Jump to content

No Voters - what say you?


jamamafegan
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Donathan said:


How much of that is because Scotland genuinely dislikes centre-right policies and how much of it is because the Tory brand was toxic for thirty years and still is in certain parts?

Remember that Scotland had absolutely no problem voting for new Labour which was implementing a lot of centrist policies, if not slightly right of centre.

I think that a new right of centre party could have success after independence, completely detached from the Tory brand. 
On the other hand though, you could definitely argue that a lot of the mini-revival the Tories have enjoyed in Scotland since the 2016 Holyrood election is driven by the fact that they’re the strongest voice in favour of unionism and many of those who vote for them are doing so because they think it’s the best way to protect the union rather than because of the centre-right policies. 

I'd argue that the behaviour of the current Tory lot ensure their brand will remain toxic for decades to come. I just don't see where the numbers for a new right of centre party would come from. Right-leaning labour voters have probably already switched to the Tories, the Lib Dems are an irrelevance. 

New Labour swept to power partly due to a successful rebrand, mostly down to endemic Tory sleaze and already had a health base number of safe Labour seats to build on. Labour either already have, or are close to completely fucking themselves beyond repair in Scotland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Donathan said:


How much of that is because Scotland genuinely dislikes centre-right policies and how much of it is because the Tory brand was toxic for thirty years and still is in certain parts?

 

Remember that Scotland had absolutely no problem voting for new Labour which was implementing a lot of centrist policies, if not slightly right of centre.

 

I think that a new right of centre party could have success after independence, completely detached from the Tory brand
 

On the other hand though, you could definitely argue that a lot of the mini-revival the Tories have enjoyed in Scotland since the 2016 Holyrood election is driven by the fact that they’re the strongest voice in favour of unionism and many of those who vote for them are doing so because they think it’s the best way to protect the union rather than because of the centre-right policies. 

I actually agree with this, Scotland votes generally left of centre but this may change in an independent Scotland depending on the circumstances. 

I don't think they'd win an election up here(at least for a few years) but they might creep up from the 20s to the 30s.

I'm hoping to be able to finally vote for the real Labour party, I can't or won't bite for them with their current stance on indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

This is a very, very unlikely scenario. The Tory vote in Scotland has hung 22-26% ish for decades. They hit 28% or so at the 2017 GE, which was a bit of an outlier. They haven't been near 40% since about the 60s. I don't even see how they'd be able to form a coalition. There aren't any other non-moonhowling parties which are right wing. 

Wait til you find out that people with centre-right views vote for the SNP to achieve independence. To put it another way, John Mason and Mhairi Black are not going to find themselves in the same party after Scotland votes Yes.

As many as a third of SNP supporters  voted Leave.

Edited by sparky88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My younger lad asked me a question yesterday which I confess that my answer was "dunno". 

To me, the "powers" to hold a referendum without a S30 are legally dodgy but well worth testing for a variety of reasons. I explained to him that the Act was carefully worded to claim that in reality Scotland needs England's permission to have a vote on its constitutional future. To me, that's mental, but it appears to be the case. 

My lad asked me if the Supreme Court has the ability to take into account the fundamental fairness and reasonableness of the law itself, or if they have to set aside any of these considerations and look only at the strict wording.  I don't know that answer. 

Anyone else? Would a challenge to the legitimacy of the restrictive section of the Act itself be competent in the submissions to the Supreme Court? 

While of course comments are open to all, even if, no doubt, I wont see some of them, I'd prefer ones from any folk well acquainted with constitutional law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

My younger lad asked me a question yesterday which I confess that my answer was "dunno". 

To me, the "powers" to hold a referendum without a S30 are legally dodgy but well worth testing for a variety of reasons. I explained to him that the Act was carefully worded to claim that in reality Scotland needs England's permission to have a vote on its constitutional future. To me, that's mental, but it appears to be the case. 

My lad asked me if the Supreme Court has the ability to take into account the fundamental fairness and reasonableness of the law itself, or if they have to set aside any of these considerations and look only at the strict wording.  I don't know that answer. 

Anyone else? Would a challenge to the legitimacy of the restrictive section of the Act itself be competent in the submissions to the Supreme Court? 

While of course comments are open to all, even if, no doubt, I wont see some of them, I'd prefer ones from any folk well acquainted with constitutional law. 

I’m no expert on constitutional law (or indeed any other type of law), but I’m certain that this very question was answered by (I think), @AdLib & the answer was that the court can only look at the actual legal situation & cannot take into account any extenuating circumstances. 

Edited by Brother Blades
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

I’m no expert on constitutional law (or indeed any other type of law), but I’m certain that this very question was answered by (I think), @AdLib & the answer was that the court can only look at the actual legal situation & cannot take into account any extenuating circumstances. 

Likewise I'm no expert, but did a course several years ago, part of which dealt with UK and EU law. My memory is that UK law needed to be interpreted based on a strict view of the wording, whereas EU law was to be looked at using the intention behind the reason for the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

I’m no expert on constitutional law (or indeed any other type of law), but I’m certain that this very question was answered by (I think), @AdLib & the answer was that the court can only look at the actual legal situation & cannot take into account any extenuating circumstances. 

I could be talking utter pish here - so if anyone is an expert, please set me right - but I read a bit a while ago about the Scottish Court of Session being the equal of the UK Supreme Court and the UKSC would not generally overrule, given differing legal systems - certainly Jolyon Maugham took the Scottish Court's decision that Johnson proroguing Parliament being illegal meant that it was, prior to the UKSC ruling - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/scottish-judges-rule-boris-johnsons-prorogation-unlawful

The ethos was that if Holyrood were to take the referendum question to the Court of Session, then it may stand a better chance than at the UKSC and the UKSC would be very loth to intervene. Does Sturgeon have that as an ace up her sleeve? I'm presuming it's been shot down, given nobody's talking about it, and I thought perhaps because the question is if the referendum is within Holyrood or Westminster's power then it might have to go to the (whole of the UK) Supreme Court, but if the Good Law Project will accept a Scottish ruling on Westminster prorogation then now I'm not sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how broad the remit is, although the initial groundwork being done by the Lord Advocate may allow for more considerations. Cherry appears to think so.

I was thinking that perhaps they could take a middle ground and judge that some sort of constitutional settlement be worked out between the governments, but that seems to be covered by the s30 request that remains open.

This judgement will have wider ramifications. Especially on the GFA and the settlement regarding Northern Ireland as this request by Scotland follows the same process there. Elections to legislative power and the ability to pass mandated policies. Sinn Fein would be running on a mandate like this and were they in the position to do what the First Minister of Scotland could do, they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gmca said:

Likewise I'm no expert, but did a course several years ago, part of which dealt with UK and EU law. My memory is that UK law needed to be interpreted based on a strict view of the wording, whereas EU law was to be looked at using the intention behind the reason for the law.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/britain-and-eu-gulf-in-understanding/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/06/2022 at 08:52, Suspect Device said:

Surely it's fairly obvious why the No voters voted the way they did. They are happy with the status quo.

Some of them would have been afraid of losing their pension (although that was a myth).

Some would have been worried about losing their money in a high tax 'socialist' country.

Some would vote for Britain from purely BritNat ideology - let's call them Rangers fans.

Some might have been swayed by 'the vow' of more power to Scotland without the responsibility of actually going out on our own.

Also, change is scary to some and they would just prefer to stick with what they know. The fear of the unknown is more powerful than the desire to change things possibly for the better. That is the main thing imo. The word possibly. No-one could guarantee an independent Scotland would be so much better and people were afraid to try.

As for a guarantee. The financial agencies that regulate countries credit ratings were quoted as saying in 2014;

Scotland would have triple A status and be around the seventh wealthiest nation in the world, even excluding oil and gas, it would still be a very prosperous.

Which makes you think, where has it all that gone?  I seriously doubt since 1707 we've be getting our fair share.

We are only nation on this planet to discover oil and become poorer as a result. A thought to ponder.

The truth of the matter is Scotland is the "Golden goose that lays the golden egg" and Westminster knows it only too well. That's the only reason that matters to them.

I have many English friends and family and have no anti English sentiment.

What I do have a massive issue with is the level of corruption within Wesminster and more so the Tories.

Its a  turbo charged unadulterated industrial asset stripping of the public purse and sector for their own gain and their cohorts.

Morals are through the floor, its scandal after scandal. Lie after lie. 

Capitalism has lost its moral compass, devoid of ethics. 

Boris lobbying to remove cap on bankers income, just as everyone else has been told "don't ask for wage rises as you will affect inflation"

These are the same bankers that started this shitshow in 2008 and didn't receive any charges or censure for it.

Ten years of austerity followed. Covid didn't help and now the uber pumping of your pocket that begun this year, through fuel charges,  energy charges and all that followed as a domino effect 

I have my gripes with SNP; Ferries, turbines, education, etc.

But, compared with the uber corrupt shitshow at Westminster, it will always be a YES for me.

Better to try another way for eventual betterment of all, than remain stuck in a perpetual f**k up.

Saying "oh well at least it's our f**k up and it's better to stick than twist". Is a very poor defence.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Father Ted said:

As for a guarantee. The financial agencies that regulate countries credit ratings were quoted as saying in 2014;

Scotland would have triple A status and be around the seventh wealthiest nation in the world, even excluding oil and gas, it would still be a very prosperous. Aye sure, that old one.

Which makes you think, where has it all that gone?  I seriously doubt since 1707 we've be getting our fair share. Nothing wrong with Scotland wanting back everything the barstewards took from us?

We are only nation on this planet to discover oil and become poorer as a result. A thought to ponder. I pondered it for a second then thought of Iraq and any other country that we and our big brothers across the Atlantic have interfered with since oil was discovered. Then remember the way things used to be and how much the standard of living has improved in that time here in Scotland, but how much it is taken for granted now.

The truth of the matter is Scotland is the "Golden goose that lays the golden egg" and Westminster knows it only too well. That's the only reason that matters to them. Another classic. Anyone else want to dismantle this one?

I have many English friends and family and have no anti English sentiment. Maybe aye, but I've seen posters coming out with a similar line just before getting banned from the forum.

What I do have a massive issue with is the level of corruption within Wesminster and more so the Tories. No one in this country is powerful enough to stop them.

Its a  turbo charged unadulterated industrial asset stripping of the public purse and sector for their own gain and their cohorts. It's not just the UK its happening everywhere, its the biggest heist in world history. the alarm has gone off but no one is responding. Governments serve as enablers and this lot in Westminster are getting their slice of the cake, why do you think they look so happy. Did you see Boris jumping around like a kid in a toy shop during his media interview in Madrid the other day over coming back to the UK. He's loving it and not ashamed to show it.

Morals are through the floor, its scandal after scandal. Lie after lie. Nothings changed, its not new, they just give less fucks now about what the public think of them than before. Trump set the bar of what you can get away with as long as you are backed by very powerful people.

Capitalism has lost its moral compass, devoid of ethics. Capitalism is at its best and worst without morals and ethics, that's the nature of the beast. It's just which side of it you end up on. It's nothing personal, its just business.

Boris lobbying to remove cap on bankers income, just as everyone else has been told "don't ask for wage rises as you will affect inflation" Good point, another example of there's plenty cake to go around if you support the UKG. How many Scottish bankers have their hands in the cake feeding their faces too?

These are the same bankers that started this shitshow in 2008 and didn't receive any charges or censure for it. Spot on.

Ten years of austerity followed. Covid didn't help and now the uber pumping of your pocket that begun this year, through fuel charges,  energy charges and all that followed as a domino effect. We are feeling the effects of monopolised industries and sectors, the pack of cards would eventually fall but the pandemic accelerated it. MSM repeating over and over again its Putin's fault which is now the new truth, hiding the real truth that their paymasters know very well who is responsible. The baby powder shortage in the USA and two day queues for fuel in Sri Lanka are examples of reliance far too much o globalised economy without a fall back in case it goes wrong. Meanwhile record profits for the biggest companies that raise prices and no one can or wants to do a thing about it, just distract the public with the blame game.

I have my gripes with SNP; Ferries, turbines, education, etc. Precious time with your loved ones lost during the pandemic and will never get back due to overbearing restrictions was the worst um....gripe. It's something that hurts.

But, compared with the uber corrupt shitshow at Westminster, it will always be a YES for me. I don't think I can be a happy clapper about this and I doubt the redistribution of public money away from us will change, I also believe if Indyref2 is successful while the Eton mob are still in charge they will try to make life very difficult for us via their pals in the Bank of England, via business and will probably find a way to sell North Sea oil back to us or sell most of it elsewhere and charge us double. Shit like that.

Better to try another way for eventual betterment of all, than remain stuck in a perpetual f**k up. Its not a quick fix, we won't suddenly have a Scottish utopia if there is a successful IR2, it will be difficult and there will be f**k ups along the way, but at least they will be our f**k ups.

Saying "oh well at least it's our f**k up and it's better to stick than twist". Is a very poor defence.

Smug GIF | Gfycat

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Father Ted said:

These are your opinions and you are fully entitled to them.

It doesn't mean they are right or supercede any others 

Thanks for playing.

Never said they did.

But who really owns 'oor oil' ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Never said they did.

But who really owns 'oor oil' ?

 

Private companies. 

We could have had a Norway model but Westminster f**ked it at the start

We can argue or agree over points until the sun goes down.

Westminster and Lords is a farce, we won't have to pay for. I'm not saying Holyrood is utopia it's not, but at least we have a chance to make it better.

Westminster is beyond redemption, its stuck in a medieval farce, riven by greed. Eton is a joke and not a very good one.

They are supposed to be custodians not over lords dictating what should happen.

Whether it's UK or Scotland, taxpayers cash should be used to improve society for taxpayers, and frankly its not for decades now and it needs to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Father Ted said:

Private companies. 

We could have had a Norway model but Westminster f**ked it at the start

We can argue or agree over points until the sun goes down.

Westminster and Lords is a farce, we won't have to pay for. I'm not saying Holyrood is utopia it's not, but at least we have a chance to make it better.

Westminster is beyond redemption, its stuck in a medieval farce, riven by greed. Eton is a joke and not a very good one.

They are supposed to be custodians not over lords dictating what should happen.

Whether it's UK or Scotland, taxpayers cash should be used to improve society for taxpayers, and frankly its not for decades now and it needs to stop.

The UK owns the oil and use contracted public Ltd oil and gas companies to extract it. It will be interesting to see what happens if we contest that in future. I would not be surprised if future we read about the UKG 'hold oor oil hostage'. If IR2 is successful new contracts will have to be sorted out, I have my doubts us here in Scotland would come out of this without some kind of 'compromise' that benefits England more. England has a lot of political and business weight behind it, I have my doubts we can compete, yes compete for resources with England when they hold all the power.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snafu said:

The UK owns the oil and use contracted public Ltd oil and gas companies to extract it. It will be interesting to see what happens if we contest that in future. I would not be surprised if future we read about the UKG 'hold oor oil hostage'. If IR2 is successful new contracts will have to be sorted out, I have my doubts us here in Scotland would come out of this without some kind of 'compromise' that benefits England more. England has a lot of political and business weight behind it, I have my doubts we can compete, yes compete for resources with England when they hold all the power.

 

I think there are international laws as to what constitutes a country’s waters. It’s not just a case of “we’ll take that thank you very much”. The seas are split along international borders and then to the median point between land masses. As such oil and gas in Scottish waters would by default become Scottish assets, it’s not something that can be debated or argued over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tattie36 said:

I think there are international laws as to what constitutes a country’s waters. It’s not just a case of “we’ll take that thank you very much”. The seas are split along international borders and then to the median point between land masses. As such oil and gas in Scottish waters would by default become Scottish assets, it’s not something that can be debated or argued over.

Yeah right, maybe you haven't being paying attention to the current UKG shenanIgans over trade with Northern Ireland, they don't give a crap about International Laws many countries around the globe don't give a f**k about international laws including USA. History has shown when it comes down to making billions there are no rules, capitalism and neo libertarians have seen to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Yeah right, maybe you haven't being paying attention to the current UKG shenanIgans over trade with Northern Ireland, they don't give a crap about International Laws many countries around the globe don't give a f**k about international laws including USA. History has shown when it comes down to making billions there are no rules, capitalism and neo libertarians have seen to that.

This would be, by many many magnitudes, a far far bigger issue which would probably lead to a Third World War, even that shower in Westminster wouldn’t go that far.

No one would allow this to happen as it would set a global precedent. What would then stop the Germans from “claiming” Norwegian oil and gas or China sailing gunships into the Gulf of Mexico? I would suggest the reality would be that Scotland would come to some kind of negotiated deal, favourable to both us and the rUK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tattie36 said:

This would be, by many many magnitudes, a far far bigger issue which would probably lead to a Third World War, even that shower in Westminster wouldn’t go that far.

No one would allow this to happen as it would set a global precedent. What would then stop the Germans from “claiming” Norwegian oil and gas or China sailing gunships into the Gulf of Mexico? I would suggest the reality would be that Scotland would come to some kind of negotiated deal, favourable to both us and the rUK.

So you agree then? :lol:

Favourable being matter of opinion on which side of the Hollyrood chamber you sit.

F**kin' 'ell, we'll still get sold out and told it was a favourable deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...