|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 30, 2024 15:46:03 GMT
A lot has changed in ten years. Until there's another referendum it's impossible to know how events of the past ten years may have shaped current thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 30, 2024 18:16:47 GMT
SNP supporters want Nicola Sturgeon back as First Minister. It is incredible. But he'll be in Barlinnie soon... |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 30, 2024 18:48:25 GMT
Very highbrow Ripley, but in the case of the SNP their lofty objectives are limited to fleecing their supporters of contributions and stealing the money, that and indulging in child mutilation policies and lunatic box ticking racism. The United Kingdom including Scotland will be a better place for the passing of the SNP. I'm not referring to the SNP, but to the Scottish people. Whatever you think of the SNP doesn't alter the fact that the Scots have a right to their language, culture and independence if they want it. Wanting self determination is what triggers these claims of anti-English xenophobia against them. But Scottish independence isn't an act against England. It is purely about Scotland. Reading the Nationalist literature produced since the 30s I would disagree. England appears frequently as the big bad bully lording it over a vassal state. I would agree the niggling slips of the likes of the Wolstenholmes, the Colemans and the Carpenters and the rather condescending tones they could make were a bit annoying but then when you are young the world is black and white. If we wanted 'self determination' we would have voted for it, most of us voted to stay in the Union and that is every bit as much about Scotland as Independence. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 30, 2024 19:06:32 GMT
I'm not referring to the SNP, but to the Scottish people. Whatever you think of the SNP doesn't alter the fact that the Scots have a right to their language, culture and independence if they want it. Wanting self determination is what triggers these claims of anti-English xenophobia against them. But Scottish independence isn't an act against England. It is purely about Scotland. Reading the Nationalist literature produced since the 30s I would disagree. England appears frequently as the big bad bully lording it over a vassal state. I would agree the niggling slips of the likes of the Wolstenholmes, the Colemans and the Carpenters and the rather condescending tones they could make were a bit annoying but then when you are young the world is black and white. If we wanted 'self determination' we would have voted for it, most of us voted to stay in the Union and that is every bit as much about Scotland as Independence. One can think of one's homeland as a vassal state without being anti-English. Even the French understood the difference between the state and the people. What I am saying is that the independence movement is not about breaking up the country in order to do harm to England, but simply about gaining self-determination for Scotland. Who is to say what the electorate wants now, ten years and many changes after the 2014 referendum? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 30, 2024 19:17:23 GMT
Reading the Nationalist literature produced since the 30s I would disagree. England appears frequently as the big bad bully lording it over a vassal state. I would agree the niggling slips of the likes of the Wolstenholmes, the Colemans and the Carpenters and the rather condescending tones they could make were a bit annoying but then when you are young the world is black and white. If we wanted 'self determination' we would have voted for it, most of us voted to stay in the Union and that is every bit as much about Scotland as Independence. One can think of one's homeland as a vassal state without being anti-English. Even the French understood the difference between the state and the people. What I am saying is that the independence movement is not about breaking up the country in order to do harm to England, but simply about gaining self-determination for Scotland. Who is to say what the electorate wants now, ten years and many changes after the 2014 referendum? Not if the country to which one is supposedly subordinated is England. Anyone who feels that they are vassals will almost certainly have a degree of antipathy for those to whom they have to pay homage. Framing it in that context will encourage anti-English feelings and displays. The independence movement has many people who support it for multifarious reasons one of those is certainly anti English sentiment. No one can say what the electorate wants after any amount of time but to measure takes time and money and how often should the issue be revisited. The EU was 41 years with the polls fluctuating around 50% for many years. Revisiting often just means one group who messed it up have a chance to get their ducks in row and try again, that is not the way it works, you have to win the arguments first time round. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 30, 2024 19:25:57 GMT
One can think of one's homeland as a vassal state without being anti-English. Even the French understood the difference between the state and the people. What I am saying is that the independence movement is not about breaking up the country in order to do harm to England, but simply about gaining self-determination for Scotland. Who is to say what the electorate wants now, ten years and many changes after the 2014 referendum? Not if the country to which one is supposedly subordinated is England. Anyone who feels that they are vassals will almost certainly have a degree of antipathy for those to whom they have to pay homage. Framing it in that context will encourage anti-English feelings and displays. The independence movement has many people who support it for multifarious reasons one of those is certainly anti English sentiment. No one can say what the electorate wants after any amount of time but to measure takes time and money and how often should the issue be revisited. The EU was 41 years with the polls fluctuating around 50% for many years. Revisiting often just means one group who messed it up have a chance to get their ducks in row and try again, that is not the way it works, you have to win the arguments first time round. I wasn't aware that the Scots were paying homage to the English. That's news to me. How often the issue should be revisited is a valid question. If seven years is good enough for N.I., why not for Scotland? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 30, 2024 19:46:51 GMT
Not if the country to which one is supposedly subordinated is England. Anyone who feels that they are vassals will almost certainly have a degree of antipathy for those to whom they have to pay homage. Framing it in that context will encourage anti-English feelings and displays. The independence movement has many people who support it for multifarious reasons one of those is certainly anti English sentiment. No one can say what the electorate wants after any amount of time but to measure takes time and money and how often should the issue be revisited. The EU was 41 years with the polls fluctuating around 50% for many years. Revisiting often just means one group who messed it up have a chance to get their ducks in row and try again, that is not the way it works, you have to win the arguments first time round. I wasn't aware that the Scots were paying homage to the English. That's news to me. How often the issue should be revisited is a valid question. If seven years is good enough for N.I., why not for Scotland? It is what a vassal state means. As far as I understand it that is at least seven years for NI, there is no necessity to actually hold one. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 30, 2024 19:51:34 GMT
I wasn't aware that the Scots were paying homage to the English. That's news to me. How often the issue should be revisited is a valid question. If seven years is good enough for N.I., why not for Scotland? It is what a vassal state means. As far as I understand it that is at least seven years for NI, there is no necessity to actually hold one. N.I. is allowed a referendum every seven years if they want one. Why can't Scotland be treated equally? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 30, 2024 20:05:55 GMT
It is what a vassal state means. As far as I understand it that is at least seven years for NI, there is no necessity to actually hold one. N.I. is allowed a referendum every seven years if they want one. Why can't Scotland be treated equally? How do they assess when one is wanted? A few people shouting we want another referendum does not cut the mustard it smacks of sour grapes. The Nationalist support in the Scottish parliament is lower than it was in the elections post Indy ref. So the pressure is waning which means the strength of the case for a repeat is waning. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 30, 2024 20:19:01 GMT
N.I. is allowed a referendum every seven years if they want one. Why can't Scotland be treated equally? A few people shouting we want another referendum does not cut the mustard it smacks of sour grapes. The Nationalist support in the Scottish parliament is lower than it was in the elections post Indy ref. So the pressure is waning which means the strength of the case for a repeat is waning. In the case of N.I., the GFA provides for a referendum every seven years if it appears to be the wish of the majority. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Apr 30, 2024 21:00:22 GMT
It is what a vassal state means. As far as I understand it that is at least seven years for NI, there is no necessity to actually hold one. N.I. is allowed a referendum every seven years if they want one. Why can't Scotland be treated equally? Not true. NI can only have a referendum if the Secretary of State for NI decides that a referendum is warranted, not just “when they want one” - and the 7 year period you highlight refers to the minimum period of time between referenda in NI. There is no minimum period between referenda in Scotland, rendering the position here less restrictive and therefore (for those seeking ongoing referenda until they get the result they want, at least) more favourable than in NI. It is the people of NI who should be pointing at Scotland and asking why NI should not be treated equally, not the other way around as you have done here. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 30, 2024 22:31:49 GMT
Sandypine: The specifics are spelled out here. The Belfast Agreement CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will: (i) Recognize the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;(ii) Recognize that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a United Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland; ANNEXE A 1.(1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1. (2) But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.SCHEDULE 1 POLLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 1 1. The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order. 2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a United Ireland. 3. The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/619500728fa8f5037d67b678/The_Belfast_Agreement_An_Agreement_Reached_at_the_Multi-Party_Talks_on_Northern_Ireland.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Apr 30, 2024 22:47:37 GMT
So they get a referendum when the Secretary of State believes that it is warranted ( not just “ if they want one”) and they have a minimum of 7 years to wait until they can have another referendum.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on May 1, 2024 0:28:39 GMT
Whatever Scots think, about the SNP, they do not support any moves toward dissolving the Holyrood Parliament Total Bollocks. morayloon you don't speak for the Scots. I have provided the evidence. Check it out before opening your mouth |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on May 1, 2024 0:31:34 GMT
What racism is that? Provide evidence I have responded elsewhere |
|
