Alex Salmond: A second Scottish referendum is inevitible

yonderblue · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:13

These so called extensive new powers in the Vow/Smith Commission and new Scotland Bill are poisoned chalice and will never be used and the SNP knows this, just like the Calman Commission they are also a poisoned chalice.

Gordon Brown the clown went on and on about Home Rule of Scotland with this vow, Even said it on TV a number of times:-

"[Gordon Brown] unveils a fast-track timetable for ‘nothing less than a modern form of Scottish Home Rule’ that has been agreed with David Cameron and Ed Miliband.” (The Telegraph) https://archive.today/DybSN

“Brown: Scots being offered ‘home rule within UK’“ (Channel 4)
http://www.channel4.com/news/gordon-brown-scots-being-offered-home-rule-within-uk

“Gordon Brown has set out plans for a timetable towards a ‘modern form of Scottish home rule’ if voters reject independence in next week’s referendum.” (The Scotsman)
https://archive.today/vD6Fe

“Gordon Brown promised Scots ‘home rule’ within the UK if they vote No yesterday as panic engulfed Westminster.” (Press & Journal)
https://archive.today/UWWw8

Brown the Clown and Home Rule for Scotland:-
http://youtu.be/Kt4dvzdHs9g

Stuff the Vow and Home Rule the only way is Independence now.

lovelyhead · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:13

cyclops12 said:
No that's what Gordon brown was going on about and tried to get.

The vow itself done by the big three (the ones who could offer anything) doesn't mention FFA, home rule or devo max.

It offered more devolution and extensive new powers.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992

Yes he said that. Glad we agree that it was promised by a prominent unionist politician.

As for the vow, that has been reneged on. No one even wants to claim ownership of it. The vow turned into the Smith Commission which is a joke which goes nowhere near devo max. Control over road signs and airport tax. Brilliant.

Glaucus said:
That sure shut him up.

uh uh uh girlfriend!

Danthus · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:14

D3K said:
People seem to be overlooking Salmonds number 1 reason for another referendum - the lack of delivery of devo max style powers.

Salmond didn't want a Devo Max option on the ballot did he, he wanted an in or out referendum, he got it.

ubersonic · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:17

lovelyhead said:
Yes he said that. Glad we agree that it was promised by a prominent unionist politician.

Promised? No it was suggested by a Scottish MP and laughed it.

lovelyhead · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:17

SPG said:
Hell you cant even build a tram on time (or cost) or the national assembly for that matter due to "complications"

Weak.

Trams = Labour

Scotland has a parliament. I think you must be getting confused with another part of the colonies. Plus that was Labour too.

A lot of people on here happy to post completely uninformed opinions.

OldCoals said:
Salmond didn't want a Devo Max option on the ballot did he, he wanted an in or out referendum, he got it.

No he did but Cameron said no. Get your facts right.

ubersonic said:
Promised? No it was suggested by a Scottish MP and laughed it.

Oh, who laughed at it? I don't remember Cameron, Clegg or Milliband coming out against him.

yonderblue said:
These so called extensive new powers in the Vow/Smith Commission and new Scotland Bill are poisoned chalice and will never be used and the SNP knows this, just like the Calman Commission they are also a poisoned chalice.

Gordon Brown the clown went on and on about Home Rule of Scotland with this vow, Even said it on TV a number of times:-

"[Gordon Brown] unveils a fast-track timetable for ‘nothing less than a modern form of Scottish Home Rule’ that has been agreed with David Cameron and Ed Miliband.” (The Telegraph) https://archive.today/DybSN

“Brown: Scots being offered ‘home rule within UK’“ (Channel 4)
http://www.channel4.com/news/gordon-brown-scots-being-offered-home-rule-within-uk

“Gordon Brown has set out plans for a timetable towards a ‘modern form of Scottish home rule’ if voters reject independence in next week’s referendum.” (The Scotsman)
https://archive.today/vD6Fe

“Gordon Brown promised Scots ‘home rule’ within the UK if they vote No yesterday as panic engulfed Westminster.” (Press & Journal)
https://archive.today/UWWw8

Brown the Clown and Home Rule for Scotland:-
http://youtu.be/Kt4dvzdHs9g

Stuff the Vow and Home Rule the only way is Independence now.

Yes agreed. Unionist promises are worthless.

yonderblue · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:25

lovelyhead said:
A lot of people on here happy to post completely uninformed opinions.

Nothing new that with the Britnat's, That's what happens with a diet of Daily Mail, biased mainstream media on the TV and press.

mmj_uk · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:26

I don't see why the people of Scotland shouldn't be allowed to vote on their independence in the future as long as there is at least 4-5yrs between each referendum. I'd be livid at the election result if I was Scottish, they're basically just being outvoted by the English who seem to have some sadistic fetish for austerity aimed at the poor and vulnerable.

Perhaps our government will be inclined to listen to the will of the people if they have the threat of Scottish independence looming over them continually, you know like a real democracy where politicians don't just tell lies to get elected and then do as they please for 5yrs.

Tefal · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:28

mmj_uk said:
I don't see why the people of Scotland shouldn't be allowed to vote on their independence in the future, as long as there is at least 4-5yrs between each referendum.

Perhaps our government will be inclined to listen to the will of the people if they have the threat of Scottish independence looming over them continually.

4-5 years? so once a parliament?

genuine question but do you think eventually people would just stop bothing to vote if you held one every 5 years and it would be the side with then least apathy that would win?

ubersonic · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:39

mmj_uk said:
I don't see why the people of Scotland shouldn't be allowed to vote on their independence in the future as long as there is at least 4-5yrs between each referendum.

That's absolutely ridiculous, it should be once a generation maximum.

Do you even know how much damage the last referendum did to Scotland and the UK? That simply cannot be allowed to occur every five years.

cyclops12 · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:41

lovelyhead said:
Yes he said that. Glad we agree that it was promised by a prominent unionist politician.

As for the vow, that has been reneged on. No one even wants to claim ownership of it. The vow turned into the Smith Commission which is a joke which goes nowhere near devo max. Control over road signs and airport tax. Brilliant.

Ahh so you're taking what a back bencher was trying to promise over what the three party leaders did promise?

It even says in your links “Gordon Brown is in no position to offer anything – he is a back-bench MP, and the Tories are in power at Westminster.

As for the vow, you're getting more tax powers, extensive powers over welfare, housing ect.. just as promised.

The SNP have said what was promised isn't enough and want more, good luck to them if they get them.

estebanrey · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:50

D3K said:
People seem to be overlooking Salmonds number 1 reason for another referendum - the lack of delivery of devo max style powers.

This is a major reason that many people voted No in the end. Brown came swanning in to sweet talk everyone, the party leaders crapped their pants and offered the world. Now they haven't delivered.

How that can be construed as the SNP throwing their toys out of the pram is mind-boggling. That reason alone is enough to have another referendum, without looking at the other reasons.

But so many trolls here, or actual bigots, just looking for the cynical angle wherever possible when it comes to Scotland's affairs.

The referendum was 10 months ago, don't you think it's a little early to be talking about broken promises? The annoying thing is this argument came out less than a month after the referendum as if something like Devo Max was going to be delivered the morning after the 'No' vote.

Also, if it had have been 'Yes' and Salmond hadn't secured the pound as currency and sorted out the issue of Scotland's EU membership by now do you think he'd be saying "oh well better have another referendum then" on the same logic? Like hell, would he.

lovelyhead · 28 Jul 2015 at 14:13

yonderblue said:
Nothing new that with the Britnat's, That's what happens with a diet of Daily Mail, biased mainstream media on the TV and press.

Yes the propaganda machine is very effective.

mmj_uk said:
I don't see why the people of Scotland shouldn't be allowed to vote on their independence in the future as long as there is at least 4-5yrs between each referendum. I'd be livid at the election result if I was Scottish, they're basically just being outvoted by the English who seem to have some sadistic fetish for austerity aimed at the poor and vulnerable.

Perhaps our government will be inclined to listen to the will of the people if they have the threat of Scottish independence looming over them continually, you know like a real democracy where politicians don't just tell lies to get elected and then do as they please for 5yrs.

If nothing else, having 56 SNP MP's at Westminster has proven how unequal this "union" is.

Tefal said:
4-5 years? so once a parliament?

genuine question but do you think eventually people would just stop bothing to vote if you held one every 5 years and it would be the side with then least apathy that would win?

If they were fed up with it they would stop voting for the SNP.

ubersonic said:
That's absolutely ridiculous, it should be once a generation maximum.

Do you even know how much damage the last referendum did to Scotland and the UK? That simply cannot be allowed to occur every five years.

Ah another anti democracy advocate. Seems to be a lot of them here.

ubersonic · 28 Jul 2015 at 14:26

lovelyhead said:
Ah another anti democracy advocate. Seems to be a lot of them here.

You're embarrassing yourself now, branding anybody "an anti democracy advocate" if they don't think it's right to hold a democratic vote and then the losing side re-run it because they didn't win.

You sound like Salmond branding anybody who didn't support independence as anti-Scottish or traitors.

--------------------

Also, if you want to reply to more than one post at a time, just click "multi +" on all of them except the last one, then click quote on that and it will put them all in one post, so you can reply to them without spamming the thread.

TwsT · 28 Jul 2015 at 14:30

lovelyhead said:
If they were fed up with it they would stop voting for the SNP.

I think you miss understand why they voted for the snp.

SNP was an anti Westminster vote not a we want to leave the union vote.

but I highly doubt that the holy rood vote will be such an easy SNP victory.

The SNP will not run against labour in Scotland on the back of a referendum pledge. That is not why they won this time and probably won't ever be.

There is no risk to the 55% of Scottish people who voted NO to let the snp do what labour are incapable of doing in Westminster. In fact you could argue it's in their interest at this point given that Labour are as to para-phrase Frankie Boyle "as Effective as an out of office email, at being an opposition". Ed Miliband couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery and what he's left behind is an omni-shambles of idiots with no spine.

Tefal · 28 Jul 2015 at 14:31

lovelyhead said:
Oh please. British nationalism is the one of the UK's biggest money makers.

ubersonic · 28 Jul 2015 at 14:33

WAIT A MINUTE!

Blind love of independance: Check!

Brands anyone who disagrees undemocratic/anti-scottish: Check!

Unable to multiquote his replies: Check!

Has anyone checked his IP against Biohazard's? XD

Five.Stars · 28 Jul 2015 at 14:40

lovelyhead said:
That is your opinion. Senior SNP ministers hold a different opinion:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...rmission_to_hold_a_second_independence_vote_/

No it is not an opinion. It is a legal FACT. What the senior SNP minister, is in effect saying, is we will have an unofficial and non legally binding referendum and then IF the result was in favour of leaving the UK apply pressure to Westminster.

Can you not see the flawed logic in that? FFS, how often will we hold this unofficial referenda? Every year until they get the result they want?

Give it a rest. Scotland has spoken. That is it, done and dusted for at least a generation.

KillBoY_UK · 28 Jul 2015 at 14:41

lovelyhead said:
Ah another anti democracy advocate. Seems to be a lot of them here.

A referendum every 5 years would be detrimental for Scotland, little long term planning could be done by local/uk/Scotish governments as you would have no idea what the status of the country would be. Major business investments/decisions could be affected for similar reasons.

A second Scottish referendum is inevitable its the time frame that's in general. "once in lifetime" seem perfectly fair as to me a lifetime or generation in this instance is 15-20 years.

Then again this is the SNP and Alex we are talking about who like to change there tune when it suits them like most other politicians and nationalist.

Five.Stars · 28 Jul 2015 at 14:47

lovelyhead said:
This tired argument. We have accepted it.

You clearly have not Sir! That isn't even up for any kind of debate.

lovelyhead · 28 Jul 2015 at 15:03

ubersonic said:
You're embarrassing yourself now, branding anybody "an anti democracy advocate" if they don't think it's right to hold a democratic vote and then the losing side re-run it because they didn't win.

You sound like Salmond branding anybody who didn't support independence as anti-Scottish or traitors.

--------------------

Also, if you want to reply to more than one post at a time, just click "multi +" on all of them except the last one, then click quote on that and it will put them all in one post, so you can reply to them without spamming the thread.

No you are twisting what I am saying. If you took the effort to read the whole thread you would see why you are wrong.

TwsT said:
I think you miss understand why they voted for the snp.

SNP was an anti Westminster vote not a we want to leave the union vote.

but I highly doubt that the holy rood vote will be such an easy SNP victory.

The SNP will not run against labour in Scotland on the back of a referendum pledge. That is not why they won this time and probably won't ever be.

There is no risk to the 55% of Scottish people who voted NO to let the snp do what labour are incapable of doing in Westminster. In fact you could argue it's in their interest at this point given that Labour are as to para-phrase Frankie Boyle "as Effective as an out of office email, at being an opposition". Ed Miliband couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery and what he's left behind is an omni-shambles of idiots with no spine.

That is a nice little opinion piece you wrote there. Here are the latest Panelbase polls measuring Holyrood voting intentions:

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/peachy-panelbase-poll-puts-snp-on-53.html

Labour are not coming back from that.