Caporegime
If you don't want to have another referendum on Scottish independence, don't vote for a party whose only real principle is that Scotland should be an independent country. Simples.
Scottish Inderef Mk2 - lets have a civilized discussion folks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,029
If you have placed your vote for a party who have said they would call for a second referendum if the brexit vote went a certain way, then you shouldn't be surprised if they do it. As I pointed out in my earlier posts, the biggest problem is that the SNP have it sewn up in scotland due to other parties going after populist votes in England. The problem will remain until there's a viable alternative to voting SNP
Don
OK, I get you, it is the Scottish people's fault...
...And the British parties because they do not give them any real alternatives to vote for, policy-wise.
Caporegime
If by "fault" you mean that they got the government they voted for, then yes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,029
happy to listen to alternative views?
Who should the centre left voters vote for in scotland, which party broadly represents those views who haven't been shown to abandon their principles at westminster to gain english votes?
Don
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,029
You don't really seem to be offering any opinion, it's hard to judge your tone tbh - if you don't think my posts are correct then let's hear a different take on it
Have they actually got a dependent budget that Scotland in its current state ( which is still middle of the road with lots of closures happen under the SNP happening), could maintain and sustain and improve itself over 10 years?
Have they told or even mention what they would do for Northern fisheries that have been wiped out by EU trade and fishing rights?
Last time they never touched on a single actual issue, now I gather this is the norm in any of these kinds of votes, but it was staggering how last time they seemed to not be held to any kind of idea any of the economics would work. The only thing was Salmond and Nicola seem to think they are the Saudis of Scotland with some dribble of oil, and that's well and truly to be shown as a false herring that would dump Scotland in a heartbeat should prices fall again ( which they will).
Have they told or even mention what they would do for Northern fisheries that have been wiped out by EU trade and fishing rights?
Last time they never touched on a single actual issue, now I gather this is the norm in any of these kinds of votes, but it was staggering how last time they seemed to not be held to any kind of idea any of the economics would work. The only thing was Salmond and Nicola seem to think they are the Saudis of Scotland with some dribble of oil, and that's well and truly to be shown as a false herring that would dump Scotland in a heartbeat should prices fall again ( which they will).
Don
It can be difficult to judge opinions in text and maybe I have not made it particularly clear anyway so I'll try and make it so.
Essentially, I do not think the SNP should be allowed to have a second referendum. A first one was fair enough, the Scottish people voted to stay in the UK and that choice should be respected. I personally don't care whether Scotland leave or stay overall, as long as a split means a full split, no financial help from the UK or "damages" to be paid, however if those in power have a referendum to decide something and do not get what they want, it sets a bad precedence for democracy in general. The same could be said for Bexit.
Man of Honour
Did you miss the bit that I said these were local councillors? You know, people who are elected to make decisions on local policies not national ones. As an example, we have many, many windfarm applications here in Moray and probably have more of the damn things than any other county in Scotland. The SNP councillors always vote inline with party policy and vote for them while councillors from other parties have a mixture of votes, mainly against now that we have so many windfarms here. It's the same story with other votes and the SNP councillors always vote the same and inline with party policy. Party politics should have very little to do with local councils and it should be more to do with local needs. This is why a lot of people vote for independant nominees only to find out that independant doesn't really mean independant when they all join up together once elected. Anyway, like I said, it will be interesting to see how the SNP get on come May 4th.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,029
I see, so you think that to give people a chance to vote on an issue is setting a bad precedence for democratcy when proposed by a party who had it as a manifesto commitment and subsequently formed the government and followed through on it?
Don
No, that's not what I said at all. They were given a chance and voted on it. How is that hard for you to understand?
Caporegime
They've had the chance. Democracy isn't getting a re-vote everything something doesn't go your way.
The referendum was decided the first time around to remain in the U.K., there was always going to be vote on the E.U. in the future. This is something everybody knew when voting the first time around.
The SNP have managed to use a single issue as their reason to hold a new referendum (let's be honest it will pass and take place at some point).
The only upside to this is that given the timetable Teresa May is expected to allow it provides the opportunity to get us a great deal for the U.K. As a whole and then the SNP argument for independence falls apart.
The SNP have managed to use a single issue as their reason to hold a new referendum (let's be honest it will pass and take place at some point).
The only upside to this is that given the timetable Teresa May is expected to allow it provides the opportunity to get us a great deal for the U.K. As a whole and then the SNP argument for independence falls apart.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,029
I see, so the first time they promised it in an election manifesto and were voted in, that was fair enough - but when they said in the most recent one that they would call one if there was a material change, such as Scotland being voted out of the EU(and get voted in again) it's not ok this time and bad for democracy?
Don
No.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,029
So who gets to decide when it's democratic if not the general voters? or should every parties manifesto have to be approved by someone deciding whether the commitments in it would be undemocratic before they are allowed to put it to voters?
It's interesting to see where the line is for "democracy"
Soldato
Referendums are inherently bad for a representative democracy making significant decisions based on a couple of percentage points in a mass vote is never going to lead to a satisfactory outcome as you only have to convince 50.1% of the turnout that your crackpot idea is the best hence these things have been banned in Germany since the 40's!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,029
I don't disagree with that, I always thought the minimum percentage should have been x amount over 50% rather than 50% - but that's a different debate altogether!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}