Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Herzlos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

In the go camp: This should be enough to trigger a new Scottish Independence referrendum, and ideally would allow us to break away from the Tories and re-join the EU. Win-WIn.

Well, the Scottish independence supporters tactically voting for leave really isn't a great plan, as the whole argument for another referendum relies on Scotland voting overwhelmingly to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK votes differently.

I don't think the Independence supporters will vote no just to get another referendum. But generally, England and Scotland have very different political leanings and if they naturally vote differently, it might be enough to trigger it.

Funnily enough, the Northern Irish are even more pro-EU then the Scottish. So there's no way we could justify giving Scotland another referendum without turning our attention to Ireland first.

You know, I do wonder, if the results come back and we either stay or Scotland/England are reasonably close in which way they voted, what issue the independence bandwagon is going to jump onto next as justification for another one...

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

In the go camp: This should be enough to trigger a new Scottish Independence referrendum, and ideally would allow us to break away from the Tories and re-join the EU. Win-WIn.

Well, the Scottish independence supporters tactically voting for leave really isn't a great plan, as the whole argument for another referendum relies on Scotland voting overwhelmingly to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK votes differently.

I don't think the Independence supporters will vote no just to get another referendum. But generally, England and Scotland have very different political leanings and if they naturally vote differently, it might be enough to trigger it.

Funnily enough, the Northern Irish are even more pro-EU then the Scottish. So there's no way we could justify giving Scotland another referendum without turning our attention to Ireland first.

You know, I do wonder, if the results come back and we either stay or Scotland/England are reasonably close in which way they voted, what issue the independence bandwagon is going to jump onto next as justification for another one...

In a democracy, Ketara, the justification for anything is when the people demand it.

I don't believe in triggers for another independence referendum. It'll happen when people want it to happen. As silly as it sounds, if the Scottish people want an independence referendum every week for a hundred years, it'll happen. Similarly, they may decided not to have one for a million years.

You could equally ask what the justification is for this EU referendum. After all, the Tories only got 25% of the vote last election. That's not a majority in anybody's book, and yes I know we have a FPTP system.

Democracy is a living, breathing thing. Government of the people for the people by the people. You, I, and everybody else decides when things happen.

Not sure that Norn Iron would want independence tbh. Can't know for sure.

 Da Boss wrote:
Not sure that Norn Iron would want independence tbh. Can't know for sure.

We can't be sure of anything!

I remain convinced that the referendum vote is going to be close for whoever wins (52/48) as to rumble on for months, even years.

This referendum won't end on June 23rd. Yeah, I'm repeating myself, but I can't see any other result TBO.

Sadly, I expect something similar.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


In a democracy, Ketara, the justification for anything is when the people demand it.

I don't believe in triggers for another independence referendum. It'll happen when people want it to happen. As silly as it sounds, if the Scottish people want an independence referendum every week for a hundred years, it'll happen. Similarly, they may decided not to have one for a million years.

Sorry, but to me, it does sound a little silly. 'The Scottish people' Who decides what 'the Scottish people' want? As I pointed out earlier, a vote for the SNP does not necessarily equate to a vote for another referendum unless you twist the logic so badly it turns corkscrew shaped. How do you differentiate between 'the people' wanting another referendum, and a group of extremely loud activists? Do you have a referendum on whether you want another referendum?

If some people got to have an independence referendum weekly, then the rest of us would get to have a referendum weekly on whether or not to stick those people on a one-way boat to Svalbard. Because quite frankly, it isn't fair on the rest of the electorate (and that includes people in Scotland) to constantly push the expense and uncertainty of a new referendum on them every other year until independence pushers get the 'right' result (in their eyes). I mean, if independence was granted, would they be quite so permissive of a new referendum every two years to see if Scotland wanted to rejoin? Somehow, I seriously doubt it.

I know I said I wouldn't comment on the Scottish thing in here again, but it keeps floating to the surface, and it's starting to hack me off a bit. I don't particularly like the current Government, and it would be wonderful if every major policy was in line with exactly what I wanted, but that's life. I think a number of people (not necessarily pointing to anyone on here) need to accept that democracy didn't go the way they wanted this time around, and wait until the time is next right again (if it ever is) without trying to insert a new independence referendum into every single political issue that comes up.

If we have a ridiculously high voting difference between England and Scotland on this particular issue (say 25% plus) then yes, perhaps that would be grounds for commissioning a report to see if enough people felt the difference justified another referendum. Because as Da Boss indicated above, a voting difference does not necessarily equate to people wanting yet another referendum. But I really, really doubt that's going to happen.

All of your points are valid, Ketara and I agree with the vast majority of them, but the system is what it is (unless the people want it changed) and I believe the following hypothetical examples are fair and valid under our current democratic system. YMMV.

1) The Scottish Parliament elections are in May. If the SNP say vote for us, and we'll push for another referendum, and the SNP win their projected landslide, another referendum is fine by me.

2) Jeremy Corbyn says make me PM in 2020 and I'll scrap Trident and pull us out of NATO, and Corbyn becomes PM with a majority and does what he says he 's going to do, fine by me.

3) Out loses the EU referendum and UKIP says vote for us in 2020 and we'll pull out of Europe, and UKIP win a majority, fine by me.

As long as the voters know exactly what they're getting before they step into the polling booth, I don't have a problem with another referendum down the line or this and that happening. It's democracy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


1) The Scottish Parliament elections are in May. If the SNP say vote for us, and we'll push for another referendum, and the SNP win their projected landslide, another referendum is fine by me.

I disagree quite strongly on this point. They can push for one, certainly (I doubt any power on earth can stop them), but that doesn't mean they should be granted one. To copypaste from earlier:-

Secondly, this thing about, 'If a party gets elected to the Scottish Parliament with a subsection of their manifesto being "have another indy referendum" it has to be held or democracy is being thwarted' is inaccurate. Many parties put lots of things in their manifesto which are ignored by them after seizing power, and people vote for parties for many reasons other than a specific clause in a manifesto. Equating a vote for a party with a wholehearted endorsement of every item on their manifesto is plain daft.

A manifesto is a statement of intent. Nothing more, nothing less. If the party gets in and chooses to press for an indy ref, then that's their choice, but it still remains up to the will of the democratic majority of the UK as to whether or not it happens. Under UK law, only Westminster can authorise referendums. What the SNP chooses to campaign for is entirely their department. But they do not have the legal power or right to hold an indy ref, anymore than an elected councillor has the right to enforce an 'Invade Norway' part of their personal manifesto when elected. It's simply not up to them, and the people voting for them are not necessarily supporting every aspect of their manifesto.

2) Jeremy Corbyn says make me PM in 2020 and I'll scrap Trident and pull us out of NATO, and Corbyn becomes PM with a majority and does what he says he 's going to do, fine by me.

Wouldn't it make more sense to insist that there be a referendum on Trident and NATO? Rather than independence? Because as Corbyn can only get in with heavy Scottish support, why would there be a mandate for a referendum on Scottish independence in this scenario? He'd be there with as much Scottish support as from anyone else, and that's an issue that affects the whole country. It feels like another indyref is just being crowbarred in on the basis that it's a major policy change, and all such changes must now automatically be met with an indyref.

3) Out loses the EU referendum and UKIP says vote for us in 2020 and we'll pull out of Europe, and UKIP win a majority, fine by me.

As long as the voters know exactly what they're getting before they step into the polling booth, I don't have a problem with another referendum down the line or this and that happening. It's democracy.

Again here. It automatically assumes that the difference between Scottish/all other voters is significant enough to warrant another referendum, and that a massive portion of people consider the issue important enough to be worth splitting on.

I don't want to sound aggressive/rude to you here Do_I_Not_Like_That, as you've been nothing but a gentleman in discussing this. So please don't take it the wrong way when I say that the viewpoint above it exactly what bothers me. It's this idea that an 'indyref' is the normal response to any major policy change, the assumption that the 'Scottish people' will consider every potential event to be one worth leaving over. When it is just that, an assumption, and what's more, one based on a further assumption that Scotland will vote substantially differently to everyone else.

Now I'm not ruling that out as 'Will never happen', but I take the stance that if it does, we'll deal with it then at that stage. There's no need to frame every debate around the assumption that those two variables have already been ticked. Viewing and discussing every single prospect of a major policy shift through the lens of 'A new Scottish indyref might have to be held' just feels like a massive distraction from the actual potential policy shift itself. And it worries me that within a year, the indyref campaign has essentially switched onto the EU referendum as the next step to 'correct' the result of the last one. It worries me that this is going to be the norm, and repeated ad infinitum every single general election and policy shift.

And frankly, I don't have the energy to be reading and arguing about it that often!

I should have been more clearer on that Corbyn point. I don't want the Scottish referendum tacked onto a NATO/Trident decision, I'm just saying that Corbyn would have a justified mandate for scrapping Trident/ withdrawing from NATO, if he won a majority from campaigning on that issue at a General Election.

And the same goes for UKIP on the UKIP point I made.

Getting back to your original point, it may surprise you to know that I don't agree with the idea that the EU referendum vote is a justification for another Scottish independence referendum, even though I'm an independence supporter.

I believe that the merits of Scottish independence speak for themselves, and that Scotland will be independent if and when it should choose to be.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I should have been more clearer on that Corbyn point. I don't want the Scottish referendum tacked onto a NATO/Trident decision, I'm just saying that Corbyn would have a justified mandate for scrapping Trident/ withdrawing from NATO, if he won a majority from campaigning on that issue at a General Election.

I see.

In that case, I apologise, I misunderstood the thrust of what you were saying there.

Getting back to your original point, it may surprise you to know that I don't agree with the idea that the EU referendum vote is a justification for another Scottish independence referendum, even though I'm an independence supporter.

I believe that the merits of Scottish independence speak for themselves, and that Scotland will be independent if and when it should choose to be.

In that case, you and I disagree on nothing. Pint at Salute?

Ah jaysus, I'd love to chat about this with a pint with you guys. Making me nostalgic for living in Engerland!

 Da Boss wrote:
Ah jaysus, I'd love to chat about this with a pint with you guys. Making me nostalgic for living in Engerland!

I live in Scotland

Aye, but I used to live in Essex. Got to meet up with Ketara for a few games of 40k the one time.

Scotland is lovely though - met my Fiancee in Edinburgh.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I should have been more clearer on that Corbyn point. I don't want the Scottish referendum tacked onto a NATO/Trident decision, I'm just saying that Corbyn would have a justified mandate for scrapping Trident/ withdrawing from NATO, if he won a majority from campaigning on that issue at a General Election.

I see.

In that case, I apologise, I misunderstood the thrust of what you were saying there.

Getting back to your original point, it may surprise you to know that I don't agree with the idea that the EU referendum vote is a justification for another Scottish independence referendum, even though I'm an independence supporter.

I believe that the merits of Scottish independence speak for themselves, and that Scotland will be independent if and when it should choose to be.

In that case, you and I disagree on nothing. Pint at Salute?

We'd better get back OT, Ketara, but you're forgetting one important thing: the reason the SNP are banging on about another Scottish referendum resulting from the EU referendum, is party politics. The SNP are just doing what any good party would do in their position - reminding people they're there, and trying to be awkward. It's just party politics and if it annoys people in England, it only helps the SNP


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Aye, but I used to live in Essex. Got to meet up with Ketara for a few games of 40k the one time.

Scotland is lovely though - met my Fiancee in Edinburgh.

I prefer Glasgow to Edinburgh

I don't think this is going to work

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I prefer Glasgow to Edinburgh

I don't think this is going to work

Whereabouts in Scotland are you? 'Cause if it's Glasgow, I'll be heading up there in November for a few weeks for some research and a wargaming weekend.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ah jaysus, I'd love to chat about this with a pint with you guys. Making me nostalgic for living in Engerland!

I have a feeling ol' Angleland hasn't seen the last of you yet.....

November? I don't even know what I'm doing next week, never mind November!

One day at a time . I'm in the Dundee area - bit of a trek to Glasgow. We'll see what happens, I'll keep an open mind on it.

Anyway, let's get back OT.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's irrelevant to the EU debate, and off topic.

If some people think the Human Rights Act is connected to EU membership its a relevant factor , whether you or I agree with their premise or not.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's irrelevant to the EU debate, and off topic.

If some people think the Human Rights Act is connected to EU membership its a relevant factor , whether you or I agree with their premise or not.

I think the price of Zimbabwean potatoes is connected to the EU due to the CAP. This thread is now about potatoes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's irrelevant to the EU debate, and off topic.

If some people think the Human Rights Act is connected to EU membership its a relevant factor , whether you or I agree with their premise or not.

I think the price of Zimbabwean potatoes is connected to the EU due to the CAP. This thread is now about potatoes.

I expected a response like that. Its a 'flying spaghetti monster' reply, an absurdity the proponent likely doesn't actually believe in that everyone is expected to respect as equal to any other belief choice.
This thread is not about Zimbabwean potatoes.

There are people out there who think the ECHR is a part of the EU, its a reasonable mistake to make and explaining the difference is a reasonable and valid thread comment

The CAP fething over Africa big time is also very much related to the EU. You're right that people get the ECJ and the EU mixed up, but the difference between the two has already been covered.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's irrelevant to the EU debate, and off topic.

If some people think the Human Rights Act is connected to EU membership its a relevant factor , whether you or I agree with their premise or not.

It's not a matter of personal agreement, because this is not a premise.

The HRA is not connected with EU membership. This is a clear fact that has been stated three times so far.

How many more times does the same fact have to be repeated for people to accept it? There comes a point where you have to give up and pass on to another topic.

Perhaps I should write a copy-and-paste fact sheet about it that I can use every few posts.

This is part of why I find this whole referendum so depressing. A lot of people are going to make a decision not based on facts or reasonable deductions from facts, but based on lies they've been told by various people and newspapers.

Agreed. This referendum will be decided on lies, deceit and gut instinct. Many people do believe that the Human Rights Act and the Convention of Human Rights are tied in with membership of the EU, and leaving the EU will also cause the HRA to be appealed. It won't. Anyone who thinks so is wrong and must be told so.

Except I highly doubt anyone will bring is up in a debate because it could badly affect both sides. People afraid of voting out because they are afraid of a Tory dictatorship might then vote out because they know that the HRA will still stand until the government gets around to appealing it.

Whereas people who are only voting out to get rid of the HRA might then vote in because it will remain in place regardless of what side they go for.

Well, looks like the mirrors have cracked and the smoke machine broke on Cameron's EU non-deal.

Members of the European Parliament today (24 February) cast doubt on Prime Minister David Cameron’s deal to curb EU migrant benefits, raising the possibility of voting down the emergency brake after the 23 June referendum on Britain’s membership of the bloc.

Source

Also, this quote from Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister that I saw doing the rounds just makes a mockery of Cameron:

“the real debate was about there being benefits which workers do not pay for, but for which they are nonetheless eligible. The question was what should happen with benefits paid to third-country nationals, for which no contributions are paid in Britain. Here, too, we have succeeded in ensuring that these social benefits cannot be taken away… This means that we have even succeeded in protecting benefits which people working in the United Kingdom did not pay for in the form of contributions.”

Can't blame Orban here - he's looking out for his own. Can't really say that about Cameron though. Unless you mean looking out for just his cronies.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains!"

Figured as much.


Hold on, if we vote to stay in and the EU then says we aren't giving you any deals, could we then have another referendum?

There's been a lot of talk about people being de-registered from the electoral roll, so I got on the dog and bone to find out if I had been affected by the new changes. Luckily, I'm fine, but If people here are not sure, give them a bell. Doesn't even take two minutes.

Don't lose your chance to vote - you've got until mid-May or something to register for the June 23rd vote. Plenty of time.

T

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I live in Scotland

Same.

Da Boss wrote:Aye, but I used to live in Essex. Got to meet up with Ketara for a few games of 40k the one time.

Scotland is lovely though - met my Fiancee in Edinburgh.

Mrs.deadnight is a native of that wonderful city too. And apparently, I am now a leither.

T

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I prefer Glasgow to Edinburgh

Poor deluded fool!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm in the Dundee area - bit of a trek to Glasgow.

Anyway, let's get back OT.

Dundee? Even worse! :p

Off topic, but we need to do a thing now. Common ground games at Stirling?

But on topic: as an Irish, I'm a little bit concerned of the potential consequences of the U.K. Leaving the eu on Northern Ireland. I'd rather in, personally, but then again, I'm an Irish guy living in Scotland - I'm used to the idea of a bunch of foreigners with funny accents legislating around me, and again, considering I'm Irish, not too fond of the idea of leaving 'my own people' in charge, considering the mess they made of the old country,

As a 17-year-old I'm appalled I will not get a say in this, possibly the most important decision my country will make for a very long time and one that will affect me indefinitely. If anything, It's my generation this will hit the hardest as it will be us who might have to move into the working world or University during the possible transition period. The 2014 Scottish Independence referendum lowered their voting age to 16 because they believed these young adults should get a say in the choice that will entirely shape the future of their country, and now that an arguably much bigger decision is on the horizon we're being excluded?

The age should be lowered to 16+ for this referendum, if not indefinitely. In this modern technological age it's could be argued that many Young adults are more up to date with current affairs than many adults due to growing up in a culturally expanding and information driven society.

Whatever the age threshold for elections is set at, there'll always be people who just miss that threshold and therefore are not eligible to vote. If you lower it to 16, then you'll have people complaining that 15 year olds are missing out. I missed the chance to chance to vote in the 2010 General Election by two weeks, as my birthday is on May 22.

And not being eligible to vote doesn't mean you have no say, you can still campaign.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
As a 17-year-old I'm appalled I will not get a say in this, possibly the most important decision my country will make for a very long time and one that will affect me indefinitely. If anything, It's my generation this will hit the hardest as it will be us who might have to move into the working world or University during the possible transition period. The 2014 Scottish Independence referendum lowered their voting age to 16 because they believed these young adults should get a say in the choice that will entirely shape the future of their country, and now that an arguably much bigger decision is on the horizon we're being excluded?

The age should be lowered to 16+ for this referendum, if not indefinitely. In this modern technological age it's could be argued that many Young adults are more up to date with current affairs than many adults due to growing up in a culturally expanding and information driven society.

I don't know. As an adult, I'm entirely comfortable with under 18's not having the vote. I'm not so far removed from it that I don't remember the fact that most 16 & 17 year olds I knew had the political awareness of a chipmunk (and that's including the ones taking Politics at A level). Not that the 18 and 19 year olds were much better, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If you're going to lower it, why 17 and not 16? Why 16 and not 15?

I acknowledge if you're interested, it must feel quite patronising and unnecessarily restrictive, but then again, not being able to buy alcohol also feels that way at 17. You're more or less at the point where your cognitive skills are reaching/have reached their full potential, so it all seems inherently unfair. Unfortunately, whilst the reasoning skills tend to be peaking, in terms of empirical experience and maturity, someone under 18 is nowhere near a full baked adult. Certain parts of the brain don't even finish developing until you hit 21.

I don't say this to condescend, more to justify my belief that 18 years is as good an age as any to set the vote at, alongside drinking and various other activities.

Yeah, you might be a good and upstanding politically minded 17 year old, but how many of your peers are of the same cloth? Many of the 16-17 year olds can't be trusted to maintain the same decision for more than a few weeks. Me included.