Sign in to follow this  
Alex MacLeod

EU In or Out

Recommended Posts

MPs are elected as representatives of their constituents, not as delegates.  As such, they are empowered and entrusted to use their judgement and take decisions on the basis of what they think is best - for their constituency, for the country, for the world, or whatever.

They are under no obligation to follow the wishes of the majority of their constituents - always understanding that this may lead to them being voted out at a subsequent election.

This is a very old principle - if you follow it up you will invariably come back to the writings and sayings of the 18th century Parliamentarian Edmund Burke.

My parents taught me this. I don't ever remember being told in school how Parliament works, and I have no idea if anything like it is taught in schools nowadays.

I have another bee in my bonnet about people who complain about "unelected" Prime Mininsters, but that's for another time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to respond to Oddquine's rant in full.  It would take far too long.  I'll just respond to the nonsense at the beginning and the nonsense at the end.  Oddquine starts with the standard nationalist trick of making her point based on what she would have liked her political opponent to have said rather than on what they actually did say. I'm not going to waste time repeating what I said but suffice it to say that her reply completely fails to address the point I was making.

She concludes by refuting my suggestion that the Scottish Government does not even know what currency we would use following independence - but then makes a statement which clearly demonstrates my point!

And all the stuff in between equally misses the point. Yes, I understand that the constitutional position of Scotland within the United Kingdom is complex but I fail to see the point of debating that when the relevant issues are far more straightforward. We have a Scottish Government which is refusing to respect the results of two referendums and which lied to its people about its intention to honour the result of the independence referendum.  Yet somehow in her lengthy post  Oddquine simply ignores this shameful anti-democratic behaviour.  Personally I think the behaviour of the Scottish Parliament in 2017 is rather more relevant than that of the English Parliament in 1687.

  • Disagree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

I'm not going to respond to Oddquine's rant in full.  It would take far too long.  I'll just respond to the nonsense at the beginning and the nonsense at the end.  Oddquine starts with the standard nationalist trick of making her point based on what she would have liked her political opponent to have said rather than on what they actually did say. I'm not going to waste time repeating what I said but suffice it to say that her reply completely fails to address the point I was making.

She concludes by refuting my suggestion that the Scottish Government does not even know what currency we would use following independence - but then makes a statement which clearly demonstrates my point!

And all the stuff in between equally misses the point. Yes, I understand that the constitutional position of Scotland within the United Kingdom is complex but I fail to see the point of debating that when the relevant issues are far more straightforward. We have a Scottish Government which is refusing to respect the results of two referendums and which lied to its people about its intention to honour the result of the independence referendum.  Yet somehow in her lengthy post  Oddquine simply ignores this shameful anti-democratic behaviour.  Personally I think the behaviour of the Scottish Parliament in 2017 is rather more relevant than that of the English Parliament in 1687.

You are morphing into CB, dismissing any reasoned and well constructed argument which contradicts your own views as a 'rant'. Some equally coherent and reasoned argument of your own would be a good deal more constructive.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kingsmills said:

You are morphing into CB, dismissing any reasoned and well constructed argument which contradicts your own views as a 'rant'. Some equally coherent and reasoned argument of your own would be a good deal more constructive.

Well said.  I thought exactly the same when I read DD's reply (without bringing CB into it). A bit of 'pots and kettles' methinks having ploughed through many DD's long, one sided views on things in the past.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Kingsmills said:

You are morphing into CB, dismissing any reasoned and well constructed argument which contradicts your own views as a 'rant'. Some equally coherent and reasoned argument of your own would be a good deal more constructive.

I think I'm going to keep out of this having been to..... well you can't really say "Damascus" these days... for my holidays, so let me just describe myself as having had a moment of Epiphany!

In order to perform an administrative function with an organisation I'm involved with, I've had to join Facebook -  with the collateral effect of having become aware of comments on the Facebook pages of the likes of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf and the National "newspaper". So, having taken a few scans through that lot, all I can say to the people on here is - sorry folks... I have probably been far too scathing of a lot you have said on here about the nationalist question, now I have seen the emanations of some of these other pages!

I am actually being quite serious here by saying that. Compared with what I have now seen elsewhere from far more SNP supporters than you would ever find on here, the Nats on CTO present well argued, literate (especially literate!), polite cases with not an expletive, term of abuse or outburst of paranoia in sight.

So with the genuine observation that Oddquine is actually a relative moderate, I will bid you all good night again and return to a much happier hunting ground for winding up nationalists!

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Kingsmills said:

You are morphing into CB, dismissing any reasoned and well constructed argument which contradicts your own views as a 'rant'. Some equally coherent and reasoned argument of your own would be a good deal more constructive.

Talk about "pots and kettles"!  If you read through more of this lengthy thread you will see there are numerous examples where I have presented reasoned and, hopefully, well constructed arguments and got nothing remotely responding to a reasoned argument in reply.  Instead, you have frequently posted brief posts making completely unsubstantiated statements and when challenged to respond, you remain silent.  Check out my post on 8th November on the previous page as an example.  Feel free to respond to it - at the 4th time of asking!.

In this latest exchange we are discussing the Brexit vote in Parliament and what Lawrence referred to as 5 days of wasted Parliamentary time.  The point I am making was echoed in the debate in Parliament today by both the Government and Official Opposition spokesmen.  That is that the electorate as whole voted for the UK to leave the EU and therefore Parliament has a duty to put the instructions of the electorate in to effect. That is a basic democratic principle which I don't think requires any further explanation but which you seemingly disagree with.

Your contribution to this discussion has been simply to say that SNP MPs are right to oppose the BIll because continued membership of the EU was in their manifesto.  It was also in the manifesto of the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems.  By your argument all of their MPs should also be voting against the BIll regardless of how their constituents voted.  Were that to happen then our MPs would be defying the democratic instruction of the people.  You may care to explain why you think it is OK for parliament to refuse to implement the instructions of the electorate in a lawfully constituted referendum.

I guess Oddquine is trying to say that SNP MPs are justified in voting against article 50 because their constituencies all polled in favour of staying in the EU.  But the vote in Parliament is not a simple echoing of the referendum.  It is a vote about proceeding with the process of Brexit in line with the referendum.  In other words it is a vote about whether they respect the wishes of the electorate as a whole or not.  How dare the SNP MPs assume that just because I voted to remain that I want them to block the wishes of the majority who had a different view from me!  They have voted the way they have simply as a means to an end - and we all know what that is.  

They claim that the result of the EU referendum was that Scotland voted to remain in the EU.  But by claiming that, they simply fail to respect the result of the 2014 independence referendum.  Scotland voted to remain part of the UK.  And whilst a majority of Scots voters voted to remain in the EU, the result of the referendum was that the people of the UK voted to leave the EU.  Given that we have so recently affirmed our wish to remain in the UK, I expect my MP to respect the wishes of the UK electorate of which we are a part. I then expect him to represent the interests of his constituents in the ensuing negotiations.

My position is that, as a democrat, I expect MPs to respect the results of lawfully constituted referendums.  I think that is a pretty reasonable position to take.  Perhaps, as you seem suddenly to be so keen on coherent and reasoned arguments, you would be good enough to give some coherent and reasoned argument as to why you think it OK for the SNP Government to disrespect the result of the 2 referendums and to lie about the 2014 referendum being a "once in a generation" event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/02/2017 at 9:16 PM, DoofersDad said:

Lots of pish

SNP had another referendum in the manifesto is Scotland was dragged out of the EU against the will of the electorate. Respect that sideways up your Brexit!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, PullMyFinger said:

SNP had another referendum in the manifesto is Scotland was dragged out of the EU against the will of the electorate. Respect that sideways up your Brexit!

Not entirely sure about the terminology but certainly agree with the sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rotflmao::rotflmao:

Repeating all these unsubstantiated little Nat sound-bites ad-nauseum doesn't make them true.

For a start, the SNP did not say in their manifesto that they would have another referendum in the event of Scotland being taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish electorate.  They referred to what they called "material change".  

But putting the facts of the detail aside, are you seriously suggesting that just because such a statement is stuck in a manifesto along with dozens of other policies, the SNP Government are justified in breaking their "once in a generation" pledge?  Can you please explain why you appear to think it OK for the Scottish Government to lie to its people and to fail to honour the wishes of over 2 million of its citizens who, just over 2 years ago in the biggest vote in the history of our democracy, reaffirmed their wish for Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom?  

And where do you get this "your Brexit" nonsense from?  It is not my Brexit or the Unionists' Brexit!  You surely must be aware that most of the people who campaigned for Scotland to remain in the UK also campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU.  We Scots voted to remain in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU.  My point is simply that the will of the people as expressed in these two historic referendums should be respected. It seems to me to a basic principle of democracy that it should be.  It would therefore be interesting to finally read some rational argument as to why the SNP is justified in its refusal to honour the will of the people 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DD, What change is more material than being removed from the EU, having stayed in the Union on the basis that it was the only way to guarantee staying in the EU? In fact,into the bargain, what is more of a material change than the imposition of EVEL, which prevents Scottish constituency MPs voting on "English only" law, even when the passing of that law will impact on the Barnett Consequentials, which are part of the Scottish income....or more material than the recent acknowledgement by Westminster that the Sewell Convention applies to what Westminster says it applies to...thus illustrating that Scotland can not even define what is a devolved matter within the devolved competencies.  However, if you notice, a second indyref hasn't yet been called. It is still avoidable if Westminster does as much for Scotland in negotiations as she intends,it is being said, to do for NI, the car industry, the financial services industry, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands etc. I'm not holding my breath, but you can if you like.
 

What once in a generation pledge? There is nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement, the Memorandum of agreement or the Section 30 order stating anything about any "once in a generation pledge". Because Alex Salmond said it in a BBC interview after the vote and just before he resigned as First Minister makes it a pledge from the first SNP FM of Scotland. He cannot bind any future FM of Scotland to his personal opinion, any more than any PM of the UK can bind any other administration to his/her policy continuation, far less to anything said in a BBC interview. You want a list of all the "promises" made by future PMs pre-election which got either ignored or u-turned on when THEY got into power. Alex Salmond made no promise he didn't keep...he just was not, after he resigned, in a position to keep it.

Anyway, what is meant by a generation? A generation in Westminster Politics is five years and, in Scottish politics, four years and we are into both those generations now...and this is the first time those of the 14-15yo generation who could not vote in indyref1  will likely be eligible to vote in a future referendum.

I don't actually see what you are getting your knickers in a twist about, though, the bill went through, as we all knew that it would, given the whips imposed...or did you honestly think every MP in the House of Commons should dutifully vote for the bill to show solidarity with a Brexit they never wanted...and allow the Tories and UKIP to claim that the whole country was behind them. Hecky thump, MPs/MSPs won't even vote for bills, decent bills, even if lifted by the party proposing it straight from their own manifestos, because if they are not proposing they oppose(or sit on their hands).

 

  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

:rotflmao::rotflmao:

Repeating all these unsubstantiated little Nat sound-bites ad-nauseum doesn't make them true.

For a start, the SNP did not say in their manifesto that they would have another referendum in the event of Scotland being taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish electorate.  They referred to what they called "material change".  

But putting the facts of the detail aside, are you seriously suggesting that just because such a statement is stuck in a manifesto along with dozens of other policies, the SNP Government are justified in breaking their "once in a generation" pledge?  Can you please explain why you appear to think it OK for the Scottish Government to lie to its people and to fail to honour the wishes of over 2 million of its citizens who, just over 2 years ago in the biggest vote in the history of our democracy, reaffirmed their wish for Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom?  

And where do you get this "your Brexit" nonsense from?  It is not my Brexit or the Unionists' Brexit!  You surely must be aware that most of the people who campaigned for Scotland to remain in the UK also campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU.  We Scots voted to remain in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU.  My point is simply that the will of the people as expressed in these two historic referendums should be respected. It seems to me to a basic principle of democracy that it should be.  It would therefore be interesting to finally read some rational argument as to why the SNP is justified in its refusal to honour the will of the people 

 

13 hours ago, dougiedanger said:

Didn't realise you were a Jock, DD?

In what sense is that relevant? I profoundly disagree with almost everything DD has to say on this thread but he has chosen to make his domicile here and has every right to have an opinion on the future of the country as has everyone else on the electoral roll in Scotland irrespective of the country of their birth.

The argument for independence is slowly being won. It appears that a very narrow majority of native born Scots voted yes at the last referendum if the polling companies are to be believed. It is precisely the people not born here but who have chosen to live their lives here who need to be convinced next time around.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Oddquine said:

DD, What change is more material than being removed from the EU, having stayed in the Union on the basis that it was the only way to guarantee staying in the EU? In fact,into the bargain, what is more of a material change than the imposition of EVEL, which prevents Scottish constituency MPs voting on "English only" law, even when the passing of that law will impact on the Barnett Consequentials, which are part of the Scottish income....or more material than the recent acknowledgement by Westminster that the Sewell Convention applies to what Westminster says it applies to...thus illustrating that Scotland can not even define what is a devolved matter within the devolved competencies.  However, if you notice, a second indyref hasn't yet been called. It is still avoidable if Westminster does as much for Scotland in negotiations as she intends,it is being said, to do for NI, the car industry, the financial services industry, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands etc. I'm not holding my breath, but you can if you like.
 

What once in a generation pledge? There is nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement, the Memorandum of agreement or the Section 30 order stating anything about any "once in a generation pledge". Because Alex Salmond said it in a BBC interview after the vote and just before he resigned as First Minister makes it a pledge from the first SNP FM of Scotland. He cannot bind any future FM of Scotland to his personal opinion, any more than any PM of the UK can bind any other administration to his/her policy continuation, far less to anything said in a BBC interview. You want a list of all the "promises" made by future PMs pre-election which got either ignored or u-turned on when THEY got into power. Alex Salmond made no promise he didn't keep...he just was not, after he resigned, in a position to keep it.

Anyway, what is meant by a generation? A generation in Westminster Politics is five years and, in Scottish politics, four years and we are into both those generations now...and this is the first time those of the 14-15yo generation who could not vote in indyref1  will likely be eligible to vote in a future referendum.

I don't actually see what you are getting your knickers in a twist about, though, the bill went through, as we all knew that it would, given the whips imposed...or did you honestly think every MP in the House of Commons should dutifully vote for the bill to show solidarity with a Brexit they never wanted...and allow the Tories and UKIP to claim that the whole country was behind them. Hecky thump, MPs/MSPs won't even vote for bills, decent bills, even if lifted by the party proposing it straight from their own manifestos, because if they are not proposing they oppose(or sit on their hands).

 

I'll give credit to Oddquine for at least not resorting to sound bite one liners.  It doesn't make her statements true or her arguments valid but at least she makes an effort to engage in meaningful debate.

Let's start with the oft repeated nonsense about us voting to stay in the Union because to do so was the only way to stay in the EU.  Statements to that effect were made by "No" campaigners, but in the context of response to the completely unsubstantiated assertions within the Scottish Government's glossy 670 page document "Scotland's Future", that Scotland would take its place in the EU immediately on becoming independent.  The "Yes" campaign pointed out that this was very far from certain and that the only way to ensure we remained in the EU was to remain in the UK.  And, of course, they were correct in the sense that Scotland voted to remain in the UK and we do currently remain in the EU.

Of course, Brexit means that we will not be in the EU much longer and the much more important thing here is what the Scottish Government said about that before the 2014 referendum.  In "Scotland's Future" in the Q&A section, the Scottish Government specifically asked "What impact will the Conservative Party Proposal to have a UK referendum on EU membership have?"  The response repeated the assertion that if we voted for independence we would be an independent nation within the UK before the rUK vote took place,  But it concluded by saying "However, if we do not become Independent, we risk being taken out of the EU against our will,"  There is absolutely no suggestion of a 2nd referendum in the event of a UK vote to leave the EU.  Given that they recognised and addressed the prospect of a UK referendum taking us out of the EU in the document they put before the nation to support the case for independence, they can hardly say it's a game changer and nobody could have seen it coming!  

As for the once in a generation bit, there were numerous times when both Salmond and Sturgeon stated it was a once in a generation (and on occasions, lifetime) opportunity.  But again, we need to look at the Scottish Government's official proposal document to the nation, "Scotland's Future", when the then First Minister wrote in his preface "It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way".  And then in the Q&A section the Scottish Government posed the question "If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on Independence at a later date?"  The answer concluded that "It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once in a generation opportunity". This was therefore not an off-the-cuff TV interview remark, this was the clear and considered position of the Scottish Government.

You make reference to the Edinburgh agreement and that there was nothing in that to say this was a once in a generation pledge.  Well, it didn't need to!  The legislation allowed for a single referendum and it presumably did that simply because the Scottish Government's position was that this was a one off!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

 

In what sense is that relevant? I profoundly disagree with almost everything DD has to say on this thread but he has chosen to make his domicile here and has every right to have an opinion on the future of the country as has everyone else on the electoral roll in Scotland irrespective of the country of their birth.

The argument for independence is slowly being won. It appears that a very narrow majority of native born Scots voted yes at the last referendum if the polling companies are to be believed. It is precisely the people not born here but who have chosen to live their lives here who need to be convinced next time around.

Thank you for that first paragraph, Kingsmills, It is an important point that everyone who chooses to live in Scotland should have a voice in deciding it's future.  But there is a big downside here.  There are many people born and educated in Scotland who, whilst proud to be Scottish, are also proud to be British and who now feel themselves disenfranchised because they live elsewhere in the UK.  These people are generally supportive of the Union because they are embracing the opportunities which being in the Union offers.

Having said that, I see no possible way to conduct a vote in Scotland except by limiting it to those resident in Scotland.  Nevertheless, the fact that there are so many Union supporting Scots living elsewhere in the UK who are denied a voice in the future of Scotland only serves to illustrate how divisive the subject of Independence is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Thank you for that first paragraph, Kingsmills, It is an important point that everyone who chooses to live in Scotland should have a voice in deciding it's future.  But there is a big downside here.  There are many people born and educated in Scotland who, whilst proud to be Scottish, are also proud to be British and who now feel themselves disenfranchised because they live elsewhere in the UK.  These people are generally supportive of the Union because they are embracing the opportunities which being in the Union offers.

Having said that, I see no possible way to conduct a vote in Scotland except by limiting it to those resident in Scotland.  Nevertheless, the fact that there are so many Union supporting Scots living elsewhere in the UK who are denied a voice in the future of Scotland only serves to illustrate how divisive the subject of Independence is.

That  is beyond ridiculous. I count myself as Invernessian. I was born in Inverness, went to school in Inverness and even went back to Inverness to work there for a brief spell after university. I am proud to be Invernessian .Despite having chosen to make my life elsewhere I have a continuing interest in the future and fortunes of what I regard as my home town.

Notwithstanding being Invernessian to my very bones, I have no vote in the constituency whereas someone born in Paris but now living in Drummond does because they are domiciled in Inverness and that is entirely as it should be.

A Scot permanently resident in England or elsewhere abroad has a legitimate concern and interest in the future and wellbeing of their native country but, having left, has no right to vote in determining it's future. That too is entirely as it should be.

Finally, if you don't think that a vote to remove Scotland from the EU doesn't represent a material change, what on earth do you think would ?

Edited by Kingsmills
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been lucky enough to live in a few different countries, I have never felt the urge to tell the people of those countries how they should think or act, especially on matters concerning identity, culture, and politics. To me, that might come across as arrogant and condescending. 

Other nationalities don't seem encumbered by such reticence, and fair play to them I suppose.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

That  is beyond ridiculous. I count myself as Invernessian. I was born in Inverness, went to school in Inverness and even went back to Inverness to work there for a brief spell after university. I am proud to be Invernessian .Despite having chosen to make my life elsewhere I have a continuing interest in the future and fortunes of what I regard as my home town.

Notwithstanding being Invernessian to my very bones, I have no vote in the constituency whereas someone born in Paris but now living in Drummond does because they are domiciled in Inverness and that is entirely as it should be.

A Scot permanently resident in England or elsewhere abroad has a legitimate concern and interest in the future and wellbeing of their native country but, having left, has no right to vote in determining it's future. That too is entirely as it should be.

Finally, if you don't think that a vote to remove Scotland from the EU doesn't represent a material change, what on earth do you think would ?

What is "beyond ridiculous"?  I said "I see no possible way to conduct a vote in Scotland except by limiting it to those resident in Scotland" and you said "A Scot permanently resident in England or elsewhere abroad has a legitimate concern and interest in the future and wellbeing of their native country but, having left, has no right to vote in determining it's future."  Sounds much the same to me.

On the rather more important point, the EU vote is not a material change in the sense that this was a specific scenario brought to the attention of the Scottish people before the 2014 referendum.   Given the First Minister's statement that this was a once in a generation vote, it was implicit that if that scenario was to occur, the Scottish people and the Scottish Government would be bound to accept it. Despite that, we voted to stay in the UK and now that the UK has voted to leave the EU, we must accept it.

In any case, the "material change" concept is a complete red herring.  The Scottish Government acknowledged the once in a generation nature of the referendum in their proposition to the people.  There was absolutely no suggestion that there might be any reason to have another referendum in the near future whether there be "material change" or not.  There is simply no justification for having another referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

What is "beyond ridiculous"?  I said "I see no possible way to conduct a vote in Scotland except by limiting it to those resident in Scotland" and you said "A Scot permanently resident in England or elsewhere abroad has a legitimate concern and interest in the future and wellbeing of their native country but, having left, has no right to vote in determining it's future."  Sounds much the same to me.

Its a toughie !!! As one of those resident abroad I can admit to having mixed feelings about not being able to participate in the Scottish Independence vote. I dont want to get into the middle of this debate but I will add my own 2¢ (instead of 2p) into this thread ....

One the one hand I rationalise it as the correct decision given that the collective vote of the ex-pat community could have affected millions of current residents of Scotland whilst leaving those same ex-pats largely unscathed - on a day-to-day basis at least - regardless of the outcome ... but on the other hand, quite apart from family, heritage, and pride in the country of my birth (all of which are fairly parochial reasons to allow a vote), I do have legitimate interests in Scotland that stood to be affected by a result I had no way of influencing. Many of my investments, including stocks and shares, former employer and private pension plans etc are frozen in the Scottish / UK systems until I retire so I do have more than a passing interest in things !   On balance, I think restricting votes to those 'permanently' residing in the country was the correct decision but I could likely make a sensible and non-partisan argument to back up either viewpoint.   

The strange thing is ... I WAS allowed to participate in the 'Brexit' vote so there is no consistency in all of this and I wonder why this was the case. I also wonder how much influence the ex-pat community had on the vote itself. I can only hypothesise that the government of the day thought allowing ex-pats to vote in this would sway things in favour of the remain camp - given that a lot of ex-pats are resident in EU countries -  but personally I think it had the opposite effect. Many ex-pats in the EU have experienced economic hardship as the economies of Spain and other favoured retirement bolt-holes have gone down the pan so they are not as pro-EU as some would think, and in Canada/USA we are more insulated from the goings on in Europe so may not be as fervent in either direction. I would add to that that as many ex-pats tend to be older retirees I believe that amongst that age group there is a tendency to vote for the exit as those who have experienced the EU through the 70s, 80s and beyond and have seen some of the utter stupidity coming out of it over the years of butter mountains, wine lakes and ridiculous edicts and laws that crippled then killed our fishing industry amongst others, fail to see some of the positives that younger people have spoken of such as free movement, development grants for underfunded areas (like the Highlands) and more .... Again, I could make a rational argument on either side of the discussion I think, but again, I believe I should not have had the right to vote in this referendum as I am relatively immune to the aftermath - at least directly.   

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A UK wide referendum has the same franchise as a General Election, Scotty....so ex-pats who were registered to vote in UK within the previous 15 years, Irish and Commonwealth citizens living in UK can vote, but not EU citizens resident in the UK, Lords, or prisoners.  For Brexit, Gibraltar was added for the referendum because it was going to be directly affected.

The franchise for the Independence Referendum was the same as for a Scottish election.....a current voter registration at a Scottish address.....Westminster didn't extend the ex-pat rule to Wales, NI or Scotland elections.  I'm pleased about that, because I don't see why anyone who has moved away permanently enough to have given up his home in Scotland (or anywhere else in the UK, for that matter) should have the right to continue to influence the make-up of any UK Government and not suffer ALL the consequences of the choice they made. It's bad enough that people living elsewhere, with a second home in Scotland, can register to vote...and influence the results of elections which will only affect them from time to time.  It is an offence to vote twice in the same type of election, but a Scottish Election is not a General Election. 

And aren't you lucky...because the Government is thinking about letting ex-pats vote in UK elections for life....which is flaming ridiculous! 

 

Edited by Oddquine
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, IBM said:

The delegates are very enthusiastic at Kezia Dugdales speech at the Scottish party conference!

 

Sleep.JPG

I think that must the point in the speech where they put a picture of Nicola Sturgeon up on the big screen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite simply Independence is just a romantic notion

There are people still fighting medieval wars in their heads and in their hearts.

Scotland cannot afford financially to be an independent country in or out of Europe

The NHS in Scotland is costing about 10 billion pounds a year , just about the same as the oil wealth when the price was high

Now the north sea oil and gas industry is being funded from the UK treasury , it is in a negative financial state and is predicted to stay that way until 2022,  (not accounting for the costs of decommissioning )

If the oil magnates in the  middle  east , can put  the price up or down ( by raising or reducing output at will) ,  then the fear of a second collapse is always possible.

Scotland's tax payers  I guess around 2,00,000 of them can't be expected to foot the bill of running a country.

The balance of payments deficit with England not to mention the E U is enormous  , over one hundred trucks an hour cross the border at Gretna bringing supplies from England and elsewhere into Scotland, I know because I have counted them .

The main trucks going the other way are carrying timber and livestock.

Yo only have to go into the stores in Inverness to see the sales floors stacked with imported goods, all would have to be paid for with the  currency adopted by the new country. If it be the Euro a second bankrupted Greece will be on the horizon.

Romance is one thing , reality is another, as a Scottish tax pay payer I am not happy to foot the bill of separation. 

  • Disagree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, IBM said:

Well Laurence that makes me a romantic person and I am happy with that :smile:

I've always thought it is more romantic to be in a partnership than to be independent. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

I've always thought it is more romantic to be in a partnership than to be independent. :smile:

You are right but the Prime Minister is just about to file for divorce  :sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.