Jump to content

Scottish Independence Referendum 2


shull

Recommended Posts


Just now, W6er said:

Aye, but he tends to putt from the rough...

Very unlikely to get it in first time. (Or is that just hearsay?) Word is that he is on Tinder known as Big Boy for very obvious reasons. Magnifying glass supplied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, antrin said:

No, I don’t “well know everyone expected” that.

it was billed as a non-binding referendum.

I certainly didn’t think it would followed through.  I know of people who didn’t vote as it was just another stupid Tory “party management” game.

if you see a bus coming down a road, then someone says “it’s a train”, it doesn’t actually turn the bus into a train.

 

it was only a referendum.

Come on antrin, I live down here too and apart from the official description as a non binding referendum there nothing in the press, news, rhetoric from either side that indicated that the government would not honour the result whatever that may have been. You and I know the bus was a bus but it was barrelling down the road like a train and people were expecting it to be one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, SS, no.

it was a clearly non-binding stupidity set up stupidly by stupid Cameron.
 

Most referenda (if they are for purposes of “binding”) have certain levels of participation and qualifications set in stone, before they start. (In order to balance out/cancel those who don’t vote anyway.)

UK (unlike many other EU countries) is not in the practice of doing referenda.  THAT is why we have f**kin governments. 

Politicians are elected - and remunerated to do that job.  Brexit was a cop-out.  I was and am infuriated by it.

the Brexit referendum was an abnegation of decision-making, just so that Cameron and co would not be blamed by the fruitcakes in their own party when “the people had spoken!”  They assumed it would be a clear NO.

And, if the normal checks and balances had been built into that referendum, it would never have passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took time after the result before brexit was said that it would actually happen.  As it WAS just a referendum.  It wasn’t a done deal on the day after.  It took cheating and manipulation of reality.

Also remember that it was Murdoch, Rothermere and the Barclay brothers (all of whose profits from their papers gets squirrelled away offshore!) who generated a frenzy of support for that spurious result…. So that the inept politicians eventually fell in line.

it was stolen by people who saw EU law coming down the line that would hamper their capacity to plunder UK pockets.

Rees-Mogadishu (stet) was a virulent Brexit supporter simply because it profited his off-shore hedge fund dealings.

 

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, StanleySaint said:

Not disagreeing with the main thrust of your last two posts but in reality it was never going to result in anything other than action to implement which side won unless it was so close as to be able to be wormed out of, the rest I'm generally in agreement with.

Well…

…no action was needed to STAY in EU.  

Apart from a referendum (only implemented to pacify the unpacifiable fruitcakes on the Tory right) that should have been reasonably configured to ensure that a decent, realistic majority for such a drastic change would reflect a genuine will of the people.

As it was, it was a close call: 38% of the entire UK population wanting to leave the European Union and roughly 35% wanting to remain in the European Union

That wasn’t a clear “will of the people”!

So 27% possibly believed it was a daft meaningless referendum.

And almost 28,000 spoiled their ballot papers.

I drove my wummin to the polling station late on the evening.   She wasn’t bothering….as it was a referendum.

She also thought it was a load of Tory pish.

I believe she wrote something like that on the ballot paper.

I'm calm again.  It’s ok. I’ll shut up.  On this.  :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much common ground with both of you. I agree that Cameron thought he could put the issue to bed by having a referendum which he strongly believed would result in the country voting to remain in Europe. Nigel Farage and his followers and Brexit leaning members of the Tory party had other ideas. The vote was lost and with it David Cameron’s authority. TM attempted to find a way for us to stay in Europe but was badgered by her right wing who feared that UKIP was on the rise unless they shared the same space. Meanwhile JC vascilated. TM was ousted and the rest is history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2022 at 12:17 PM, antrin said:

Almost true, but not…

London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle Wirral, Sefton and so on… and also NI voted to remain.  Scotland losing that democratic vote is nothing special.

if Scots votes were based on believing what they are TOLD by politicians, then they only have themselves to blame.  And it's not just English politicians who can be fuzzy with the truth.

This is certainly true but it’s not a valid reason to stand in the way of democracy. ‘Should have known better the first time’ isn’t a good enough reason not to have a second vote. 
 

Democratically the SNP & Green’s have stood on mandates for a second vote & they delivered a seat majority in the Scottish election. 
 

Scottish voters can feel cheated about the last one based on the messages that were given by Better Together at the time but there was no real wrongdoing from what I can tell.

It’s still a bit irrelevant regarding the mandate for Indyref2. The ask is only for the people to have their say based on what we know now. Don’t see any valid reason to why anyone would be against that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

The ask is only for the people to have their say based on what we know now. Don’t see any valid reason to why anyone would be against that. 

The vote was based on what people knew then.

 

things changed.  
 

By all means have a new vote every time things change.

THAT makes sense… in an ever-changing world.  It doesn’t matter, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, antrin said:

The vote was based on what people knew then.

 

things changed.  
 

By all means have a new vote every time things change.

THAT makes sense… in an ever-changing world.  It doesn’t matter, really.

This for me is where the argument sits. Has there been enough material change to merit the SNP/ Greens going to the Scottish public at elections with a manifesto promise of a second vote? 
 

My persoanl view is EU exit is enough of a change given it was factually one of the main arguments Better Together used for support & the Scottish voting publics more pro-EU stance.
 

I think that’s significantly change rather than just general change that goes along with the world we live in. I wouldn’t support a second referendum just because we are in an ever changing world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your personal (strictly NATIONALIST) point of view.

I’m pished aff wi’ the way the ever-changing world husnae immediately become decent and socialist after me voting for several decades for that precise thing to happen.

Small wonder that some people revert to Nationalism.  That’s always been a game-changer.  :rolleyes:

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...
×
×
  • Create New...