Alex Salmond: A second Scottish referendum is inevitible

[Macro]

@Macro: I'm not Scottish. I very well respect their will. If their will changes I would continue to respect it.

You, on the other hand, want to only respect their will while it aligns with your own.

Not at all, unlike you I respect will of Scottish voters either way. The Scottish electorate made their wishes clear and so we move forward on that basis, or should we have a referendum every third week in case people have changed their minds because they were somehow too thick to understand the implications at the vote a year ago?

 

[Macro]

You are wasting your time FoxEye trying to have a reasonable conversation with the unionists here. They accuse me of being a cultist and what not, but at the same time they seem to have an inability to read back to themselves the nonsense they are posting.

I just like to come here from time to time and poke them with a stick. It's a good laugh and so easy.

Ahh... the time honoured excuse of the defeated when made to look foolish "I didn't really mean to be serious, I was just kidding"...

As transparent as the Nationalist bid for power for their political elite" in spite of the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.

Feel free to pop back and make yourself look more silly any time you're bored, you're quite funny.

 

[FoxEye]

Not at all, unlike you I respect will of Scottish voters either way. The Scottish electorate made their wishes clear and so we move forward on that basis, or should we have a referendum every third week in case people have changed their minds because they were somehow too think to understand the implications at the vote a year ago?

Once in a generation is a bit silly tho.

What if we only held general elections once in a generation? Would that be fair and democratic?

Would you want a government you couldn't stand to be in power for 20 years? What if after 5 years they were so unpopular that even the people who elected them wanted them out, but had to stick with them for 15 more years?

 

[McPhee]

If they become a minority then they must accept that.

If they become a minority in the next five years, then why should they hold the majority to ransom for 15 more years? Especially if for some reason it becomes 60/40 in favour of leaving, or worse.

If the Scots at some future point want to leave, why wouldn't you let them? What possible benefit could there be to keeping a union one party doesn't want?

@Macro: I'm not Scottish. I very well respect their will. If their will changes I would continue to respect it.

You, on the other hand, want to only respect their will while it aligns with your own.

This.

While Independence remains popular, why should the idea be put to bed for 20 years? Five to eight years should be sufficient for some change to take place, for people to reflect on the decision made in 2014 and to properly test the longevity of the Nationalist movement. If there's still the desire for another referendum as this decade draws to a close then I can't see why Scotland shouldn't have it.

 

[Macro]

Once in a generation is a bit silly tho.

Once in a generation was the mantra of the nationalists when they thought they would win, not the unionists... Cake and eat it springs to mind

 

[Macro]

This.

While Independence remains popular, why should the idea be put to bed for 20 years? .

Because that's what the nationalists, SNP and Wee Wreck told us the vote was based on? Indeed quoting Alex Salmond, 'settled for a generation, possibly for a lifetime', or are you suggesting the too poor, too wee, too stupid Scottish voter misunderstood what the question was somehow?

 

[McPhee]

Because that's what the nationalists, SNP and Wee Wreck told us the vote was based on? Indeed quoting Alex Salmond, 'settled for a generation, possibly for a lifetime', or are you suggesting the too poor, too wee, too stupid Scottish voter misunderstood what the question was somehow?

Nope. I'm suggesting that if nationalism continues to grow, revisiting the matter is inevitable. It would appear that you're the one too stupid to understand why.

Personally, I'm hoping support for independence starts to drop over the next few years as Holyrood gains more powers. Time will tell. To be clear, I'd only support the idea of another referendum if there is clear evidence of a sustained and significant growth (over a number of years) in support for independence. Otherwise, you're right, it would be totally pointless and simply a case of asking the question until the right answer is returned.

 

[Macro]

Nope. I'm suggesting that if nationalism continues to grow, revisiting the matter is inevitable.

It would appear that you're the one too stupid to understand why.

Oooh, getting a little tetchy and resorting to personal insults when your posturing is shown to be little more than arrogant political waffle despite directly contradicting the democratically expressed will of Scots. Shame on you... To be fair that brand of aggressive twaddle is pretty much all the nats have. So here we are, apparently I'm too stupid to have understood the question and its implications. Please, explain it in simple words to me and maybe ask the question again on a regular basis until I get the answer right.

 

[lovelyhead]

Oooh, getting a little tetchy and resorting to personal insults when your posturing is shown to be little more than arrogant political waffle despite directly contradicting the democratically expressed will of Scots. Shame on you... To be fair that brand of aggressive twaddle is pretty much all the nats have. So here we are, apparently I'm too stupid to have understood the question and its implications. Please, explain it in simple words to me and maybe ask the question again on a regular basis until I get the answer right.

It's hilarious how self unaware you are!

 

[McPhee]

Oooh, getting a little tetchy and resorting to personal insults when your posturing is shown to be little more than arrogant political waffle despite directly contradicting the democratically expressed will of Scots. Shame on you... To be fair that brand of aggressive twaddle is pretty much all the nats have. So here we are, apparently I'm too stupid to have understood the question and its implications. Please, explain it in simple words to me and maybe ask the question again on a regular basis until I get the answer right.

...I'm not a nationalist. I'm a pro-Union Scot living in England. I really, really don't want to see Scotland leave the Union. However, I'm also very aware that if the nationalist movement continues to grow over the next five years to the point where there's a clear and consistent majority (>60%) supporting independence, then another referendum is inevitable and necessary.

 

[Mr Badger]

Surely all the desperate pro-independence rhetoric and demands for another referendum in this thread are just blatant trolling? Everyone that qualifies for the vote in the UK will get their say regarding their next government, local councils etc. I struggle to believe that anyone could be too stupid to understand that a referendum to split up a country is simply not something that you revisit on a regular basis. And if you do go down that road, what happens in the years following a vote for independence if/when the majority say they have changed their minds and want to re-unify?

Not quite sure why I got sucked into replying to this anyway, but hey ho...

 

[McPhee]

Surely all the desperate pro-independence rhetoric and demands for another referendum in this thread are just blatant trolling? Everyone that qualifies for the vote in the UK will get their say regarding their next government, local councils etc. I struggle to believe that anyone could be too stupid to understand that a referendum to split up a country is simply not something that you revisit on a regular basis. And if you do go down that road, what happens in the years following a vote for independence if/when the majority say they have changed their minds and want to re-unify?

Not quite sure why I got sucked into replying to this anyway, but hey ho...

You're not wrong. You can't revisit it regularly. There would need to be significant evidence that running the vote again would be worthwhile, otherwise there's a danger of the vote being repeated until the 'right' answer is returned with a narrow victory.

The problem is, putting a timescale to when the vote can be run again is stupid. The referendum should only take place again if and when the 'Yes' camp can demonstrate a sustained and significant increase in their support. If that takes five years, fine. If it takes fifty, again, fine. If they never get there, great. Suggesting that the vote can only be run at a set and distant time in the future simply makes no sense - support could fall and the Nats would still want their referendum in 2034.

 

[Elixir]

...I'm not a nationalist. I'm a pro-Union Scot living in England. I really, really don't want to see Scotland leave the Union. However, I'm also very aware that if the nationalist movement continues to grow over the next five years to the point where there's a clear and consistent majority (>60%) supporting independence, then another referendum is inevitable and necessary.

The thing is, that's not happening and the increase in Yes>No in polls where the No side are less interested is not an indicator of that. Polls are rarely reliable immediately before elections/referendums and they certainly aren't reliable now.

 

[Tefal]

This.

While Independence remains popular, why should the idea be put to bed for 20 years? Five to eight years should be sufficient for some change to take place, for people to reflect on the decision made in 2014 and to properly test the longevity of the Nationalist movement. If there's still the desire for another referendum as this decade draws to a close then I can't see why Scotland shouldn't have it.

Because constantly threatening to leave means that it would be stupid of the UK government to I vest any serious infrastructure or money in Scotland as it could all be wasted.

 

[Tefal]

You're not wrong. You can't revisit it regularly. There would need to be significant evidence that running the vote again would be worthwhile, otherwise there's a danger of the vote being repeated until the 'right' answer is returned with a narrow victory.

The problem is, putting a timescale to when the vote can be run again is stupid. The referendum should only take place again if and when the 'Yes' camp can demonstrate a sustained and significant increase in their support. If that takes five years, fine. If it takes fifty, again, fine. If they never get there, great. Suggesting that the vote can only be run at a set and distant time in the future simply makes no sense - support could fall and the Nats would still want their referendum in 2034.

So if they vote yes and during the two years negotiation the opinion polls swing to a majority wanting to not leave after all are they just ducked?

 

[Tefal]

If they become a minority then they must accept that.

If they become a minority in the next five years, then why should they hold the majority to ransom for 15 more years? Especially if for some reason it becomes 60/40 in favour of leaving, or worse.

If the Scots at some future point want to leave, why wouldn't you let them? What possible benefit could there be to keeping a union one party doesn't want?

@Macro: I'm not Scottish. I very well respect their will. If their will changes I would continue to respect it.

You, on the other hand, want to only respect their will while it aligns with your own.

Why do only the acts get a vote why doesn't the rest of the UK get a vote every few years to see if we want to keep Scotland?

 

[Jokester]

Is the man not allowed to have an opinion? A "****" eh. What are you, 15? Wait, that explains everything.

How cute. An opinion? Sure he can have one, doesn't mean it's justifiable or acceptable though does it and as one of our leading public representatives we have absolutely every right to call him out on it.

 

[xs2man]

The problem with holding another referendum within 5 years or so of the last one, is it does feed the short sighted goals of the pro-independence lobby. It does not serve the good of the country in the slightest.

We currently have a Tory majority in power. And they will be in power for the next 4 or so years at least. This isn't necessarily a government that Scots can get behind. And can have a huge effect on the result of any such referendum. Would a Labour government being in power have the same affect on such a referendum? I doubt it.

So the problem with having the vote too often is that it will be more heavily influenced by whatever government is in charge of the UK at the time. If you hold one less regularly, once in a generation, then the electorate can base their decision on the basis of what it actually means, rather than as an opportunity to get free of the current government.

Sure, maybe 55% of those polled would now vote for independence. But is that because we now have a Tory majority, or because people actually want independence? You have to be careful that any referendum isn't held so frequently that it has the possibility of becoming a protest vote against the current government.

Another referendum just now would be tragic. We have a Tory majority, and no opposition to speak of. That bodes well for the Nats. What if we had a strong Labour opposition just now? Would the polling be so much in the Yes camp? What if we had a Labour majority with Corben at the helm? Would the Yes vote still be so strong?

Obviously it's difficult to tell. But you simply don't want such an important decision to be based, in whole or in part, on the mood towards the current government. Which is why a decade between refs is a good thing. As it lets the people base their choices on more of an "average" of UK governments, than on what the current UK government is.

Plus, Jokester is correct. Salmond is a ****, and Sturgeon is a vile, vile woman. All the problems we have with our NHS, she is quick to blame the UK government, but not herself, who was Secretary for Health, over a DEVOLVED issue. The only thing she has said in the past few years that is actually of any value, is that we should do more to help the refugees trying to enter Europe. Beyond that, she is just a muppet.

 

[gjrc]

please can everyone let this thread die so Rab C Troll can **** ***

 

[Macro]

It's hilarious how self unaware you are!

Irony, right there in action.. ! lol