How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?

[frankblack]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Maybe I should take your advice.

 

You better clean up your posting history first, mate. ?

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

The UK government has a mandate from the people, reinforced by the Indy referendum.

 

 

Shetland isn't particularly happy with the way Holyrood governs it, much like you complain about Westminster governing Scotland.

 

Population wise our population thins out in the areas you mention - I don't get what point you are making?

 

 

As I said above we wanted to remain part of the UK, not the other way about.

 

 

The election system is set out in advance.  It is what it is and would need a vote to change it.

What's the point in Scotland voting anymore? Tories, Brexit etc... Why don't they just shut Holyrood, have The SNP outlawed. Then what? 

The SNP are the Scottish government, they voted through an Indyref2 bill in the parliament. The will of the people, Frank, or does it only count, when it's the will of the we are the people?

[jake]

Scotlands value to the union means independence will never be allowed to happen.

If you have any doubts just view any geo political forecasts as to what future conflicts will be about.

And it's not oil.

 

 

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

You better clean up your posting history first, mate. ?

You said I wanted genocide on the English. My anger is towards no voting Brits, born in Scotland. As far as I'm concerned they're not Scottish. but you, you never voted yes, but say you did. What is that? Is it words of a liar. It's WM you're in, Frank, you can say it.

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

Scotlands value to the union means independence will never be allowed to happen.

If you have any doubts just view any geo political forecasts as to what future conflicts will be about.

And it's not oil.

 

 

Can you point in the right direction, please Jake. Genuinely interested. ?

[frankblack]

Just now, ri Alban said:

You said I wanted genocide on the English. My anger is towards no voting Brits, born in Scotland. As far as I'm concerned they're not Scottish. but you, you never voted yes, but say you did. What is that? Is it words of a liar. It's WM you're in, Frank, you can say it.

 

Are you now admitting you are the banned poster who made those comments, and have created a new account?  I've challenged you on this several times on here and you have denied it.

 

I have confimed that I voted Yes last time and since lost all trust in the SNP.  I've detailed the reasons numerous times - white paper, hypocritial stance on referendums + people's vote etc.  You can go back and read those posts over the past two or three years.

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

It won’t be allowed. I agree with that completely. 

Well... If they don't like the SNP. I shudder to think if they become obsolete. 

[ri Alban]

Just now, frankblack said:

 

Are you now admitting you are the banned poster who made those comments, and have created a new account?  I've challenged you on this several times on here and you have denied it.

 

I have confimed that I voted Yes last time and since lost all trust in the SNP.  I've detailed the reasons numerous times - white paper, hypocritial stance on referendums + people's vote etc.  You can go back and read those posts over the past two or three years.

Keep up.

[frankblack]

9 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

What's the point in Scotland voting anymore? Tories, Brexit etc... Why don't they just shut Holyrood, have The SNP outlawed. Then what? 

The SNP are the Scottish government, they voted through an Indyref2 bill in the parliament. The will of the people, Frank, or does it only count, when it's the will of the we are the people?

 

Why would Westminster want to run another damaging referendum when it is still trying to inact the will of the last referendum on Brexit?

 

Scotland voted to remain. Do you want to keep voting until you get the result you like?

[ri Alban]

Just now, frankblack said:

 

Why would Westminster want to run another damaging referendum when it is still trying to inact the will of the last referendum on Brexit?

 

Scotland voted to remain. Do you want to keep voting until you get the result you like?

No. But I'd like to ask again, considering what happened with our European citizenship. You can't guarantee people stuff, then the next day take it away, when they said ok, do you promise. 

And if a party is voted into government on a manifesto promise, do you then tell people no, i just said that for your vote.

 

 

If people vote SNP on independence agenda, Wm is duty bound to accept, no matter how often it may be. Otherwise, look at other countries for the reality of this. I for one don't want to see Scotland turn into NI. Do you?

[frankblack]

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

No. But I'd like to ask again, considering what happened with our European citizenship. You can't guarantee people stuff, then the next day take it away, when they said ok, do you promise. 

 

Nothing has happened yet, and maybe it won't.  In any case the people voted to leave, but that is an argument for a Brexit thread.

 

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

And if a party is voted into government on a manifesto promise, do you then tell people no, i just said that for your vote.

 

What promise was in whose manifesto?  If it is the SNP, then they shouldn't promise what they don't have devolved powers for.

 

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

 

If people vote SNP on independence agenda, Wm is duty bound to accept, no matter how often it may be. Otherwise, look at other countries for the reality of this. I for one don't want to see Scotland turn into NI. Do you?

 

No they don't have to accept as they already have a mandate from the last one a couple of years ago.

 

I really don't think the NI situation is comparable.

[jake]

56 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Can you point in the right direction, please Jake. Genuinely interested. ?

Just Google future wars about water.

 

Europe is low risk but England is predicted to fall short.

North America is high risk .

 

The river Nile is expected to run dry in 20 to 30 years.

Just a couple of snapshots

It's all a bit depressing tbh .

We will be dead but what a legacy we leave behind.

 

Btw this isn't me going all 9/11.

Its official UN reports.

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by jake

[jake]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Can you point in the right direction, please Jake. Genuinely interested. ?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwipnbrDk8viAhUJAGMBHdySAwAQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-47620228&psig=AOvVaw3xNNC6lOhydfJ2QoX3SUM2&ust=1559577087059502 

 

In relation to the UK.

Edited June 2, 2019 by jake

[coconut doug]

2 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

TL;DR

 

Try paragraphs.

 

Btw - I referred to SNP supporters not the politicians. 

 

I gave you some links and if you don't want to accept them I don't really care. ?

    You're running away again Frank. Desperately trying personal insults and deflections.

 

    You referred to SNP followers and i quoted you as such. I never claimed you referred to politicians so that will be your straw man as well. My point is that the people you quoted are not SNP followers in the sense you mean. They can't be. One is not a supporter of independence and the other is a member of an organisation expelled from the SNP almost 40 years ago.

    It's good that you don't care though because it would be quite embarrassing to find that the things you are asserting are disproved and exposed for the rubbish they are, once again. What's surprising though is that you cared enough to post this rubbish in the first place and then tried to refute the challenge. I don't think these are the actions of somebody that doesn't care. I think you've had enough attention for now.

Edited June 2, 2019 by coconut doug

[Iamborg]

29 minutes ago, jake said:

Just Google future wars about water.

 

Europe is low risk but England is predicted to fall short.

North America is high risk .

 

The river Nile is expected to run dry in 20 to 30 years.

Just a couple of snapshots

It's all a bit depressing tbh .

We will be dead but what a legacy we leave behind.

 

Btw this isn't me going all 9/11.

Its official UN reports.

 

The ongoing drought in the rural parts of Syria were a significant factor in the start of the civil war .

[Roxy Hearts]

2 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Scotland isn't being obstructed - it voted to remain in the UK a few years ago.

Oh yes it is. Why don't we get the powers we need, out of EU etc? Propaganda against our every move to try and establish a better way of running our affairs. What is it that London needs and can't survive without us? 

[ri Alban]

43 minutes ago, jake said:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwipnbrDk8viAhUJAGMBHdySAwAQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-47620228&psig=AOvVaw3xNNC6lOhydfJ2QoX3SUM2&ust=1559577087059502 

 

In relation to the UK.

Thanks bud ? The water is a good shout, especially if don't crack and the risk does.

[jake]

1 hour ago, Iamborg said:

The ongoing drought in the rural parts of Syria were a significant factor in the start of the civil war .

I have taken a real interest in Syria .

But missed this angle.

Thanks for the heads up.

Will look into that .

[Grendal]

I'd vote Yes. Westminster's utter incompetence over Brexit has surely opened the eyes of all Scots to the abilities of our rulers south of the border. They have turned the UK into the laughing stock of the world. Time that Scotland bailed out of their slow car-crash!

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, jake said:

I have taken a real interest in Syria .

But missed this angle.

Thanks for the heads up.

Will look into that .

Although this could be a valid reason for unrest. I think Syria was more a case of us, shit stirring and then arming rebels, who then became Isis. One hell of a lot of bs has been pumped through our TV screens on this.

Just another ancient land in ruins.

[jake]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Although this could be a valid reason for unrest. I think Syria was more a case of us, shit stirring and then arming rebels, who then became Isis. One hell of a lot of bs has been pumped through our TV screens on this.

Just another ancient land in ruins.

Couldn't agree more .

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 02/06/2019 at 14:42, ri Alban said:

Although this could be a valid reason for unrest. I think Syria was more a case of us, shit stirring and then arming rebels, who then became Isis. One hell of a lot of bs has been pumped through our TV screens on this.

Just another ancient land in ruins.

 

We (and I mean whole coalition forces here, but particularly Paul Bremer) didn't exactly arm the rebels. Instead we disbanded the heavily Sunni and Baathist Iraqi Army with nothing to replace it and turned loose thousands tens of thousands of trained soldiers who were used to a regular paycheck into an utterly shattered economy where they were politically outnumbered by Shias.

 

http://time.com/3900753/isis-iraq-syria-army-united-states-military/

 

That single decision probably caused more damage and destruction and death than any other single thing that happened in the whole sordid affair. 

 

Whole lot of trained soldiers, mostly young single men, sitting around with no economic prospects and feeling angry and insecure, and up roll a bunch of nihilists masquerading as holy warriors, offering you guns, teen "brides," and a paycheck telling you they're getting the caliphate back together and are going to stick it to the West. That's how you get ISIS.

[Pans Jambo]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/tories-would-now-rather-face-scottish-independence-lose-brexit?fbclid=IwAR2aNdk6MaJoZVm8voZekX36fMn7jbiyMYOBYBhe73I6_UlPbS_CXS0ihiU

[Lord halifax]

Imagine if the Scottish people voted yes albeit by a very small majority I wonder if sturgeon would entertain calls for a second people's vote like she's calling for on Brexit. No chance.

[Sarah O]

4 minutes ago, Lord halifax said:

Imagine if the Scottish people voted yes albeit by a very small majority I wonder if sturgeon would entertain calls for a second people's vote like she's calling for on Brexit. No chance.

Obviously not however I imagine Ruth Davidson would have been.

[Cade]

1 hour ago, Lord halifax said:

Imagine if the Scottish people voted yes albeit by a very small majority I wonder if sturgeon would entertain calls for a second people's vote like she's calling for on Brexit. No chance.

Like when Farage said that if it was close (he even specified 52-48) then there should be a 2nd referendum.

Never mentions it these days, eh?

 

If we HAVE to turn our democracy into nothing but popularity opinion polls instead of being a proper representative parliamentary democracy ,anything involving major constitutional change should need a supermajority (60-40 at least) and not a simple 50%+1

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Cade

[jake]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Like when Farage said that if it was close (he even specified 52-48) then there should be a 2nd referendum.

Never mentions it these days, eh?

 

If we HAVE to turn our democracy into nothing but popularity opinion polls instead of being a proper representative parliamentary democracy ,anything involving major constitutional change should need a supermajority (60-40 at least) and not a simple 50%+1

 

But it has been ratified by the majority of parliament both in the house and in policy promise on election.

 

It's not just about one vote now is it?

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

If we HAVE to turn our democracy into nothing but popularity opinion polls instead of being a proper representative parliamentary democracy ,anything involving major constitutional change should need a supermajority (60-40 at least) and not a simple 50%+1

 

 

Seems like constitutional changes should not be taken lightly, yeah. That's why it's a 2/3 vote in two houses of congress for such changes in the U.S., for example.

 

That said, that's the rules here--the constitutional order can be changed by simple majority vote. Crazy as it is.

[OTT]

Wish this thread had a poll  

Edited June 18, 2019 by OTT

[redjambo]

4 hours ago, OTT said:

Wish this thread had a poll  

 

Here you go.

 

[Pans Jambo]

18 hours ago, Lord halifax said:

Imagine if the Scottish people voted yes albeit by a very small majority I wonder if sturgeon would entertain calls for a second people's vote like she's calling for on Brexit. No chance.

Why? We got almost 63% vote to remain in  the EU in Scotland. Thats an overwhelming number in a country.

 

IN A COUNTRY!!!

 

Furthermore, are you suggesting that the rules should be changed for Indyref2? Unionists must be running scared!

Edited June 19, 2019 by Pans Jambo

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said:

Why? We got almost 63% vote to remain in  the EU in Scotland. Thats an overwhelming number in a country.

 

IN A COUNTRY!!!

 

Furthermore, are you suggesting that the rules should be changed for Indyref2? Unionists must be running scared!

 

Correct. She's fulfilling her political role exactly as she should, especially since Westminster has shut Scotland out of the negotiation process in contempt of the Scotland Act and constitutional order.

[Pans Jambo]

Interesting development but then everyone that wasnt hard of thinking knew the truth of it before the first Indy referendum anyway!

 

I’ll bet this story isn’t front & centre on the BBC anytime soon!

Edited June 20, 2019 by Pans Jambo

[Pans Jambo]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-leader-hammond/uk-risks-scotland-split-more-austerity-after-a-no-deal-brexit-hammond-idUKKCN1TK324

[Pans Jambo]

“Other” UK Government bodies???

 

Whats that then? Social Security, Pensions, Defence, HS2, Royal Family, Nuclear Submarines, Nuclear Bombs, London Crossrail, Debt Repayments on £1.9Tn of debt, Foreign Offices that our FM isnt allowed to use etc.? 

 

I dont think Scotland can afford to be IN this union. This Pooling & Sharing is costing us a bloody fortune!!!

 

 

 

[jumpship]

1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said:

Interesting development but then everyone that wasnt hard of thinking knew the truth of it before the first Indy referendum anyway!

 

I’ll bet this story isn’t front & centre on the BBC anytime soon!

Well well well.... that's a shock..

 

[Cade]

But I thought Scotland was a drain on the rest of the UK

 

Surely us leaving would give the MORE money to end austerity

 

[Hasselhoff]

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Interesting development but then everyone that wasnt hard of thinking knew the truth of it before the first Indy referendum anyway!

 

I’ll bet this story isn’t front & centre on the BBC anytime soon!

 

The headline is misleading. Read the article. Doesn't say what you assume it says

[Pans Jambo]

7 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

The headline is misleading. Read the article. Doesn't say what you assume it says

What would you define as the break-up of the UK then? Wales leaving???

It says exactly what he meant to say. Scotland is a huge resource and a net contributor to the UK coffers, NOT a scrounger like Westminster would have you believe. 

 

[Hasselhoff]

28 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

What would you define as the break-up of the UK then? Wales leaving???

It says exactly what he meant to say. Scotland is a huge resource and a net contributor to the UK coffers, NOT a scrounger like Westminster would have you believe. 

 

 

No deal brexit would lead to more austerity. It says in the article. 

 

Scotland leaving the UK is not the reason for the austerity. You are just seeing what you want to see. It is leaving the EU without a deal that they are suggesting would cause more austerity. 

 

Scotland gets more from the UK than it puts in currently. Says in the GERS figures. Salmond, Sturgeon, Wings all referred to in 2014 to make the case for Indy when the figures were favourable for Scotland but have now disowned it as it says the opposite. What's your basis for thinking otherwise? The Scottish government's own figures say we spend considerably more than we put in. Are you saying they are wrong? 

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

No deal brexit would lead to more austerity. It says in the article. 

 

Scotland leaving the UK is not the reason for the austerity. You are just seeing what you want to see. It is leaving the EU without a deal that they are suggesting would cause more austerity. 

 

Scotland gets more from the UK than it puts in currently. Says in the GERS figures. Salmond, Sturgeon, Wings all referred to in 2014 to make the case for Indy when the figures were favourable for Scotland but have now disowned it as it says the opposite. What's your basis for thinking otherwise? The Scottish government's own figures say we spend considerably more than we put in. Are you saying they are wrong? 

Its you thats not seeing it. Brexit will cause even more austerity and the breakup of the UK (Scotland leaving) means the rUK is fecked without our resources. Otherwise, why would he say that? The union is hanging by a tac. 

 

The rest is just...

 

 

[Cade]

GERS is bollocks.

It simply takes all of Westminster's borrowing and allocates 10% of the national debt to Scotland, whether or not that money was spent up here.

*hint: it isn't

Edited June 20, 2019 by Cade

[Hasselhoff]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

GERS is bollocks.

It simply takes all of Westminster's borrowing and allocates 10% of the national debt to Scotland, whether or not that money was spent up here.

*hint: it isn't

 

That's rubbish. It is accurate estimates of expenditure in Scotland. Salmond said it himself when making a case that Scotland was doing better than the rest of the UK when oil price was high. The Cuthberts (both nationalist) admit it is an accurate representation. 

 

The Scottish government produce GERS. Are you saying they are wrong with what they publish?

[TheOak88]

Would be more open to voting independence now than back in 2014.

[Pans Jambo]

8 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

That's rubbish. It is accurate estimates of expenditure in Scotland. Salmond said it himself when making a case that Scotland was doing better than the rest of the UK when oil price was high. The Cuthberts (both nationalist) admit it is an accurate representation. 

 

The Scottish government produce GERS. Are you saying they are wrong with what they publish?

Its fantasy. £31Bn of it is spent by the UK on Scotlands behalf. A fair chunk of that will be debt repayments & the war machine etc. Shite we dont need, want or asked for. The rest is anyones guess. 

Anyway, ask yourself how can a wee country like Ireland with much less resources and a smaller population can have a larger GDP than Scotland?

We are being lied to & shafted! Time to go our own way & leave Boris et-al to it. 

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

That's rubbish. It is accurate estimates of expenditure in Scotland. Salmond said it himself when making a case that Scotland was doing better than the rest of the UK when oil price was high. The Cuthberts (both nationalist) admit it is an accurate representation. 

 

The Scottish government produce GERS. Are you saying they are wrong with what they publish?

GERS is bollox but without all the information, it's what they use. 

Answer me this. Why have Norway taken in over £40b in tax, since the oil price dropped, yet the UK lost £200m. Same oil extraction as the UK, but less oil.

Edited June 21, 2019 by ri Alban

[Hasselhoff]

58 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Its fantasy. £31Bn of it is spent by the UK on Scotlands behalf. A fair chunk of that will be debt repayments & the war machine etc. Shite we dont need, want or asked for. The rest is anyones guess. 

Anyway, ask yourself how can a wee country like Ireland with much less resources and a smaller population can have a larger GDP than Scotland?

We are being lied to & shafted! Time to go our own way & leave Boris et-al to it. 

 

Anyone's guess? Only if you don't understand what Scotland does and doesn't pay for. 

 

UK pays for pensions on Scotland's behalf. I assume you would want Indy Scotland to be doing that still right?

 

Add to that sickness and disability benefits, family benefits, income support, tax credits, unemployment benefit,  network rail, nuclear decommissioning.  

 

These are all things Scotland would need to pay for if independent. 

 

Our GDP is high but we spend more than we earn which is where the problem comes from. Simple as that and a blatant short term bribe by the SNP government to disrupt the UK and get the gullible to think this is what an indy Scotland would be like.

 

The UK need to spend within their means because they don't have anyone else to blame unlike the Scottish government. Up here, anything good is down to the SNP, anything bad is because of being restricted by Westminster. 

 

If the SNP were at least honest about the realities that independence would bring, I would respect them a lot more but to pretend that we could carry on with all the perks that we have as part of the UK while being Indy is just deception and it makes me not trust them at all. 

 

 

[Cade]

43 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

 

The UK need to spend within their means 

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

47 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Anyone's guess? Only if you don't understand what Scotland does and doesn't pay for. 

 

UK pays for pensions on Scotland's behalf. I assume you would want Indy Scotland to be doing that still right?

 

Add to that sickness and disability benefits, family benefits, income support, tax credits, unemployment benefit,  network rail, nuclear decommissioning.  

 

These are all things Scotland would need to pay for if independent. 

 

Our GDP is high but we spend more than we earn which is where the problem comes from. Simple as that and a blatant short term bribe by the SNP government to disrupt the UK and get the gullible to think this is what an indy Scotland would be like.

 

The UK need to spend within their means because they don't have anyone else to blame unlike the Scottish government. Up here, anything good is down to the SNP, anything bad is because of being restricted by Westminster. 

 

If the SNP were at least honest about the realities that independence would bring, I would respect them a lot more but to pretend that we could carry on with all the perks that we have as part of the UK while being Indy is just deception and it makes me not trust them at all. 

 

 

Mate you can believe what you like. I know pensions and Social security and defence etc are reserved matters but theres no way Scotland spends £31Bn P/A on that with our population size. How many 100's of millions does the Scottish Gov spend on mitigating tory cuts to social security? Its a con if you think Westminster are looking after us and by the way, your explanation of Ireland was wishy washy flimsy at best.

Irelands GDP is a whole 23% higher than Scotlands! 23%! Despite being a smaller country with less resources and a smaller population. 23%! Does that sound right or normal to you??? Has Scotland hit its full potential under Westminster?

I'm glad you brought up pensions, Ireland's state pension is equivalent to 42% of the average wage, The UK's is just 29% (for comparison Germany is £26K, France is £24K and the UK is £8K P/A average. You happy with what Westminster is stealing from us)?

 

It's obvious that you are in love with the Westminster driven United Kingdom and seem to be satisfied that they are all good despite the constant shit show in every media outlet plus the fact that they have pissed away 40 years of oil profits with nothing to show for it and anything we get up here is what we deserve so theres no point in me trying to change your mind.

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Anyone's guess? Only if you don't understand what Scotland does and doesn't pay for. 

 

UK pays for pensions on Scotland's behalf. I assume you would want Indy Scotland to be doing that still right?

 

Add to that sickness and disability benefits, family benefits, income support, tax credits, unemployment benefit,  network rail, nuclear decommissioning.  

 

These are all things Scotland would need to pay for if independent. 

 

Our GDP is high but we spend more than we earn which is where the problem comes from. Simple as that and a blatant short term bribe by the SNP government to disrupt the UK and get the gullible to think this is what an indy Scotland would be like.

 

The UK need to spend within their means because they don't have anyone else to blame unlike the Scottish government. Up here, anything good is down to the SNP, anything bad is because of being restricted by Westminster. 

 

If the SNP were at least honest about the realities that independence would bring, I would respect them a lot more but to pretend that we could carry on with all the perks that we have as part of the UK while being Indy is just deception and it makes me not trust them at all. 

 

 

Look at Norway? That's our real worth.