|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 19, 2023 22:45:10 GMT
Hi Om15 That would not surprise me. Change is hard for most people and I was certainly dubious about it. Until I looked into it properly. Why spoil a reasonable point with the dictator thing, however? Whatever faults nicola sturgeon has, she's a democrat. Don't you mean demoprat? Hi jonksy I would never say she's perfect. If I look across all the parties in both Westminster and Edinburgh, however, she's as good as any politician and better than most. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 20, 2023 1:10:45 GMT
Whatever faults nicola sturgeon has, she's a democrat. Only when it suits her and her agenda. Otherwise she is a democracy denier, as exemplified by her complete refusal to honour the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people in the 2014 referendum. it is easy to be a democrat when you win. The real test of democratic credentials is how you uphold the democratic principle in defeat - and her record is 100% failure in that department. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 20, 2023 1:43:11 GMT
Whatever faults nicola sturgeon has, she's a democrat. Only when it suits her and her agenda. Otherwise she is a democracy denier, as exemplified by her complete refusal to honour the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people in the 2014 referendum.it is easy to be a democrat when you win. The real test of democratic credentials is how you uphold the democratic principle in defeat - and her record is 100% failure in that department. Did she take Scotland out of the Union? I must have missed that. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 20, 2023 2:11:13 GMT
It is understandable that you might miss a lot from over there, but no, you didn’t miss that.
That said, I am not quite sure what your point is in making that comment. If Sturgeon had the power to unilaterally remove Scotland from the UK then she would have just ignored the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people to remain in the UK, given in answer to a discrete and dedicated question following a thorough national debate, and taken us out long ago.
So the fact that she has not taken us out of the Union has nothing to do with her democratic credentials and all to do with Scotland’s actual position as part of the UK rather than its false narrative position than many Scots mistakenly buy into.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 20, 2023 4:07:24 GMT
How does Mr. Jack reconcile this with the fact that the UK government is about to introduce sweeping marriage reforms in England and Wales that will intentionally create the very same sort of legal status conflicts in different geographic areas as the bill he is now preventing from going to royal assent? Who will stop that piece of legislation from going to royal assent because of its adverse impacts? That looks like a double standard. It is not a double standard; much more the reverse, in point of fact. The UK Government’s position on this matter, coupled with its position on GRA (provided that its rationale that GRA impacts upon other legislation in the UK was arrived at reasonably and not vexatiously) demonstrates its constancy in upholding and protecting the terms of the devolution settlement when approaching the matter from 2 very different directions. In the case of the GRA intervention, if UK Government genuinely believes what it claims to believe then it has not only the right but, in my view, the duty to implement the special provision. To not do so, for fear of contrived political fallout for example, would have allowed the Scottish Parliament to encroach beyond the parameters envisaged in the devolution settlement and would therefore have been a neglect of UK Government’s duty, through wilful inaction, to protect the integrity of the devolution process. As for the legislation banning marriage of 16 & 17 year olds, the UK Government has committed itself to implementing a UN programme to outlaw child marriage, which is defined as the marriage of people under the age of 18. Despite making this commitment, the UK Government recognises that the minimum age for marriage in Scotland is a devolved matter and therefore a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, at the very real risk of failing to honour its undertaking to the UN, the UK government has steadfastly respected the rights of Holyrood on this issue and the parameters of its powers, and been very careful not to breach them. So, (1) in the case of the Scottish GRA, the UK government has protected and honoured the devolution settlement by not allowing decisions of the Scottish Parliament to impact beyond its zone of authority, and (2) in the case of the child marriage legislation, the UK government has protected and honoured the devolution settlement by not encroaching into the Scottish Parliament’s zone of authority. This is clearly consistent behaviour, not double standards. BTW - the link below provides details of the UN programme through which the case for outlawing child marriage across the globe is outlined. It is a very laudable objective so surely we must question why ScotGov, so quick to claim the moral high ground over protecting vulnerable minorities in the case of GRA, has not acted to do so on this issue. If you are looking for examples of double standards here then this is where you will find them. www.unicef.org/media/86311/file/Child-marriage-the-law-2020.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 20, 2023 6:55:16 GMT
Whatever faults nicola sturgeon has, she's a democrat. Only when it suits her and her agenda. Otherwise she is a democracy denier, as exemplified by her complete refusal to honour the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people in the 2014 referendum. it is easy to be a democrat when you win. The real test of democratic credentials is how you uphold the democratic principle in defeat - and her record is 100% failure in that department. Hi happyjack That is a point, but if you don't mind me saying so - and no one ever seems to agree with me on this - that's an analysis based on both sides regarding the tying in of independence with a referendum. One side is obsessed with getting it, the other with stopping it. Both sides should be trying to win hearts and minds and stop making their only tactic to stop or get a referendum. She would certainly accept, for example, the right to have a referendum every 10 years or so, but that doesn't make her anti democratic, it's just her distorted view because she thinks that referendums are some sort of key. I'm tolerably certain, however, that if she won such a right she would accept the losing result every time and plan for the next one. And taking my own example , I voted no in 2014, and it was a close run thing. The deciding issue for me was that I didn't want to take the risk of leaving the EU. Now look what happened. My passport is up for renewal next year and I'll be sick to the stomach when I lose the pink one and get a navy blue one. It's only symbolic but it reflects a deep loss for me. There is a kind of a thing in me that says that it would be democratic for the powers that be to have a formal way of asking me which union I prefer. That is being denied to me and that's not democratic even though right now, I'm not sure what answer I would give. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 20, 2023 7:32:28 GMT
It is understandable that you might miss a lot from over there, but no, you didn’t miss that. That said, I am not quite sure what your point is in making that comment. If Sturgeon had the power to unilaterally remove Scotland from the UK then she would have just ignored the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people to remain in the UK, given in answer to a discrete and dedicated question following a thorough national debate, and taken us out long ago. So the fact that she has not taken us out of the Union has nothing to do with her democratic credentials and all to do with Scotland’s actual position as part of the UK rather than its false narrative position than many Scots mistakenly buy into. Hi happyjack Again, I think you're tying in whether something is democratic with how often referendums happen. There is no right answer here. Suppose the right to decide Scotland's constitutional future was devolved to Edinburgh, so that an independence supporting majority would begin the move to independence. As I've suggested on another thread. That would not be anti democratic. It might be unwise but not anti democratic. Every vote in a democracy has to have a system whereby the number of votes translates into outcomes and that varies across the democratic world. The important thing is that the electorate understands that mechanism when it votes. Unfortunately, in Scotland, one side regards the denial of a referendum, when independence supporting parties win elections as anti democratic, while the other considers the granting of a referendum in the face of one single result as also anti democratic. They are both wrong. Turning to nicola sturgeon and your view that she would take scotland out of the union if she had the power to do so, regardless of an election result. No. She's the last person on earth that would do that. There are others in the SNP that might. What she would do, is if the mechanism that translated votes into outcomes, gave her an outcome whereby scotland would leave the union, then she would do it. But she'd have to get the votes. And she'd see it that way as well. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 20, 2023 8:14:52 GMT
The principle of democracy that a vote thats done , can later be undone , exists in every society across the western world if not beyond. Your own westmisnter parliament enshirnes that democratic principle in many ways.
1. No current parliament can bind a future parliament , which you ignore.
2. In westmisnter law , it allows northern ireland to revisit a referendum every 7 years.
So the idea democracy applies to everyone else apart from scotland is laughable.
Everytime scotland votes for a pro independence majority of politicians , it can then re visit a democratic referendum provided the winning vote is them implemented each time as it was in 2014.
You can stamp and pout and deny that democratic fact all day long , it matters not.
The stamping and pouting is coming from you . You and your ilk are the political equivalent of screaming babies screaming until you get want you want. i disagree.
You cant demand the rules of democracy are changed simply because you are in terror of the potential consequences of that democracy in action bently.
Its well established , and universally accepted that in a democracy , if a party gets elected on a manifesto promise ,it has the right to enact that manifesto promise. If scottish voters dont want independence , then they wont vote pro independence parties.
Im sorry you cant accept that , but there you go.
Same in England. If pro european parties get elected into westmisnter , then they have the right to return england to the EU .
Democracy isnt you personal plaything to change the rules when you see fit on a personal whim becuase you cant accept the consequences of those with alternative political views.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 20, 2023 8:19:30 GMT
using the quote tags quote where i said this ? If you cant , we can dismiss your claim as another happy jack porkie pie. So you are falling back on the same old playground style that you tend to do when you are stumped. You know exactly where these words come from but as you can’t address them in an Indy supporting way you deflect instead. Just to be clear, and despite what you might want the answer to be, our UK parliament, through its organs of government, decides what the content of UK passports should be. Recognising the reality of this situation doesn’t undermine your Indy fanatic credentials ( if that is why you resist conceding the blatantly obvious) but it would give you a bit more credibilty. i have not once hinted or said the scottish parliament sets the uk passport. Your failure to back up your latest lies by being unable to quote me speaks volumes as ever.
Dismissed happy , and sent to the back of the class for bad behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 20, 2023 8:19:49 GMT
Legal Scottish marriages of under 18s will not be recognized in England and Wales, and their legal children will be illegitimate in those places. I think you might want to check that claim - the UK recognises marriage certificates from all over the globe which are issued under widely differing regulations. There is no requirement that marriage certificates comply with UK Law. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 20, 2023 8:23:00 GMT
Legal Scottish marriages of under 18s will not be recognized in England and Wales, and their legal children will be illegitimate in those places. I think you might want to check that claim - the UK recognises marriage certificates from all over the globe which are issued under widely differing regulations. There is no requirement that marriage certificates comply with UK Law. So if english law recognises the differences in scottish marriage certificates, you will pardon me when i ask what is the problem with a scottish gender certificate being recognised?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 20, 2023 8:25:27 GMT
I think you might want to check that claim - the UK recognises marriage certificates from all over the globe which are issued under widely differing regulations. There is no requirement that marriage certificates comply with UK Law. So if english law recognises the differences in scottish marriage certificates, you will pardon me when i ask what is the problem with a scottish gender certificate being recognised? I would have thought it obvious - access to protected spaces. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 20, 2023 8:26:33 GMT
Men haven’t been able to access women’s spaces legally. If it becomes legal then there must be an expectation that the number of men claiming that they are women and therefore entitled to use women’s spaces will significantly increase. Hi Bentley No, you're factually wrong. People born men have been able to access female only areas in the UK since the 2004 act. All legally. I have a solution. (Now I am being disingenuous). On birth all females are given a lifetime "I'm female certificate" In future access to female only places will be by I'm female certificate or by GRC. Happy? Then they shouldn’t . They shouldn’t be allowed in any areas that are considered safe spaces for women . |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 20, 2023 8:30:12 GMT
Out of interest, it appears the majority of Scots are disapproving of the First Dictators Pervert Bill, View Attachment behave yourself om. Do you actually read things before you post? Stuart campbell makes clear this is an unscientific twitter poll.
I tell you what your problem is me old son.
The uk tory government took a gamble on scots being unnerved by sturgeons trans reforms , hoping they could jump on the bandwagon of scottish public dissent.
What they didnt take into consideration is scots hate english tories more than they hate sturgeons reforms , and also dont like your government interfering in scots affairs. Had they an ounce of wit and sense , and left the matter to us scottish to deal with internally , then we would have slapped strugeon down as need be.
Instead , they have managed to turn anger of the scottish people against interfering foreigners in a foreign parliament , by a governing party that is despised in scotland and hasnt won an election since 1955 .
Keep up the bad work .
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 20, 2023 8:30:56 GMT
So if english law recognises the differences in scottish marriage certificates, you will pardon me when i ask what is the problem with a scottish gender certificate being recognised? I would have thought it obvious - access to protected spaces. trans folk already have access. ? |
|
