Banterous Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 How can you be so certain if a YES vote is so uncertain then ya git? Have you followed this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Have you followed this thread? Are you on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanSaysNo Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Loving that idea. But it ain't gonna happen. Sorry. I didn't realise you could accurately predict the future. The referendum is a one off. Only consented to by Westminster grudgingly, due to a one off overall majority in the Scottish parlaiment. So the SNP will never, ever get a majority government for the rest of time? Even if the Westminster parties treat Scotland as badly as you think they will? Past performance seems to suggest you're wrong. Its extremely likely any changes to the Scotland Act will include provisions to prevent this happening again That clearly wasn't the case in Canada (see below) It's funny hearing people say "We can just vote again in a few years if Westminster lies". - the majority required to even get a vote on this is statistically unlikely. "Statistically unlikely" is a meaningless phrase in this context. The SNP secured a majority government before, therefore they can do so again. Particularly if Westminster treats us so badly, the Scottish electorate willbe up in arms against them. - in Quebec they ran the second referendum extremely close. I'm sorry? The SECOND referendum? So Canada got two goes at it, but it's obvious to anyone that Scotland will only get one vote. Can you explain that logic to me. Preferably in small words as I'm clearly too dense to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Sorry. I didn't realise you could accurately predict the future. So the SNP will never, ever get a majority government for the rest of time? Even if the Westminster parties treat Scotland as badly as you think they will? Past performance seems to suggest you're wrong. That clearly wasn't the case in Canada (see below) "Statistically unlikely" is a meaningless phrase in this context. The SNP secured a majority government before, therefore they can do so again. Particularly if Westminster treats us so badly, the Scottish electorate willbe up in arms against them. I'm sorry? The SECOND referendum? So Canada got two goes at it, but it's obvious to anyone that Scotland will only get one vote. Can you explain that logic to me. Preferably in small words as I'm clearly too dense to understand. And you think that Westminster would recognise any further referendum if they thought it would be even remotely close, never mind lose-able? Oh and if Westminster does not recognise it, as they have in the Edinburgh agreement for this one, then it will not be legal. Hope that clears that up for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanSaysNo Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 And you think that Westminster would recognise any further referendum if they thought it would be even remotely close, never mind lose-able? Oh and if Westminster does not recognise it, as they have in the Edinburgh agreement for this one, then it will not be legal. Hope that clears that up for you. All that clears up is that you have some pretty entrenched ideas that are based on no prior examples. Not sure what that really adds to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Sorry. I didn't realise you could accurately predict the future. So the SNP will never, ever get a majority government for the rest of time? Even if the Westminster parties treat Scotland as badly as you think they will? Past performance seems to suggest you're wrong. That clearly wasn't the case in Canada (see below) "Statistically unlikely" is a meaningless phrase in this context. The SNP secured a majority government before, therefore they can do so again. Particularly if Westminster treats us so badly, the Scottish electorate willbe up in arms against them. I'm sorry? The SECOND referendum? So Canada got two goes at it, but it's obvious to anyone that Scotland will only get one vote. Can you explain that logic to me. Preferably in small words as I'm clearly too dense to understand. I think that the only reason this referendum was allowed in the first place is because everyone assumed it was a done deal that Scotland would vote No with a huge majority. Assuming a narrow No victory tomorrow, I can't see Westminster being as cooperative in the future. Not saying they will refuse another referendum, just that they will do everything they can to make it difficult. I get the feeling that some people are going to vote No but hope that there will be another referendum in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I think that the only reason this referendum was allowed The reason this referendum was allowed is that the UK is a proper country with democratic values. We aren't Spain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 The reason this referendum was allowed is that the UK is a proper country with democratic values. We aren't Spain. You know, against the recent intake of fucking loonballs on here, your trolling appears almost sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 All that clears up is that you have some pretty entrenched ideas that are based on no prior examples. Not sure what that really adds to the discussion. Your statement says you have no answer to that. Cheers dumbass. Oh and prior examples? How about 79 when the UK government never thought that Scottish independence was nothing more than a pipe dream? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 The reason this referendum was allowed is that the UK is a proper country with democratic values and dreams of pipes. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/sep/29/scotland.devolution We aren't Spain. FTFY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Why dont we just split Scotland down the middle, the yes voters can go in live in the fantasy land half and enjoy all of their oil and trading bits of paper with AS face on as money, and let the rest of us live in the real world who actually give a shit about what happens and arent voting because they watched braveheart last night. Are you related to Mr Bairn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Why dont we just split Scotland down the middle, the yes voters can go in live in the fantasy land half and enjoy all of their oil and trading bits of paper with AS face on as money, and let the rest of us live in the real world who actually give a shit about what happens and arent voting because they watched braveheart last night. That sounds great. Why don't you all just move into DaG and leave us to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanSaysNo Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Oh and prior examples? How about 79 when the UK government never thought that Scottish independence was nothing more than a pipe dream? Not sure what that's supposed to prove. But, for a prior example, I'd point everyone at Canada. In 1980, a referendum was held in Quebec. At the time, the Canadian PM promised to reform the country's consitution in the event of a No vote to take into account the concerns of the French Canadians. The vote was an overwhelming No but, following this, none of the reforms were actually followed through. This lead to such resentment in Quebec that the Parti Québécois was voted in and forced a second referendum, in 1995. This time the vote was much closer. Again the PM promised reforms to address the concerns of separatists and this time, thanks to such a close vote and strong feeling from the voters, these reforms were carried out. Federal law was changed to give Quebec more of a role in Canadian decision making. To be honest, I think this is the only comparable situation we have to work with, and it seems to suggest that today's vote is unlikely to be the one and only chance to push for independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Not sure what that's supposed to prove. But, for a prior example, I'd point everyone at Canada. In 1980, a referendum was held in Quebec. At the time, the Canadian PM promised to reform the country's consitution in the event of a No vote to take into account the concerns of the French Canadians. The vote was an overwhelming No but, following this, none of the reforms were actually followed through. This lead to such resentment in Quebec that the Parti Québécois was voted in and forced a second referendum, in 1995. This time the vote was much closer. Again the PM promised reforms to address the concerns of separatists and this time, thanks to such a close vote and strong feeling from the voters, these reforms were carried out. Federal law was changed to give Quebec more of a role in Canadian decision making. To be honest, I think this is the only comparable situation we have to work with, and it seems to suggest that today's vote is unlikely to be the one and only chance to push for independence. You don't see what point it proves? Previous form from a UK government on this issue? Yet you think something which happens in Canada between itself and a region of Canada is where we should look? What proportion of Canada felt Quebec were subsidised scrounges and wanted them to go. How many MPs where calling to not give Quebec more of a roll? You sir are a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanSaysNo Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Yet you think something which happens in Canada between itself and a region of Canada is where we should look? What proportion of Canada felt Quebec were subsidised scrounges and wanted them to go. About 38% according to a poll of non-Quebec living Canadians. How many MPs where calling to not give Quebec more of a roll? I'm sure there were a few blowhards who made a noise to try and get their face on the telly. Much as we're seeing now with a small number of Tory backbenchers who don't really hold any power. You sir are a dumbass. Ah, back to that killer argument, I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlandoblue Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Seemingly this vow was an offer of nothing a few days ago but now that nothing has miraculously changed into really important stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 If they change the voting to stop any scottish based MPs voting on english matters, does this mean a scottish based MP would essentially be banned from becoming PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForzaDundee Posted September 19, 2014 Author Share Posted September 19, 2014 If they change the voting to stop any scottish based MPs voting on english matters, does this mean a scottish based MP would essentially be banned from becoming PM? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlandoblue Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 If they change the voting to stop any scottish based MPs voting on english matters, does this mean a scottish based MP would essentially be banned from becoming PM? Good question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 It opens up a whole Pandora's box. Legally there could be no bar on a Scottish MP being PM, but in practical terms Westminster would soon become the English parliament in all but name most of the time with the rest just there as lobby fodder on reserved issues like foreign policy and defence. The bigger question is what happens when one party has a majority in England, while another has the majority at a UK level. Do they take turns being the government depending on the day of the week? Tam Dayell used to argue that devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits because once that scenario unfolds the next step is likely to be a Czech-Slovak style velvet divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.