect your viewpoint and patriotiism but I sincerely believe, based on econometrics, that Independence in Scotland would lead to systemic economic failures.

.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-has-scotland-subsidised-the-rest-of-the-uk

 

[HughJars]

That 45% is also partly for a socialist govt, not wholly a mandate for independence. You're spouting the same disingenuous rubbish she spouts. You're conflating the SNP vote as wholly for independence.

Over 90% of SNP voters back independence. *You* are conflating voting Tory/Lab/Lib-Dem as votes against, which isn't the case, and the Green vote is also mostly pro-indy, tho small in Scotland

 

[HughJars]

A GE is a FPTP system where the backdrop is political and the '45%' may or may not contain a majority for independence. It is not relevant and it is spurious to compare that to a referendum. Westminster's GE data is another 'apples and pears' mistake so an irrelevance and a miss-understanding of the difference in the two systems and their purpose.
.

Exactly, yet it's all you hear from Carlaw/Rennie/Leonard & Co. TY for pointing out the bloody obvious.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Scots Tories had a one agenda election call...….....Stop Indyref 2.....That is all we heard, nothing about Brexit, nothing about welfare the economy NHS etc etc.
They were resoundingly defeated so much so that they lost over half their seats, relegating them, along with Scots Labour to fringe parties.
As is plain to see, there is very little appetite for Stopping Indyref 2 in Scotland.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

no doubt it would have been an issue for some, but I think the milliband factor was the bigger rreason the labour vote collapsed, resulting in the snp victory.

all about opinions, and reckon we agree to disagree.

The Vow was an issue for many including myself...….we trusted them and the Unionist Parties let us down, almost criminaly.
That is why the 2015 vote was so huge, the country felt totally betrayed

 

[Deleted member 21258]

NICOLA Sturgeon has called for Holyrood to be given permanent powers to hold an indefinite number of independence referendums.

Something is not quite right about it, whilst I get the point. There is something very uneasy about the vote vote vote until you vote the way I want, irrelevant of what is good for the economy, stability and pitting each of your fellow countryman against each other.

Think all referendum voting really should be changed from simple majority to a clear majority(say 55 or 60% and a min of total adults over 18 must have vote change). It is weird to think these votes could be settled by 1 vote either way or not.

Nothing has been learnt from each of the two referendums really, it is not good

 

[drdel]

Independence is " A recipe for an almost never ending dose of austerity" Prof Ronald MacDonald Glasgow University.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Something is not quite right about it, whilst I get the point. There is something very uneasy about the vote vote vote until you vote the way I want, irrelevant of what is good for the economy, stability and pitting each of your fellow countryman against each other.

Think all referendum voting really should be changed from simple majority to a clear majority(say 55 or 60% and a min of total adults over 18 must have vote change). It is weird to think these votes could be settled by 1 vote either way or not.

Nothing has been learnt from each of the two referendums really, it is not good

If you look at the age voting groups the only thing stopping Scotland from being a normal independent country is the majority of it's citizens aged over 60.
Do you think it is fair that over 85 year olds can have a vote on independence but 16/17 year olds cannot.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

If you look at the age voting groups the only thing stopping Scotland from being a normal independent country is the majority of it's citizens aged over 60.
Do you think it is fair that over 85 year olds can have a vote on independence but 16/17 year olds cannot.

Not sure what point you are making about 85 year olds, are you ageist as well ? Of course they should have a vote.

With regards to, should 16/17 be able to vote(which is a stand alone question). Straight answer would be Nope, the law currently say 18 and don't really see the need for change but by all means, you can start a party to get the vote for 16/17 year olds if you wish to. Or if you want those 16/17 year old to vote you talk about, then have another vote in 1 or 2 years, which SNP would be in favour of anyway unless they win

Noticed you didn't deal with either of the two bigger and more interesting points of the post :-

1) It is right that you can have the vote vote vote situation
2) should any referendums be done on a simple majority

Also interested in :-

3) Would it be right for SNP to ignore the result of any referendum, if they don't like the result ? (general question, not referring to Indy1 or EU ref and do not wish to refer to them)

 

[drdel]

If you look at the age voting groups the only thing stopping Scotland from being a normal independent country is the majority of it's citizens aged over 60.
Do you think it is fair that over 85 year olds can have a vote on independence but 16/17 year olds cannot.

The average 16/17 year old has not decided who/what they think nor about politics. There is little understanding of how the things they buy arrive on the shelves or how public services are delivered. Unfortunately a mostly left leaning education system and unreliable/hyped social media is their prime source of knowledge.

Scotland's issues at stake with Independence is about its place in the commercial world when the vast majority of its income comes from trade with the UK, where the BoE provides the backstop insurance to the currency you use. IMO it is far more serious issue at risk than just political dogma and popularism and your FM's simple pursuit of mechanism for 'winning' shows she does not seem to grasp it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The average 16/17 year old has not decided who/what they think nor about politics. There is little understanding of how the things they buy arrive on the shelves or how public services are delivered. Unfortunately a mostly left leaning education system and unreliable/hyped social media is their prime source of knowledge.

Scotland's issues at stake with Independence is about its place in the commercial world when the vast majority of its income comes from trade with the UK, where the BoE provides the backstop insurance to the currency you use. IMO it is far more serious issue at risk than just political dogma and popularism and your FM's simple pursuit of mechanism for 'winning' shows she does not seem to grasp it.

Things will be just fine when the car manufacturers relocate from England to Scotland to be in an EU location...well that's what the SNP will tell you - and who knows...

 

[HughJars]

The average 16/17 year old has not decided who/what they think nor about politics. There is little understanding of how the things they buy arrive on the shelves or how public services are delivered. Unfortunately a mostly left leaning education system and unreliable/hyped social media is their prime source of knowledge.

Scotland's issues at stake with Independence is about its place in the commercial world when the vast majority of its income comes from trade with the UK, where the BoE provides the backstop insurance to the currency you use. IMO it is far more serious issue at risk than just political dogma and popularism and your FM's simple pursuit of mechanism for 'winning' shows she does not seem to grasp it.

Absolute drivel. Yes many are not interested in politics - guess what - they won't vote. Many older folks similarly don't pay any attention (always quick to moan of course) - and guess what, they don't vote either. It's not COMPULSORY, if they're interested they'll vote.

As for social media being main source of knowledge, what would you prefer? The Daily Mail? The Express? Laura Kuensberg?

 

[azazel]

Not sure what point you are making about 85 year olds, are you ageist as well ? Of course they should have a vote.

With regards to, should 16/17 be able to vote(which is a stand alone question). Straight answer would be Nope, the law currently say 18 and don't really see the need for change but by all means, you can start a party to get the vote for 16/17 year olds if you wish to. Or if you want those 16/17 year old to vote you talk about, then have another vote in 1 or 2 years, which SNP would be in favour of anyway unless they win

Noticed you didn't deal with either of the two bigger and more interesting points of the post :-

1) It is right that you can have the vote vote vote situation
2) should any referendums be done on a simple majority

Also interested in :-

3) Would it be right for SNP to ignore the result of any referendum, if they don't like the result ? (general question, not referring to Indy1 or EU ref and do not wish to refer to them)

1. It really isn't the case that "we lost one referendum, we demand another". There have been three general elections and one Scottish Parliamentary election since 2014 and, in each one, the SNP has "won" the election in Scotland, and each time their manifesto has contained a commitment to independence/another referendum.
2. Yes.
3. See 1. It's like I posted yesterday, people need to stop looking at this as a Sturgeon/SNP thing, it's a people thing. If the SNP keep winning elections in Scotland on an independence manifesto then they're absolutely within their rights to call for another referendum, because THE PEOPLE keep voting them in.

The same goes for a (theoretical) post-independence Scotland. If a party stands on a ticket to re-unite Scotland with the UK, and THE PEOPLE vote that party in, then a referendum on whether we rejoin or not is perfectly legitimate.

Despite what much of the media, big business and definitely the Tories if not all parties want us to believe, THE PEOPLE are still sovereign in this country.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

1. It really isn't the case that "we lost one referendum, we demand another". There have been three general elections and one Scottish Parliamentary election since 2014 and, in each one, the SNP has "won" the election in Scotland, and each time their manifesto has contained a commitment to independence/another referendum.
2. Yes.
3. See 1. It's like I posted yesterday, people need to stop looking at this as a Sturgeon/SNP thing, it's a people thing. If the SNP keep winning elections in Scotland on an independence manifesto then they're absolutely within their rights to call for another referendum, because THE PEOPLE keep voting them in.

The same goes for a (theoretical) post-independence Scotland. If a party stands on a ticket to re-unite Scotland with the UK, and THE PEOPLE vote that party in, then a referendum on whether we rejoin or not is perfectly legitimate.

Despite what much of the media, big business and definitely the Tories if not all parties want us to believe, THE PEOPLE are still sovereign in this country.

Ah - 'The Will of the People' just to have a referendum - 'the Will of The People' has to be respected is my understanding. Can't have a referendum on whether or not to have Indyref2 - or maybe you can. Maybe Sturgeon may go down that route

 

[drdel]

Absolute drivel. Yes many are not interested in politics - guess what - they won't vote. Many older folks similarly don't pay any attention (always quick to moan of course) - and guess what, they don't vote either. It's not COMPULSORY, if they're interested they'll vote.

As for social media being main source of knowledge, what would you prefer? The Daily Mail? The Express? Laura Kuensberg?

Perhaps you could answer logic question like...
-Cost impact of 'border controls' on the exports to rUK (about 85%).
How a 'new currency' will function without a BoE to provide currency support
How the 7% deficit will be brought under control when it has been rising for many years: without a Barnet contribution
How Scotland will meet its share of UK national debt
How NH Scotland will meet the investment it needs
How funding for Schools / Universities can be maintained and the increases needed be achieved.
NATO commitments as a sovereign state
The consequence that USA 'shale' extraction will keep oil prices down around $60/$70 /barrel.

Shoot me as being ignorant of and anti-Scotland if you wish but it may just be a thought that's wide of the mark.

 

[stefanovic]

There are 2 sides to this.
It's not just a case of whether they want us, but also whether we want them.
'The dream that will never die' (Salmond) should also be taken to mean the dream of an independent England, which would be so much better off without the cuckoo in the nest.
We can then concentrate on our own people and our own economy.
The end of the union is difficult for some people to come to terms with but it seems inevitable now.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

1. It really isn't the case that "we lost one referendum, we demand another". There have been three general elections and one Scottish Parliamentary election since 2014 and, in each one, the SNP has "won" the election in Scotland, and each time their manifesto has contained a commitment to independence/another referendum.
2. Yes.
3. See 1. It's like I posted yesterday, people need to stop looking at this as a Sturgeon/SNP thing, it's a people thing. If the SNP keep winning elections in Scotland on an independence manifesto then they're absolutely within their rights to call for another referendum, because THE PEOPLE keep voting them in.

The same goes for a (theoretical) post-independence Scotland. If a party stands on a ticket to re-unite Scotland with the UK, and THE PEOPLE vote that party in, then a referendum on whether we rejoin or not is perfectly legitimate.

Despite what much of the media, big business and definitely the Tories if not all parties want us to believe, THE PEOPLE are still sovereign in this country.

With regards to point 1, that is not what SNP is requesting, see my earlier post that quoted a newspaper :-

NICOLA Sturgeon has called for Holyrood to be given permanent powers to hold an indefinite number of independence referendums

If the above means that a vote every 5 years and/or after a general election, then I think it is bonkers, just bonkers. Sorry it can not work on that basis, totally bonkers expecting a vote every 5 years.

There is something very uneasy about the vote vote vote until you vote the way I want, irrelevant of what is good for the economy, stability and pitting each of your fellow countryman against each other and every 5ish years, would wreck that.

Surprised you don't see a problem with a simple majority.

I don't care if it is a SNP or Sturgeon or people thing(SNP are promoting the policy), I am merely thinking about individual people and businesses affect by this and how it affects the ecomony, which then comes back to people and governments. Ever thought people have voted for SNP because they like their other policies.

Just hope Scotland isn't over spending now, to promote SNP policies, as the payback has to happen and a reduction in the budget deficit must happen.

 

[drdel]

With regards to point 1, that is not what SNP is requesting, see my earlier post that quoted a newspaper :-



If the above means that a vote every 5 years and/or after a general election, then I think it is bonkers, just bonkers. Sorry it can not work on that basis, totally bonkers expecting a vote every 5 years.

There is something very uneasy about the vote vote vote until you vote the way I want, irrelevant of what is good for the economy, stability and pitting each of your fellow countryman against each other and every 5ish years, would wreck that.

Surprised you don't see a problem with a simple majority.

I don't care if it is a SNP or Sturgeon or people thing(SNP are promoting the policy), I am merely thinking about individual people and businesses affect by this and how it affects the ecomony, which then comes back to people and governments. Ever thought people have voted for SNP because they like their other policies.

Just hope Scotland isn't over spending now, to promote SNP policies, as the payback has to happen and a reduction in the budget deficit must happen.

I agree, its is silly rhetoric, organisations (those things that provide jobs) would not invest if they thought every 5-10 years there was a possibility of a complete change of currency, regulations, legal standing, banking etc.

Uncertainty is a killer for investment planning so it would look elsewhere.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Not sure what point you are making about 85 year olds, are you ageist as well ? Of course they should have a vote.

With regards to, should 16/17 be able to vote(which is a stand alone question). Straight answer would be Nope, the law currently say 18 and don't really see the need for change but by all means, you can start a party to get the vote for 16/17 year olds if you wish to. Or if you want those 16/17 year old to vote you talk about, then have another vote in 1 or 2 years, which SNP would be in favour of anyway unless they win

Noticed you didn't deal with either of the two bigger and more interesting points of the post :-

1) It is right that you can have the vote vote vote situation
2) should any referendums be done on a simple majority

Also interested in :-

3) Would it be right for SNP to ignore the result of any referendum, if they don't like the result ? (general question, not referring to Indy1 or EU ref and do not wish to refer to them)

Answers
[1] Isn't that called democracy
[2] Yes. The winning party in a narrow vote has the right to accept not to progress if they feel they do not have enough support [Like the Leave vote should have done.]
[3] Yes If they feel they have been lied to, misled and have been made false promises by the winning party.


Re me being ageist. I clearly am not but you seem to be in favour of denying 16/17 year olds the right to vote for their future.
Do you also wish to deny EU Scottish residents the chance to vote..

 

[patricks148]

Perhaps you could answer logic question like...
-Cost impact of 'border controls' on the exports to rUK (about 85%).
How a 'new currency' will function without a BoE to provide currency support
How the 7% deficit will be brought under control when it has been rising for many years: without a Barnet contribution
How Scotland will meet its share of UK national debt
How NH Scotland will meet the investment it needs
How funding for Schools / Universities can be maintained and the increases needed be achieved.
NATO commitments as a sovereign state
The consequence that USA 'shale' extraction will keep oil prices down around $60/$70 /barrel.

Shoot me as being ignorant of and anti-Scotland if you wish but it may just be a thought that's wide of the mark.

so do you really think none of this has been considered?