|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 19, 2023 11:22:51 GMT
This is, of course about the constitutional question.
I think we need to get away from this mania for knife edge referendums
So what would be a fair way of settling it?
I believe that far more power in this respect should be in Edinburgh, not London as it represents Scottish public opinion far more.
We also need checks and balances.
So, here is my proposal.
1. If independence supporting parties obtain more than 50% of the seats at a Scottish election, then negotiations begin with Westminster on 2 things. An independence deal and a constitutional change proposal that stops short of independence.
2. At the next Scottish election, a vote for the union supporting sides will be taken as a vote for the constructional change option. A vote for the independence supporting parties, for full independence.
Whatever way the vote goes, that's what happens. No referendum needed.
This would allow subtlety as if the constitutional change wasn't enough, you could still vote for it, knowing that at the next, you could return your vote to the independence supporting side, starting the process all over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 19, 2023 11:47:05 GMT
This is, of course about the constitutional question. I think we need to get away from this mania for knife edge referendums So what would be a fair way of settling it? I believe that far more power in this respect should be in Edinburgh, not London as it represents Scottish public opinion far more. We also need checks and balances. So, here is my proposal. 1. If independence supporting parties obtain more than 50% of the seats at a Scottish election, then negotiations begin with Westminster on 2 things. An independence deal and a constitutional change proposal that stops short of independence. 2. At the next Scottish election, a vote for the union supporting sides will be taken as a vote for the constructional change option. A vote for the independence supporting parties, for full independence. Whatever way the vote goes, that's what happens. No referendum needed. This would allow subtlety as if the constitutional change wasn't enough, you could still vote for it, knowing that at the next, you could return your vote to the independence supporting side, starting the process all over again. There is only one check and balance as in the American constitution on the separation of powers. Is for Scotland to go its merry way. I toyed with the idea of FFA which the SNP would have accepted back in the indy ref. And what was expected. Instead EVEL arrived and the Scots became second hand citizens. But the material change in circumstances that do not need spelling. Except to rabid BritNats. In my view. Put a nail in the coffin on that one. Or to spell it out. No taxation with out representation. Or to put it another way. Westminster simply cannot be trusted,. Cameron was well warned when he introduced EVEL. By Unionists. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 19, 2023 11:54:19 GMT
This is, of course about the constitutional question. I think we need to get away from this mania for knife edge referendums So what would be a fair way of settling it? I believe that far more power in this respect should be in Edinburgh, not London as it represents Scottish public opinion far more. We also need checks and balances. So, here is my proposal. 1. If independence supporting parties obtain more than 50% of the seats at a Scottish election, then negotiations begin with Westminster on 2 things. An independence deal and a constitutional change proposal that stops short of independence. 2. At the next Scottish election, a vote for the union supporting sides will be taken as a vote for the constructional change option. A vote for the independence supporting parties, for full independence. Whatever way the vote goes, that's what happens. No referendum needed. This would allow subtlety as if the constitutional change wasn't enough, you could still vote for it, knowing that at the next, you could return your vote to the independence supporting side, starting the process all over again. If you are not going to bother asking the people what they want then just declare independence - don't fuck about. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 19, 2023 11:58:42 GMT
If you are not going to bother asking the people what they want then just declare independence - don't fuck about. So you are happy with a Prime Minister who was elected by nobody. Thats your check and balance. Ah well. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 19, 2023 13:40:30 GMT
This is, of course about the constitutional question. I think we need to get away from this mania for knife edge referendums So what would be a fair way of settling it? I believe that far more power in this respect should be in Edinburgh, not London as it represents Scottish public opinion far more. We also need checks and balances. So, here is my proposal. 1. If independence supporting parties obtain more than 50% of the seats at a Scottish election, then negotiations begin with Westminster on 2 things. An independence deal and a constitutional change proposal that stops short of independence. 2. At the next Scottish election, a vote for the union supporting sides will be taken as a vote for the constructional change option. A vote for the independence supporting parties, for full independence. Whatever way the vote goes, that's what happens. No referendum needed. This would allow subtlety as if the constitutional change wasn't enough, you could still vote for it, knowing that at the next, you could return your vote to the independence supporting side, starting the process all over again. If you are not going to bother asking the people what they want then just declare independence - don't fuck about. Hi pacifico The election would indicate what the people want. And be an indication of long term desire and settled will. A referendum only tells you what they favoured at a specific point in time. For example it seems, from a lot of polls that a majority in the UK think leaving the EU was a mistake. The problem with the way it was done is that short of another referendum - which I'm not sure people want - we appear stuck with the decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 19, 2023 17:37:14 GMT
If you are not going to bother asking the people what they want then just declare independence - don't fuck about. Hi pacifico The election would indicate what the people want. And be an indication of long term desire and settled will. A referendum only tells you what they favoured at a specific point in time.
For example it seems, from a lot of polls that a majority in the UK think leaving the EU was a mistake. The problem with the way it was done is that short of another referendum - which I'm not sure people want - we appear stuck with the decision. An election only tells you what people favour on election day - its no different to a referendum. The problem with using an Election to settle a single question is that people vote for more than one thing on election day. The only way around this is to have no policies apart from stay or leave the Union - then its a referendum anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 21, 2023 14:08:32 GMT
Hi pacifico The election would indicate what the people want. And be an indication of long term desire and settled will. A referendum only tells you what they favoured at a specific point in time.
For example it seems, from a lot of polls that a majority in the UK think leaving the EU was a mistake. The problem with the way it was done is that short of another referendum - which I'm not sure people want - we appear stuck with the decision. An election only tells you what people favour on election day - its no different to a referendum. The problem with using an Election to settle a single question is that people vote for more than one thing on election day. The only way around this is to have no policies apart from stay or leave the Union - then its a referendum anyway. The point is that the YES movement believe that all decisions relating to Scotland should be made at Holyrood. That is how they will fight the election |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 21, 2023 15:32:13 GMT
An election only tells you what people favour on election day - its no different to a referendum. The problem with using an Election to settle a single question is that people vote for more than one thing on election day. The only way around this is to have no policies apart from stay or leave the Union - then its a referendum anyway. The point is that the YES movement believe that all decisions relating to Scotland should be made at Holyrood. That is how they will fight the election The Yes movement are consistently not getting anywhere near the number of votes they need to justify their separatist ambitions. Get over it, get on side and start getting to grips with issues that really matter. Public infrastructure spending. Business rates.
Industrial estates. Potholes.
Hospitals and beds and staff.
Police.
Firefighters.
Mountain rescue.
Coastguard staff.
Ferries. Sort out the Calmac ferry farce. Cut the civil service. Cut MSPs wages. They are paid £66.6k a year. Cut their wages to £30k a year. Sturgeon fuhrer is paid a whopping £157,861 a year. Sack her. Pay her replacement £30k a year. Cabinet secretaries in her civil junta: £112,919 a year. Ministers in her civil junta: £94,821 a year. Cut their wages. £30k a year. Save the taxpayer a fortune. These parasites do not need the money. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 21, 2023 15:49:35 GMT
The point is that the YES movement believe that all decisions relating to Scotland should be made at Holyrood. That is how they will fight the election The Yes movement are consistently not getting anywhere near the number of votes they need to justify their separatist ambitions. Get over it, get on side and start getting to grips with issues that really matter. Public infrastructure spending. Business rates.
Industrial estates. Potholes.
Hospitals and beds and staff.
Police.
Firefighters.
Mountain rescue.
Coastguard staff.
Ferries. Sort out the Calmac ferry farce. Cut the civil service. Cut MSPs wages. They are paid £66.6k a year. Cut their wages to £30k a year. Sturgeon fuhrer is paid a whopping £157,861 a year. Sack her. Pay her replacement £30k a year. Cabinet secretaries in her civil junta: £112,919 a year. Ministers in her civil junta: £94,821 a year. Cut their wages. £30k a year. Save the taxpayer a fortune. These parasites do not need the money. Hi vinny That's all very interesting but you haven't critiqued my proposal. I don't see anything that you suggest that could not be accommodated within my proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 21, 2023 17:44:10 GMT
An election only tells you what people favour on election day - its no different to a referendum. The problem with using an Election to settle a single question is that people vote for more than one thing on election day. The only way around this is to have no policies apart from stay or leave the Union - then its a referendum anyway. The point is that the YES movement believe that all decisions relating to Scotland should be made at Holyrood. That is how they will fight the election And the rest think that some decisions should be made at Holyrood and some in Westminster - some will even think that some decisions should be made in Holyrood, some in Westminster and some in Brussels!.. Which is why General Elections dont give answers to yes/no questions. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 21, 2023 18:17:18 GMT
The point is that the YES movement believe that all decisions relating to Scotland should be made at Holyrood. That is how they will fight the election And the rest think that some decisions should be made at Holyrood and some in Westminster - some will even think that some decisions should be made in Holyrood, some in Westminster and some in Brussels!.. Which is why General Elections dont give answers to yes/no questions. Hi pacifico Did you miss the party in my proposal that it wouldn't be decided over one single election? Surely 2 consecutive elections pointing the same way means something more? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 21, 2023 22:36:20 GMT
And the rest think that some decisions should be made at Holyrood and some in Westminster - some will even think that some decisions should be made in Holyrood, some in Westminster and some in Brussels!.. Which is why General Elections dont give answers to yes/no questions. Hi pacifico Did you miss the party in my proposal that it wouldn't be decided over one single election? Surely 2 consecutive elections pointing the same way means something more? not really - it means exactly the same thing. In GE's people vote for parties advocating a wide range of policies - unless you can convince every other party to have no policies except in/out (which you wont) its meaningless in deciding the will of the people over independence. Just look at the 2014 Euro election - over 70% of the electorate voted for pro-EU parties - 2 years later the same electorate voted to take us out of the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 21, 2023 22:49:53 GMT
Hi pacifico Did you miss the party in my proposal that it wouldn't be decided over one single election? Surely 2 consecutive elections pointing the same way means something more? not really - it means exactly the same thing. In GE's people vote for parties advocating a wide range of policies - unless you can convince every other party to have no policies except in/out (which you wont) its meaningless in deciding the will of the people over independence. Just look at the 2014 Euro election - over 70% of the electorate voted for pro-EU parties - 2 years later the same electorate voted to take us out of the EU. Hi pacifico Yes but they didn't know how important their vote was in terms of EU membership in that election. What if they had? The important thing is what the electorate understands is the outcome of their votes For example, the conservatives currently sit on a huge majority. Because all understood that they were the party to get Brexit done. So the red wall seats crumbled. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 22, 2023 8:03:12 GMT
not really - it means exactly the same thing. In GE's people vote for parties advocating a wide range of policies - unless you can convince every other party to have no policies except in/out (which you wont) its meaningless in deciding the will of the people over independence. Just look at the 2014 Euro election - over 70% of the electorate voted for pro-EU parties - 2 years later the same electorate voted to take us out of the EU. Hi pacifico Yes but they didn't know how important their vote was in terms of EU membership in that election. What if they had? The important thing is what the electorate understands is the outcome of their votes For example, the conservatives currently sit on a huge majority. Because all understood that they were the party to get Brexit done. So the red wall seats crumbled. But its not up to you to determine what an election is about - just because you have an obsession with Independence that doesn't mean that the priorities of others should be ignored. If people want to make their views felt on the Health service, Education, Taxation etc etc.. why should they be forced to forego that expressing of an opinion just to satisfy you?. They may not give a hoot about independence and feel that there are other issues far more important to their lives.. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 22, 2023 9:32:58 GMT
Hi pacifico Yes but they didn't know how important their vote was in terms of EU membership in that election. What if they had? The important thing is what the electorate understands is the outcome of their votes For example, the conservatives currently sit on a huge majority. Because all understood that they were the party to get Brexit done. So the red wall seats crumbled. But its not up to you to determine what an election is about - just because you have an obsession with Independence that doesn't mean that the priorities of others should be ignored. If people want to make their views felt on the Health service, Education, Taxation etc etc.. why should they be forced to forego that expressing of an opinion just to satisfy you?. They may not give a hoot about independence and feel that there are other issues far more important to their lives.. Hi pacifico I think the electorate can hold several concepts at once. Why did the red wall crumble? Because getting Brexit done was the most important thing to that electorate. So important that they voted conservative, whatever else they thought of them. If support for scottish independence surged, then the SNP would wipe the floor with everybody else. Or are you saying that wouldn't happen? I don't have an obsession with independence. I'm on the fence with it and just want a way that the decision about the constitution being with the people living in Scotland. |
|
