Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
United Kingdom
Today we have another unelected numty in the House of Lords (Earl of Caithness no less) pedalling the myth the the SNP wants to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom.
The SNP position is that if the people want it then the queen would remain head of state in an independent Scotland.
The union of the crowns which brought about the United Kingdom would remain.
It is the union of the parliaments which would be reversed.
The self same numty also wants people outwith Scotland to have a vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. I think we may have discussed this point before and perhaps agreed that it is no one else's business other than the people of Scotland.
The SNP position is that if the people want it then the queen would remain head of state in an independent Scotland.
The union of the crowns which brought about the United Kingdom would remain.
It is the union of the parliaments which would be reversed.
The self same numty also wants people outwith Scotland to have a vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. I think we may have discussed this point before and perhaps agreed that it is no one else's business other than the people of Scotland.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rich47. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“...whilst the people of Scotland have consistantly voted SNP that doesn't mean they actually want independence”
Quite true, jake. And whilst the people of the entire UK have consistently voted Labour or Conservative, that does not mean they actually want to remain a part of the EU. When that debate has reared its ugly head you have often argued that because the electorate chose one or other of those packages they were endorsing membership of the EU. You cannot have it both ways.
Scotland is doing “something nasty”, ichkeria.It is taking huge sums of money from English taxpayers via the Barnett formula, so the English should have a say on their membership
I’m afraid your tennis club analogy is specious, QM. If the Scots’ “playing days were over” and they wanted to leave unanimously I don’t think anybody would deny them that right. However, we are talking about a ballot on whether they should stay or remain within the Union and in my view all members of the UK should have a say in that ballot. In particular this should involve those who are “paying the piper” having a say over which tune is played.
Quite true, jake. And whilst the people of the entire UK have consistently voted Labour or Conservative, that does not mean they actually want to remain a part of the EU. When that debate has reared its ugly head you have often argued that because the electorate chose one or other of those packages they were endorsing membership of the EU. You cannot have it both ways.
Scotland is doing “something nasty”, ichkeria.It is taking huge sums of money from English taxpayers via the Barnett formula, so the English should have a say on their membership
I’m afraid your tennis club analogy is specious, QM. If the Scots’ “playing days were over” and they wanted to leave unanimously I don’t think anybody would deny them that right. However, we are talking about a ballot on whether they should stay or remain within the Union and in my view all members of the UK should have a say in that ballot. In particular this should involve those who are “paying the piper” having a say over which tune is played.
I was having a joke at the "face value" of your words, NJ.
However, given what you now say, would you see anything wrong with the concept that England might actively PROPOSE that Scotland be dismissed from "club membership"? Given that the population of England is about ten times that of Scotland - and that right here on AnswerBank, too, there is often a strong suggestion that English people would be glad to get rid of Scotland - they should easily be able to achieve their objective in a ballot.
My point is: Would England have a right to take this approach? And if so, why can't Scotland take similarly one-sided action?
(I know all about God being on the side of the big battalions but...)
However, given what you now say, would you see anything wrong with the concept that England might actively PROPOSE that Scotland be dismissed from "club membership"? Given that the population of England is about ten times that of Scotland - and that right here on AnswerBank, too, there is often a strong suggestion that English people would be glad to get rid of Scotland - they should easily be able to achieve their objective in a ballot.
My point is: Would England have a right to take this approach? And if so, why can't Scotland take similarly one-sided action?
(I know all about God being on the side of the big battalions but...)
I think the issue that has not been properly aired is what is the question, how should it be put and who should be asked. I don’t think the UK should compel Scotland to remain a member of the UK against its wishes (any more than the EU should compel the UK to continue its membership). But the Scots seem to have it in their mind that the question of their membership of the Union is theirs and theirs alone to decide (as originally suggested by rich in his question).
If a debate is to be held on the composition of the Union it should be more broad than simply “does Scotland want to remain in?” The option for the other nations to have Scotland continue as a member should also be discussed and a more appropriate question in my view would be “Does the Union want Scotland to remain a member?”.
As with many issues relating to the UK, the English are being left out of the debate. England is by far and away the senior member of the Union and it provides by far and away the greatest proportion of resources. So the issue of “paying the piper” is indeed relevant because it should not simply be an issue of whether the piper wants to leave (especially as the chances are he probably does not) but whether those paying want him to remain. And that does not seem to be under discussion.
If a debate is to be held on the composition of the Union it should be more broad than simply “does Scotland want to remain in?” The option for the other nations to have Scotland continue as a member should also be discussed and a more appropriate question in my view would be “Does the Union want Scotland to remain a member?”.
As with many issues relating to the UK, the English are being left out of the debate. England is by far and away the senior member of the Union and it provides by far and away the greatest proportion of resources. So the issue of “paying the piper” is indeed relevant because it should not simply be an issue of whether the piper wants to leave (especially as the chances are he probably does not) but whether those paying want him to remain. And that does not seem to be under discussion.
I'm not trying to have it both ways NJ
The SNP have gained a Majority (twice now) with independance as a major plank of their manifesto.
That gives them authority to call a referendum (Which they'll lose)
In the same way the Lib Dems had PR as a branch of their manifesto which gave them (a more questionable) authority to ask for that referendum.
Should the UKIP party (Or another with withdrawal from the EU in their manifesto) win power we can have a referendum.
Them's the rules - it's called having a mandate.
The SNP have gained a Majority (twice now) with independance as a major plank of their manifesto.
That gives them authority to call a referendum (Which they'll lose)
In the same way the Lib Dems had PR as a branch of their manifesto which gave them (a more questionable) authority to ask for that referendum.
Should the UKIP party (Or another with withdrawal from the EU in their manifesto) win power we can have a referendum.
Them's the rules - it's called having a mandate.
Incidently - seeing as leaving the EU is such an incredible vote winner what's the Europhobe theory for why none of the 3 main parties have adopted it as a policy?
What does Cameron gain from staying in?
Why hasn't Milliband decided to adopt the policy
Perhaps they're getting a kickback from Brussells
or perhaps, just maybe they see that it's massively in the UK's national interest to be part of the EU.
What's the theory? Why can't they see what's so obvious to you?
What does Cameron gain from staying in?
Why hasn't Milliband decided to adopt the policy
Perhaps they're getting a kickback from Brussells
or perhaps, just maybe they see that it's massively in the UK's national interest to be part of the EU.
What's the theory? Why can't they see what's so obvious to you?
"... a major plank of their manifesto. That gives them authority to call a referendum ... Them's the rules"
"They'll have referendum, it'll vote to stay part of the UK and the issue will be dead for 20 years."
Surely the EU "rules" for referenda is to keep asking the question until the answer preferred by the question setter is returned.
"They'll have referendum, it'll vote to stay part of the UK and the issue will be dead for 20 years."
Surely the EU "rules" for referenda is to keep asking the question until the answer preferred by the question setter is returned.
That referendum issue was in response to a potential change in the status quo it was something new
We have a status quo and you want to change it.
There is a route for that - if enough people vote for UKIP that they win the election it will happen.
Or if the Tories change their minds and make it their policy.
But as I said no major party wants to be associated with withdrawal
Why do you think that is? - have they all gone daft?
We have a status quo and you want to change it.
There is a route for that - if enough people vote for UKIP that they win the election it will happen.
Or if the Tories change their minds and make it their policy.
But as I said no major party wants to be associated with withdrawal
Why do you think that is? - have they all gone daft?
I think I’m losing the plot here, jake.
“...whilst the people of Scotland have consistantly voted SNP that doesn't mean they actually want independence”
Well jake, both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have fought and won numerous elections with continued membership of the EU among their policies. So although the people of the UK have consistently voted for both those parties would it not be reasonable to suggest that does not mean that they necessarily support such continued membership? Should their numerous victories not give them a mandate to call a referendum on our continued membership? Or does it only work if a party with a policy of withdrawal succeeds at the polls?
“...whilst the people of Scotland have consistantly voted SNP that doesn't mean they actually want independence”
Well jake, both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have fought and won numerous elections with continued membership of the EU among their policies. So although the people of the UK have consistently voted for both those parties would it not be reasonable to suggest that does not mean that they necessarily support such continued membership? Should their numerous victories not give them a mandate to call a referendum on our continued membership? Or does it only work if a party with a policy of withdrawal succeeds at the polls?
From my earlier answer, TCL:
"I don’t think the UK should compel Scotland to remain a member of the UK against its wishes (any more than the EU should compel the UK to continue its membership)."
You suggested, jake, that there was not necessarily a link between voters voting for a party and supporting their policies. You demonstrated that with the SNP. I drew an analogy with voters voting for Labour or the Conservatives but not necessarily supporting their policies. In the past you have suggested that by succesively electing a party with pro-European policies (not that they had any realistic choice) they were, by default, supporting their policies. Hence my contention that you were having it both ways.
But I think we've done that issue to death.
"I don’t think the UK should compel Scotland to remain a member of the UK against its wishes (any more than the EU should compel the UK to continue its membership)."
You suggested, jake, that there was not necessarily a link between voters voting for a party and supporting their policies. You demonstrated that with the SNP. I drew an analogy with voters voting for Labour or the Conservatives but not necessarily supporting their policies. In the past you have suggested that by succesively electing a party with pro-European policies (not that they had any realistic choice) they were, by default, supporting their policies. Hence my contention that you were having it both ways.
But I think we've done that issue to death.
By the way NJ the question will probably ask for backing to proceed to negotiations to regain independent status.
All i's do not have to be dotted not t's crossed from day one when one enters negotiations and certainly not published in advance.
The proposals coming out of the negotiations would need the approval of the Scottish people in an election.
The negative campaigning of all main Westminster parties will most certainly influence the outcome of the referendum ..... particularly that of the Liberal Democrats who have always in the past been for home rule.
Their opinion seems to have changed when given a whiff of power.
All i's do not have to be dotted not t's crossed from day one when one enters negotiations and certainly not published in advance.
The proposals coming out of the negotiations would need the approval of the Scottish people in an election.
The negative campaigning of all main Westminster parties will most certainly influence the outcome of the referendum ..... particularly that of the Liberal Democrats who have always in the past been for home rule.
Their opinion seems to have changed when given a whiff of power.
NJ, you tell TCL above that you've already answered his question. No, you haven't. Both Labour and Tory parties said they would hold a referendum on our continued EU membership - let's not get into the ramifications! - and both reneged on that. Had such a referendum happened, surely what you are suggesting is that EVERY inhabitant of EVERY member country of the EU should have had a right to participate in any such ballot to decide the UK's continued participation.
Sorry if I have not made myself clear, QM.
If the UK wanted to leave the EU (or if Scotland wanted to leave the UK) that should be a matter for the UK (or Scotland) to decide.
If other member states of the EU wanted the UK chucked out of the EU (or if other constituent members of the UK wanted Scotland chucked out of the UK) that should be a matter for all member states to decide.
Just like my analogy with club membership, a member can leave of his own valition (the others should not be able to compel him to stay in) but the entire membership should decide if someone is to be expelled.
With membership of the UK the Scots seem to believe it is their right and theirs alone to ask the question about their continued membership whereas I believe the other nations might also want to ask whether they still want Scotland as members.
If the UK wanted to leave the EU (or if Scotland wanted to leave the UK) that should be a matter for the UK (or Scotland) to decide.
If other member states of the EU wanted the UK chucked out of the EU (or if other constituent members of the UK wanted Scotland chucked out of the UK) that should be a matter for all member states to decide.
Just like my analogy with club membership, a member can leave of his own valition (the others should not be able to compel him to stay in) but the entire membership should decide if someone is to be expelled.
With membership of the UK the Scots seem to believe it is their right and theirs alone to ask the question about their continued membership whereas I believe the other nations might also want to ask whether they still want Scotland as members.
I simply cannot see, NJ, how your second and final paragraphs above can possibly gel. I 'paraphrase' them as follows in your own words...
"If Scotland wanted to leave the UK that should be a matter for Scotland to decide" as compared to "with membership of the UK the Scots seem to believe it is their right and theirs alone to ask the question about their continued membership."
The first element = it's up to Scotland and the second = it's up to everyone else as well. But what the hey! We'll just have to agree to differ.
"If Scotland wanted to leave the UK that should be a matter for Scotland to decide" as compared to "with membership of the UK the Scots seem to believe it is their right and theirs alone to ask the question about their continued membership."
The first element = it's up to Scotland and the second = it's up to everyone else as well. But what the hey! We'll just have to agree to differ.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Food & Drink18 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News23 mins ago
