|
|
Post by morayloon on Feb 5, 2024 14:03:42 GMT
It looks more and more the case that the SNP has forsaken its founding goal of Independence for 'more powers for Holyrood'.
The Party is pushing the need for a referendum only when the Polls show support at over 60%, over a period of time (never quantified). Polls have remained pretty evenly balanced, so I can't see 60% being reached any time soon. The only time support rose was during the referendum, taking Indy to around 45%. That shows that the aim of IndyRef2 should focus on pushing for a new referendum and let the campaign draw in more people.
If Indyref2 is a non starter - they should be looking at other ways of achieving Independence e.g. an organised campaign of civil disobedience or even declaring UDI
It has been noticeable for several years that the Party was becoming ever more lukewarm on Independence, a factor resulting in the loss of thousands of members. From 125,000 a few years ago it fell dramatically to 72,000. However, it still has, by far, the largest membership of all political Parties in Scotland.
Anecdotally, people are rejoining, or signing up for the first time, after the ridiculous grilling Sturgeon received at the Covid inquiry (she was questioned for over 4 hours while Jack was only there for just over an hour and a half). Unionist bias.
A 'witch-hunt as one QT audience member put it. A sentiment that received the biggest round of applause during the show, other than that for comments on Israel's war on the Palestinians.
I will not rejoin until the Party gets back to fighting for Scotland and Independence. However, I will be voting SNP in the election because it is the only option. Alba will not stand in Moray and I will never back the Greens. Their commitment to Independence is even less than the SNP. Lorna Slater said that Independence would not be a red-line for her party in any future negotiations with Labour. Says it all really
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Feb 5, 2024 14:39:17 GMT
It looks more and more the case that the SNP has forsaken its founding goal of Independence for 'more powers for Holyrood'. The Party is pushing the need for a referendum only when the Polls show support at over 60%, over a period of time (never quantified). Polls have remained pretty evenly balanced, so I can't see 60% being reached any time soon. The only time support rose was during the referendum, taking Indy to around 45%. That shows that the aim of IndyRef2 should focus on pushing for a new referendum and let the campaign draw in more people. If Indyref2 is a non starter - they should be looking at other ways of achieving Independence e.g. an organised campaign of civil disobedience or even declaring UDI It has been noticeable for several years that the Party was becoming ever more lukewarm on Independence, a factor resulting in the loss of thousands of members. From 125,000 a few years ago it fell dramatically to 72,000. However, it still has, by far, the largest membership of all political Parties in Scotland. Anecdotally, people are rejoining, or signing up for the first time, after the ridiculous grilling Sturgeon received at the Covid inquiry (she was questioned for over 4 hours while Jack was only there for just over an hour and a half). Unionist bias. A 'witch-hunt as one QT audience member put it. A sentiment that received the biggest round of applause during the show, other than that for comments on Israel's war on the Palestinians. I will not rejoin until the Party gets back to fighting for Scotland and Independence. However, I will be voting SNP in the election because it is the only option. Alba will not stand in Moray and I will never back the Greens. Their commitment to Independence is even less than the SNP. Lorna Slater said that Independence would not be a red-line for her party in any future negotiations with Labour. Says it all really Have they forsaken their objective of independence, or are they trying to solidify their power the better to strengthen a claim of independence? I can see how waiting for polls to reach 60% would help the "settled will" argument. Maybe what they're trying to avoid is another very close call. I would think they'd want the next referendum to be decisive. Sturgeon never wanted to declare UDI. Look what happened when Rhodesia did that. Civil disobedience would benefit from majority support or it could end badly. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Feb 5, 2024 17:27:41 GMT
It looks more and more the case that the SNP has forsaken its founding goal of Independence for 'more powers for Holyrood'. The Party is pushing the need for a referendum only when the Polls show support at over 60%, over a period of time (never quantified). Polls have remained pretty evenly balanced, so I can't see 60% being reached any time soon. The only time support rose was during the referendum, taking Indy to around 45%. That shows that the aim of IndyRef2 should focus on pushing for a new referendum and let the campaign draw in more people. If Indyref2 is a non starter - they should be looking at other ways of achieving Independence e.g. an organised campaign of civil disobedience or even declaring UDI It has been noticeable for several years that the Party was becoming ever more lukewarm on Independence, a factor resulting in the loss of thousands of members. From 125,000 a few years ago it fell dramatically to 72,000. However, it still has, by far, the largest membership of all political Parties in Scotland. Anecdotally, people are rejoining, or signing up for the first time, after the ridiculous grilling Sturgeon received at the Covid inquiry (she was questioned for over 4 hours while Jack was only there for just over an hour and a half). Unionist bias. A 'witch-hunt as one QT audience member put it. A sentiment that received the biggest round of applause during the show, other than that for comments on Israel's war on the Palestinians. I will not rejoin until the Party gets back to fighting for Scotland and Independence. However, I will be voting SNP in the election because it is the only option. Alba will not stand in Moray and I will never back the Greens. Their commitment to Independence is even less than the SNP. Lorna Slater said that Independence would not be a red-line for her party in any future negotiations with Labour. Says it all really Have they forsaken their objective of independence, or are they trying to solidify their power the better to strengthen a claim of independence? I can see how waiting for polls to reach 60% would help the "settled will" argument. Maybe what they're trying to avoid is another very close call. I would think they'd want the next referendum to be decisive. Sturgeon never wanted to declare UDI. Look what happened when Rhodesia did that. Civil disobedience would benefit from majority support or it could end badly. I have never been a gradualist. When Alex Salmond led the SNP to victory in 2011 the first thing he did was organise a referendum. Since Sturgeon took office we have had almost ten years and we are no nearer Independence. The powers that have been devolved are only a sop to the devolutionists. Taxation is still in the hands of Westminster, as is welfare. Yes we can raise the rates of income tax but the personal allowance cannot be touched, nor can tax on savings and dividends which are paid at the UK rates. On VAT "It was proposed that revenues from the first 10 percentage points of the standard rate of VAT and the first 2.5 percentage points of the reduced rate of VAT applicable to Scotland should be assigned to Scotland. This is currently on hold."Only 21% of the Welfare programme is devolved. Holyrood has no say in setting rates for job seekers allowance and universal Credit. No say on Pensions. And no say on Corporation Tax. Until we get full control of these Scotland will always be hampered by English Governments. Polls have never been near 60%, even after the Brexit vote they only suggested a slight increase. 10, 20, 30 years might pass without that 'magical' 60% coming close to being achieved. No, I reckon the SNP is just stringing us all along. Going for Independence now, or in the very near future, might not end well but what's the alternative? Wait 30 years and still end up with the same result? What we need is for the SNP to stand up and fight for our country. NOW! Anyway, defeat might not spell the end of the fight. Look at how the people in their droves joined the SNP and Scottish Greens after the close result in 2014. Who is to say that won't happen again. Perhaps now that Sturgeon is gone things might change, although I think Yousaf will also have to go before things pick up again. Yousaf stands at -21 approval rating according to the recent Survation poll scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2024/02/one-quarter-of-those-planning-to-vote.html |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Feb 5, 2024 19:07:39 GMT
Have they forsaken their objective of independence, or are they trying to solidify their power the better to strengthen a claim of independence? I can see how waiting for polls to reach 60% would help the "settled will" argument. Maybe what they're trying to avoid is another very close call. I would think they'd want the next referendum to be decisive. Sturgeon never wanted to declare UDI. Look what happened when Rhodesia did that. Civil disobedience would benefit from majority support or it could end badly. I have never been a gradualist. When Alex Salmond led the SNP to victory in 2011 the first thing he did was organise a referendum. Since Sturgeon took office we have had almost ten years and we are no nearer Independence. The powers that have been devolved are only a sop to the devolutionists. Taxation is still in the hands of Westminster, as is welfare. Yes we can raise the rates of income tax but the personal allowance cannot be touched, nor can tax on savings and dividends which are paid at the UK rates. On VAT "It was proposed that revenues from the first 10 percentage points of the standard rate of VAT and the first 2.5 percentage points of the reduced rate of VAT applicable to Scotland should be assigned to Scotland. This is currently on hold."Only 21% of the Welfare programme is devolved. Holyrood has no say in setting rates for job seekers allowance and universal Credit. No say on Pensions. And no say on Corporation Tax. Until we get full control of these Scotland will always be hampered by English Governments. Polls have never been near 60%, even after the Brexit vote they only suggested a slight increase. 10, 20, 30 years might pass without that 'magical' 60% coming close to being achieved. No, I reckon the SNP is just stringing us all along. Going for Independence now, or in the very near future, might not end well but what's the alternative? Wait 30 years and still end up with the same result? What we need is for the SNP to stand up and fight for our country. NOW! Anyway, defeat might not spell the end of the fight. Look at how the people in their droves joined the SNP and Scottish Greens after the close result in 2014. Who is to say that won't happen again. Perhaps now that Sturgeon is gone things might change, although I think Yousaf will also have to go before things pick up again. Yousaf stands at -21 approval rating according to the recent Survation poll scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2024/02/one-quarter-of-those-planning-to-vote.htmlAs Enoch Powell remarked, "power devolved is power retained" and since Westminster will not share power in any meaningful way, independence can be Scotland's only exit strategy. Surely the SNP recognises that a strategy of stringing you along risks alienating voters and a farther decline in membership? Maybe I'm an optimist but I wonder if they're clinging to the belief that achieving close to 60% in the polls would force Westminster to acquiesce or at least pay very close attention. Even then, I don't believe that acquiescence would be Westminster's first move. They would offer more devolved powers and then not deliver. They might even offer some sort of glorified Home Rule whilst keeping control of Scotland's natural resources. With so much at stake, they'll do almost anything to prevent independence. What I don't understand is why the treaty can't be undone by a simple vote of the people who are sovereign under Scots law. I had expected Joanna Cherry might have come up with a good legal argument by now. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 6, 2024 14:55:44 GMT
“ What I don't understand is why the treaty can't be undone by a simple vote of the people who are sovereign under Scots law. I had expected Joanna Cherry might have come up with a good legal argument by now. “
Could it possibly be because your synopsis is wrong, Ripley? If things were as you describe then the indy movement would have done as you suggest long before now.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 7, 2024 6:03:49 GMT
Just a quick follow up to the above i.e. even the SNP ScotGov, through its recent series of Building a New Scotland papers, acknowledges that the Westminster parliament is sovereign in the UK and that sovereignty of the people is merely a Scottish tradition, one that it suggests we might return to if and when Scotland becomes independent.
And, of course, there is no treaty to undo. The Treaty of Union, entered into in the summer of 1706, expired on 1st May 1707 when its objectives and provisions were fulfilled with the implementation of the Acts of Union, through which the new country of the Kingdom of Great Britain was born, and the two parties that had entered into that 1706 treaty i.e. the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, ceased to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 7, 2024 8:52:45 GMT
Just a quick follow up to the above i.e. even the SNP ScotGov, through its recent series of Building a New Scotland papers, acknowledges that the Westminster parliament is sovereign in the UK and that sovereignty of the people is merely a Scottish tradition, one that it suggests we might return to if and when Scotland becomes independent. And, of course, there is no treaty to undo. The Treaty of Union, entered into in the summer of 1706, expired on 1st May 1707 when its objectives and provisions were fulfilled with the implementation of the Acts of Union, through which the new country of the Kingdom of Great Britain was born, and the two parties that had entered into that 1706 treaty i.e. the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, ceased to exist. rubbish. The snp do not own , nor can they dismiss the sovereignty of the Scottish people. We go back to lord coopers famous judgement in 1953 ... MacCormick v Lord Advocate in 1953, "The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law . So as lord Cooper pointed out , the new parliament didn't just inherit English constitutional law , as though all that happened in 1707 was that scotland had been admitted to an English parliament. You can't have it both ways. If you are saying a new parliament was born , then it inherited the constitutional laws of both signatories , not just Englands. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 7, 2024 8:58:02 GMT
I have never been a gradualist. When Alex Salmond led the SNP to victory in 2011 the first thing he did was organise a referendum. Since Sturgeon took office we have had almost ten years and we are no nearer Independence. The powers that have been devolved are only a sop to the devolutionists. Taxation is still in the hands of Westminster, as is welfare. Yes we can raise the rates of income tax but the personal allowance cannot be touched, nor can tax on savings and dividends which are paid at the UK rates. On VAT "It was proposed that revenues from the first 10 percentage points of the standard rate of VAT and the first 2.5 percentage points of the reduced rate of VAT applicable to Scotland should be assigned to Scotland. This is currently on hold."Only 21% of the Welfare programme is devolved. Holyrood has no say in setting rates for job seekers allowance and universal Credit. No say on Pensions. And no say on Corporation Tax. Until we get full control of these Scotland will always be hampered by English Governments. Polls have never been near 60%, even after the Brexit vote they only suggested a slight increase. 10, 20, 30 years might pass without that 'magical' 60% coming close to being achieved. No, I reckon the SNP is just stringing us all along. Going for Independence now, or in the very near future, might not end well but what's the alternative? Wait 30 years and still end up with the same result? What we need is for the SNP to stand up and fight for our country. NOW! Anyway, defeat might not spell the end of the fight. Look at how the people in their droves joined the SNP and Scottish Greens after the close result in 2014. Who is to say that won't happen again. Perhaps now that Sturgeon is gone things might change, although I think Yousaf will also have to go before things pick up again. Yousaf stands at -21 approval rating according to the recent Survation poll scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2024/02/one-quarter-of-those-planning-to-vote.htmlWhat I don't understand is why the treaty can't be undone by a simple vote of the people who are sovereign under Scots law. I had expected Joanna Cherry might have come up with a good legal argument by now. it can be Ripley , its just that so far , the snp under sturgeon and then Yousaf haven't had the balls to try. If they stood at the next election on an independence mandate , and got the majority of the vote , then proceeded to end the treaty on that vote , what matters isn't what grubby little unionists like happy jack thin , what matters is what scotland and the international community think. you might be interested in some of these sites regarding constitutions and treaties... https://salvo.scot The Claim of Right and the Union of Scotland & England
In the difficult negotiations for the Union of Scotland and England, there was one especially thorny obstacle: the two nations had opposing and irreconcilable constitutions.
In England, the Bill of Rights gave parliament sovereignty over the people. But in Scotland the Claim of Right ensured the sovereignty of the people, not parliament.
The incompatibility of the constitutions could not be resolved. Instead, the two nations agreed to keep their separate constitutions, with a guarantee to Scotland.
The guarantee was to specify the Claim of Right as a condition of the treaty and of the Union itself, “for all time coming”.
Grand Larceny and the fiction of the continuing state.
Part IV of the legal opinion published by HMG last year claims Scotland was “extinguished” when it was absorbed by England in 1707, and that the dispositive evidence to the contrary of Articles of Union can be discounted.
With the best will in the world, this part of the document appears to be risible.
It is the work of two eminent lawyers James Crawford, and Alan Boyle who were tasked to provide legal advocacy and the imprimatur of learned consideration, for a line of argument that does not withstand even the most cursory examination.
Is is unclear how it could withstand scrutiny by any impartial jurist. It is beyond me why the Scottish Government has ceded this ground without any apparent resistance.
If you peruse Part IV of the UK Government’s Legal Opinion of 2013 (link above), HMG went to extraordinary lengths to argue England is the continuator state.
HMG holds that Scotland will be a brand new state and as such not heir to the assets of the UK. They do hold however, that Scotland is heir to the liabilities of the UK. This is surely a case study in having your cake and eating it too.
HMG had no alternative but to argue that case if it is to be reasonably sure of retaining its vanity permanent seat on the UN Security Council, have minimum difficulties in retaining its opt-outs within the EU, and to continue the fiction of a UK marching on “move along, nothing to see here” as a major power.
The fly in the ointment is that they simply cannot afford another 100+ billion debt on the books as their state is simultaneously diminished, losing close to 10% of its GDP, 90% of its oil and gas reserves and revenues, and a third of its landmass.
That is why the have adopted this convoluted argument that Scotland was “extinguished” when it was incorporated into England in 1707, that England continued, and that the titles “UK” and “England” are synonymous, describing the same continuing unitary state.
bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/25/the-fiction-of-the-continuing-state/ |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 7, 2024 10:06:55 GMT
You can huff and puff all day long on this one, and take comfort in the desperate musings of the likes of Salvo and Bellacaledonia and other inconvenient truth-denying Indy zealots if you must (many have before and doubtless many more will do so in the future) but the answer to Ripley’s (or Ex Patria’s) conundrum, the reason why Ms Cherry, the SNP, and the Indy movement in general have not done as she suggested, and the reason why SNP ScotGov acknowledges that sovereignty lies with parliament and that the concept of the Scottish people being sovereign is merely a tradition is because, in and throughout the UK, sovereignty lies with parliament. Ripley has simply failed either to understand or to accept that, hence her conundrum. I am merely helping her out here (and others too, yourself included, if and when you become open to accepting the truth of the matter) by pointing out that there is no treaty to undo, that Scotland and England both ceased to be countries in 1707 instead merging to create the new country of Great Britain, and that the principle that parliament is sovereign, if not immediately on 1st May 1707 then along the 317 year journey since then, became and remains the constitutional position across the country as a whole. Therefore, if you want Scotland to be independent, you must persuade a majority in the House of Commons to support that proposal. It is as simple and as challenging as that.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 7, 2024 15:29:27 GMT
You can huff and puff all day long on this one, and take comfort in the desperate musings of the likes of Salvo and Bellacaledonia and other inconvenient truth-denying Indy zealots if you must (many have before and doubtless many more will do so in the future) but the answer to Ripley’s (or Ex Patria’s) conundrum, the reason why Ms Cherry, the SNP, and the Indy movement in general have not done as she suggested, and the reason why SNP ScotGov acknowledges that sovereignty lies with parliament and that the concept of the Scottish people being sovereign is merely a tradition is because, in and throughout the UK, sovereignty lies with parliament. Ripley has simply failed either to understand or to accept that, hence her conundrum. I am merely helping her out here (and others too, yourself included, if and when you become open to accepting the truth of the matter) by pointing out that there is no treaty to undo, that Scotland and England both ceased to be countries in 1707 instead merging to create the new country of Great Britain, and that the principle that parliament is sovereign, if not immediately on 1st May 1707 then along the 317 year journey since then, became and remains the constitutional position across the country as a whole. Therefore, if you want Scotland to be independent, you must persuade a majority in the House of Commons to support that proposal. It is as simple and as challenging as that. im not huffing and puffing at all happy. Im simply pointing out the new British parliament wasn't a continuation of the old English one. you can huff and puff about that all you like too , but that wasn't what happened however much you would like it to be. I did wonder why all of a sudden you had appeared back on here. Its normally when you are getting all excitable about the end of your union , and with bbc scotland announcing the latest polls about a majority for indy I see why..
Ipsos poll: Support for independence sitting at 53 per cent
SUPPORT for independence is sitting at 53 per cent, according to the latest figures from Ipsos.
The same poll also showed that the SNP would pick up 40 seats at the next General Election while Labour would pick up 13 and the Tories just two.
Support for independence meanwhile was at 53 per cent with 47 per cent of people saying they would vote to stay in the Union.
archive.ph/3VUie#selection-1659.3-1691.128 |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Feb 7, 2024 20:48:49 GMT
Therefore, if you want Scotland to be independent, you must persuade a majority in the House of Commons to support that proposal. It is as simple and as challenging as that. Are you really agreeing with the proposition that Scotland is being held captive in the poisonous UK? With 59 MPs how on earth is there any chance of a majority in a parliament comprising mostly English MPs. The situation will be even worse with the new boundaries coming into play for this year's election. 10 more constituencies for England, 2 less for Scotland. For you to say that England will determine Scotland's future is ridiculous. It is the Scottish people who will decide our country's constitutional future. You started off, in the old Forum, by stating that you were neutral on the Independence issue, that you could be persuaded to vote YES. However, with every subsequent post, you were unable to hide your raving Ultra-Unionist tendencies. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Feb 7, 2024 21:55:30 GMT
I have never been a gradualist. When Alex Salmond led the SNP to victory in 2011 the first thing he did was organise a referendum. Since Sturgeon took office we have had almost ten years and we are no nearer Independence. The powers that have been devolved are only a sop to the devolutionists. Taxation is still in the hands of Westminster, as is welfare. Yes we can raise the rates of income tax but the personal allowance cannot be touched, nor can tax on savings and dividends which are paid at the UK rates. On VAT "It was proposed that revenues from the first 10 percentage points of the standard rate of VAT and the first 2.5 percentage points of the reduced rate of VAT applicable to Scotland should be assigned to Scotland. This is currently on hold."Only 21% of the Welfare programme is devolved. Holyrood has no say in setting rates for job seekers allowance and universal Credit. No say on Pensions. And no say on Corporation Tax. Until we get full control of these Scotland will always be hampered by English Governments. Polls have never been near 60%, even after the Brexit vote they only suggested a slight increase. 10, 20, 30 years might pass without that 'magical' 60% coming close to being achieved. No, I reckon the SNP is just stringing us all along. Going for Independence now, or in the very near future, might not end well but what's the alternative? Wait 30 years and still end up with the same result? What we need is for the SNP to stand up and fight for our country. NOW! Anyway, defeat might not spell the end of the fight. Look at how the people in their droves joined the SNP and Scottish Greens after the close result in 2014. Who is to say that won't happen again. Perhaps now that Sturgeon is gone things might change, although I think Yousaf will also have to go before things pick up again. Yousaf stands at -21 approval rating according to the recent Survation poll scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2024/02/one-quarter-of-those-planning-to-vote.htmlAs Enoch Powell remarked, "power devolved is power retained" and since Westminster will not share power in any meaningful way, independence can be Scotland's only exit strategy. Surely the SNP recognises that a strategy of stringing you along risks alienating voters and a farther decline in membership? Maybe I'm an optimist but I wonder if they're clinging to the belief that achieving close to 60% in the polls would force Westminster to acquiesce or at least pay very close attention. Even then, I don't believe that acquiescence would be Westminster's first move. They would offer more devolved powers and then not deliver. They might even offer some sort of glorified Home Rule whilst keeping control of Scotland's natural resources. With so much at stake, they'll do almost anything to prevent independence. What I don't understand is why the treaty can't be undone by a simple vote of the people who are sovereign under Scots law. I had expected Joanna Cherry might have come up with a good legal argument by now. I can't fathom why the SNP has been stringing us along. But they certainly have been. In two elections Independence was off the menu: a) 2016 when Sturgeon stated that the election was not about Independence. " The SNP will always support independence - but that is not what this election is about. It is about making Scotland stronger." ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2015/localpdf/SNP.pdf The SNP won that one because of the continuing feel good factor among the YESsers - we were beaten but were definitely not out. b) 2017, when the SNP deliberately played down talk of Independence. The manifesto talked about "more powers for the Scottish people"; that Independence should be 'parked' until the fallout from Brexit was over and done. d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/thesnp/pages/9544/attachments/original/1496320559/Manifesto_06_01_17.pdf?1496320559 The ploy did not work as many Independistas, not happy at stalling the campaign, stayed at home. Many seats were lost. In 2019 lip service was played to Independence and the Party regained many of the seats lost 2 years earlier. 2021 did not improve matters. Over the years, since the Referendum, many, many people have become disillusioned with the SNP. Its downplaying of Independence caused more and more to leave or to stop voting SNP. I stuck it out until the 2021 campaign. Jumped ship to Alba who had, at least, someone at the helm who DID give us a referendum. Unfortunately the public have not taken to that new party. The Brexit results offered a great opportunity for the SNPs Independence ambitions. And, for a while, it looked as though Sturgeon was going for it. We were led up the hill only to come rolling down again as she chickened out. The 2014 Referendum was an opportunity to dissolve the Union. It was a simple vote that included all who stayed here, with a simple outcome: 50%+1 was enough to claim victory. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 7, 2024 22:34:38 GMT
Therefore, if you want Scotland to be independent, you must persuade a majority in the House of Commons to support that proposal. It is as simple and as challenging as that. Are you really agreeing with the proposition that Scotland is being held captive in the poisonous UK? With 59 MPs how on earth is there any chance of a majority in a parliament comprising mostly English MPs. The situation will be even worse with the new boundaries coming into play for this year's election. 10 more constituencies for England, 2 less for Scotland. For you to say that England will determine Scotland's future is ridiculous. It is the Scottish people who will decide our country's constitutional future. You started off, in the old Forum, by stating that you were neutral on the Independence issue, that you could be persuaded to vote YES. However, with every subsequent post, you were unable to hide your raving Ultra-Unionist tendencies. No, I am not agreeing with the proposition that Scotland is being held captive in the poisonous UK because (1) Scotland is not being held captive in anything other than politcal and constitutional limbo due to the losers of the 2014 referendum disrespecting the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people, and (2) the UK, for all its faults and despite its arrangements being in need of a serious overhaul, is not poisonous although its government and governing party over the past 5 years or so have been poisonous in my view. How on earth is there not a chance of a majority in a parliament comprising mostly English MPs? After all, a parliament of mostly English MPs sanctioned the 2014 referendum and that same parliament of mostly English MPs would have honoured a YES vote and legislated for Scotland's independence had YES prevailed. I have not said that England will determine Scotland's future; it would be ridiculous for me to do so, although much less ridiculous than your statement that the Scottish people will decide on the UK's constitutional future (the UK being our country, after all). We will, of course, have our fair say in the matter, just as we did with Brexit, when every vote cast in the 2016 referendum, no matter where in the country, quite rightly counted every bit as much as every other vote. However, I do say that as parliament is sovereign then Scotland can only ever become independent with the approval of parliament. I started off in the old forum saying that I was a NO voter capable of being won over to the YES camp through it being demonstrated that there is a good economic case for an independent Scotland I.e. that it would be economically better off in the long term and would suffer negligible to low level economic damage in the short and mid term whilst getting there. Nobody has ever been able to come any where close to demonstrating that so I remain a NO voter capable of being won over to the YES camp through that same route (albeit I am becoming increasingly convinced that as no-one can present a credible economic case for independence then there is no credible economic case for independence - and that this is the fatal flaw in the independence proposal). |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 1:56:14 GMT
You can huff and puff all day long on this one, and take comfort in the desperate musings of the likes of Salvo and Bellacaledonia and other inconvenient truth-denying Indy zealots if you must (many have before and doubtless many more will do so in the future) but the answer to Ripley’s (or Ex Patria’s) conundrum, the reason why Ms Cherry, the SNP, and the Indy movement in general have not done as she suggested, and the reason why SNP ScotGov acknowledges that sovereignty lies with parliament and that the concept of the Scottish people being sovereign is merely a tradition is because, in and throughout the UK, sovereignty lies with parliament. Ripley has simply failed either to understand or to accept that, hence her conundrum. I am merely helping her out here (and others too, yourself included, if and when you become open to accepting the truth of the matter) by pointing out that there is no treaty to undo, that Scotland and England both ceased to be countries in 1707 instead merging to create the new country of Great Britain, and that the principle that parliament is sovereign, if not immediately on 1st May 1707 then along the 317 year journey since then, became and remains the constitutional position across the country as a whole. Therefore, if you want Scotland to be independent, you must persuade a majority in the House of Commons to support that proposal. It is as simple and as challenging as that. im not huffing and puffing at all happy. Im simply pointing out the new British parliament wasn't a continuation of the old English one. you can huff and puff about that all you like too , but that wasn't what happened however much you would like it to be. I did wonder why all of a sudden you had appeared back on here. Its normally when you are getting all excitable about the end of your union , and with bbc scotland announcing the latest polls about a majority for indy I see why..
Ipsos poll: Support for independence sitting at 53 per cent
SUPPORT for independence is sitting at 53 per cent, according to the latest figures from Ipsos.
The same poll also showed that the SNP would pick up 40 seats at the next General Election while Labour would pick up 13 and the Tories just two.
Support for independence meanwhile was at 53 per cent with 47 per cent of people saying they would vote to stay in the Union.
archive.ph/3VUie#selection-1659.3-1691.128It is thoughtful of you to point out that the new Great Britain parliament was not a continuation of the old English one although I am not sure why you felt compelled to do so. I have not argued otherwise and I do not believe otherwise - although someone watching proceedings of the new GB parliament would have struggled to spot any difference from a sitting of the old English parliament (bar the presence of a handful of Scottish representatives and the sound of a few Scottish voices). That is because all of the pre-existing conventions and norms of the old English parliament were retained by the new GB parliament. I am baffled that you think that I would have liked the new Great Britain parliament to be a continuation of the old English one. Unlike you, I have no deep-rooted prejudices or predispositions either way to skew my view, either on this particular point or on constitutional issues generally. All I am interested in are the salient facts and truths, whatever they may be, and for those facts and truths to be be commonly accepted. If we can ever get to that stage then the whole constitutional discussion might finally rise above routine squabbling to a meaningful and fruitful exchange of views. You are confusing me with someone else when you say that I get excitable about the end of the union. I have no concerns about that prospect becoming reality in the short or mid term, and nothing that I see or hear makes the slightest dent in my confidence on that matter. As a result, I do not pay much attention to the results of the ongoing series of opinion polls that we are subjected to, although, as it just so happens, I note that the poll you refer to above is no longer the most recent, that now being the Redfield & Wilton poll from a few days ago showing No on 47%, Yes on 43% and Don't Know on 10%. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 8:40:40 GMT
im not huffing and puffing at all happy. Im simply pointing out the new British parliament wasn't a continuation of the old English one. you can huff and puff about that all you like too , but that wasn't what happened however much you would like it to be. I did wonder why all of a sudden you had appeared back on here. Its normally when you are getting all excitable about the end of your union , and with bbc scotland announcing the latest polls about a majority for indy I see why..
Ipsos poll: Support for independence sitting at 53 per cent
SUPPORT for independence is sitting at 53 per cent, according to the latest figures from Ipsos.
The same poll also showed that the SNP would pick up 40 seats at the next General Election while Labour would pick up 13 and the Tories just two.
Support for independence meanwhile was at 53 per cent with 47 per cent of people saying they would vote to stay in the Union.
archive.ph/3VUie#selection-1659.3-1691.128It is thoughtful of you to point out that the new Great Britain parliament was not a continuation of the old English one although I am not sure why you felt compelled to do so.. yes you have. You earlier implied that the concept of the Scottish peoples sovereignty doesn't matter or apply to the uk parliament , which you believe is sovereign , and I point out again , can you show me where it says the new uk parliament in 1707 would inherit all the characteristics of the old English parliament , but none of the Scottish ? |
|
