Independance Referendum "everyone will respect"

[bekisman]

Just seen Salmon wittering on about another 'independence referendum', so had a look at the actual Edinburgh Agreement (link at bottom), just a couple of years have passed and his agreeing to "A result that everyone will respect" shows conclusively what a liar he is, he is NOT a man of his word, he has not respected in anyway the result. But I suppose the SNP's raison d'etre is to get independence at any costs.. the mere fact of honesty, integrity just goes out of the window - one wonders where this minority government will be in a few years..


Edinburgh, 15 October 2012

The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.
The governments are agreed that the referendum should:

• have a clear legal base
• be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament
• be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people
• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect

http://www.gov.scot/About/Government...n-independence

[rob murray]

Just seen Salmon wittering on about another 'independence referendum', so had a look at the actual Edinburgh Agreement (link at bottom), just a couple of years have passed and his agreeing to "A result that everyone will respect" shows conclusively what a liar he is, he is NOT a man of his word, he has not respected in anyway the result. But I suppose the SNP's raison d'etre is to get independence at any costs.. the mere fact of honesty, integrity just goes out of the window - one wonders where this minority government will be in a few years..


Edinburgh, 15 October 2012

The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.
The governments are agreed that the referendum should:

• have a clear legal base
• be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament
• be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people
• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect

http://www.gov.scot/About/Government...n-independence

IN 2014 the case for indy was laid out in a document of over 600 pages spelling out the many ways Scotland would be allegedly better off alone, fair play to SNP on at least giving the detail, now the case for independence is simply to be independent/ gain independence for the sole purpose of being independent, all pretense of any gains from being independence have been dropped !!!

[rob murray]

Two years on from the referendum on Scottish independence, Nicola Sturgeon used an article in the Sunday Herald to set out the case for another vote.
The First Minister argued “the case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets and of passing political fads and trends”. SO independence for independence sake, afterall what more can you expect from a nationalist party.

Interestingly Salmon is trying to bounce STurgeon into calling indy 2 in 2018, more cautious SNP MSP's suggest holding out until 2020 next general election, to see the tory government post brexit landscape, so a lot of water has to flow until then, and a lot can go right or wrong for SNP but if the hard liners are trumpeting indy for indys sake then even if they have a vote in 2020 sanity will prevail scots have proved they are more cautious than to vote indy for indys sake !

[Oddquine]

Why would anyone respect the result of a referendum which was not undertaken by the Better Together crowd in a spirit of honesty and integrity? Much the same can be said of the result of the EU referendum as well. The YES side was maybe over optimistic in its ideas of how grown-up the Westminster Government would be in the event of success....not so different, in fact from the Brexit side's over optimistic assumption that we can get a deal with the EU which will let us dictate our terms and change nothing but the number of EU immigrants.

What most of us YES voters remember about what was said and what happened is that the status quo, which was voted for in the indyref no longer exists and the promises made have not been fulfilled.

When a campaign has been fought on cries of "the only way to stay in the EU is to vote NO", and even that ever-so truthful Carmichael said "There is no question of a referendum[on the EU]. There is no mechanism for the Conservatives to deliver a referendum in 2017. That is the hard political fact"...the Brexit vote alone has changed the status quo for which we voted.

What about "our UK Welfare state offers better protection for pensioners, the disabled and unemployed". How has that worked out for those on zero hours contracts, the disabled losing their mobility cars, the terminally ill being obliged to work until they die, those who committed suicide due to the sanctions regime, the increase in the numbers using foodbanks (which are just about the only growth industry in the UK atm.) etc? How has that worked out for a Scottish Government having to use a limited income to try to ameliorate the effects of Government benefit decisions on Scots?

And what about pensions...remember the "our pensions are safer and more secure within the UK"? Followed almost immediately after the result with headlines like "new pension crisis on the way", "pension crisis to last for 20 years", "pension shock for millions", "death of the decent pension", "betrayed by pension reforms" and of course the "now it's work to 75" and even "keep on working until you are 80".

What about "being part of the UK is good for the Scottish renewables industry" and "our larger energy market makes supporting Scotland's renewable industry more affordable", given the subsequent subsidy cuts? And what is fair in an "equal partnership" when power producers in Scotland get charged
to access the grid and power producers in the south get paid to do so?

And then we get to "defence industry jobs are best protected by remaining in the UK"...resulting in Scotland getting the deepest military service cuts in the UK...plus the promised frigate contracts for the Clyde being first cut and now put on the back burner..and the proposed sale of the Kinloss army base and of Fort George....rather than the promised increase in the numbers at Kinloss?

And jobs...let's talk about jobs....do you remember the "protect jobs:vote NO" banners, or the graphics produced by Better Together proclaiming "I'm voting NO to protect our NHS, our pensions and our jobs" and the oft repeated statement that Scotland had to have "the broad shoulders" of the UK to support it? So where was the UK when what was left of the steel industry entered its death throes and when the oil industry shed jobs by the thousands? Remember the "1400 jobs in HMRC in Cumbernauld are dependent on us staying in the UK" and the current modernisation of HMRC which will, by 2020 have closed most of their offices in Scotland removing a couple of thousand jobs....which appear to be going to be shipped to Croydon. But of course they still support 520 jobs at Faslane coddling the "nuclear deterrent" at great cost....and other job losses are just fine, as the UK shoulders obviously aren't broad enough to support everything.

Then what about that Vow? you know...the one which turned out to be nothing like "a modern form of home rule"....the one which got through Westminster giving little of use or ornament, just more to pay out with no more coming in to pay it, without raising taxes or cutting other services...the one the SNP, the Labour MP and the LibDem MP tabled 120 amendments to improve, only to have them all defeated by the Unionist parties.

And the love-bombing! Do you remember the love bombing.....the legion of "celebrities" pleading for us not to leave? And Cameron in the Daily Fail saying "We desperately want you to stay."....only to turn up after we voted for the status quo to tell us that he was introducing EVEL (a cheap way to have an English Parliament without having to pay for more MPs, civil servants and the necessary buildings, as Scotland, Wales and NI have to do)...when pretty much all of the "English only" laws equating to those devolved to Scotland, have Barnett consequences.

So three years on, the status quo we voted for no longer exists....so why should we respect the result?

Did the Westminster Government itself respect all their weasel words?

Do we live in a UK in which we are remaining in the EU,in which the UK Government is protecting our jobs generally, and in the renewable and military defence industries in particular? Do we live in a UK where the the age of retirement hasn't been increased, with more increases in the pipeline, where the terminally ill and disabled are permitted to have a life without the stress of trying to find a scarce job, where people don't end up using foodbanks because sanctions, often for as little as being a few minutes late for an "appointment" have removed their income? Do we live in a country where we are "equal partners" in a Union, rather than, as now, an unwelcome addition to the English Parliament...and in which it is unlikely that a Scottish constituency MP will ever be PM...or even in the Cabinet, given the EVEL rule which would mean they couldn't vote on the laws they are instrumental in introducing, if they are deemed by English MPs to be "English only applicable"

Bet JK Rowling is glad we don't expect her to produce anything but fiction, when she said "My guess is that, if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go. I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay" Aye, right!

So explain to me why what has come to pass since the NO vote is a situation to be respected?

[rob murray]

Why would anyone respect the result of a referendum which was not undertaken by the Better Together crowd in a spirit of honesty and integrity? Much the same can be said of the result of the EU referendum as well. The YES side was maybe over optimistic in its ideas of how grown-up the Westminster Government would be in the event of success....not so different, in fact from the Brexit side's over optimistic assumption that we can get a deal with the EU which will let us dictate our terms and change nothing but the number of EU immigrants.

What most of us YES voters remember about what was said and what happened is that the status quo, which was voted for in the indyref no longer exists and the promises made have not been fulfilled.

When a campaign has been fought on cries of "the only way to stay in the EU is to vote NO", and even that ever-so truthful Carmichael said "There is no question of a referendum[on the EU]. There is no mechanism for the Conservatives to deliver a referendum in 2017. That is the hard political fact"...the Brexit vote alone has changed the status quo for which we voted.

What about "our UK Welfare state offers better protection for pensioners, the disabled and unemployed". How has that worked out for those on zero hours contracts, the disabled losing their mobility cars, the terminally ill being obliged to work until they die, those who committed suicide due to the sanctions regime, the increase in the numbers using foodbanks (which are just about the only growth industry in the UK atm.) etc? How has that worked out for a Scottish Government having to use a limited income to try to ameliorate the effects of Government benefit decisions on Scots?

And what about pensions...remember the "our pensions are safer and more secure within the UK"? Followed almost immediately after the result with headlines like "new pension crisis on the way", "pension crisis to last for 20 years", "pension shock for millions", "death of the decent pension", "betrayed by pension reforms" and of course the "now it's work to 75" and even "keep on working until you are 80".

What about "being part of the UK is good for the Scottish renewables industry" and "our larger energy market makes supporting Scotland's renewable industry more affordable", given the subsequent subsidy cuts? And what is fair in an "equal partnership" when power producers in Scotland get charged
to access the grid and power producers in the south get paid to do so?

And then we get to "defence industry jobs are best protected by remaining in the UK"...resulting in Scotland getting the deepest military service cuts in the UK...plus the promised frigate contracts for the Clyde being first cut and now put on the back burner..and the proposed sale of the Kinloss army base and of Fort George....rather than the promised increase in the numbers at Kinloss?

And jobs...let's talk about jobs....do you remember the "protect jobs:vote NO" banners, or the graphics produced by Better Together proclaiming "I'm voting NO to protect our NHS, our pensions and our jobs" and the oft repeated statement that Scotland had to have "the broad shoulders" of the UK to support it? So where was the UK when what was left of the steel industry entered its death throes and when the oil industry shed jobs by the thousands? Remember the "1400 jobs in HMRC in Cumbernauld are dependent on us staying in the UK" and the current modernisation of HMRC which will, by 2020 have closed most of their offices in Scotland removing a couple of thousand jobs....which appear to be going to be shipped to Croydon. But of course they still support 520 jobs at Faslane coddling the "nuclear deterrent" at great cost....and other job losses are just fine, as the UK shoulders obviously aren't broad enough to support everything.

Then what about that Vow? you know...the one which turned out to be nothing like "a modern form of home rule"....the one which got through Westminster giving little of use or ornament, just more to pay out with no more coming in to pay it, without raising taxes or cutting other services...the one the SNP, the Labour MP and the LibDem MP tabled 120 amendments to improve, only to have them all defeated by the Unionist parties.

And the love-bombing! Do you remember the love bombing.....the legion of "celebrities" pleading for us not to leave? And Cameron in the Daily Fail saying "We desperately want you to stay."....only to turn up after we voted for the status quo to tell us that he was introducing EVEL (a cheap way to have an English Parliament without having to pay for more MPs, civil servants and the necessary buildings, as Scotland, Wales and NI have to do)...when pretty much all of the "English only" laws equating to those devolved to Scotland, have Barnett consequences.

So three years on, the status quo we voted for no longer exists....so why should we respect the result?

Did the Westminster Government itself respect all their weasel words?

Do we live in a UK in which we are remaining in the EU,in which the UK Government is protecting our jobs generally, and in the renewable and military defence industries in particular? Do we live in a UK where the the age of retirement hasn't been increased, with more increases in the pipeline, where the terminally ill and disabled are permitted to have a life without the stress of trying to find a scarce job, where people don't end up using foodbanks because sanctions, often for as little as being a few minutes late for an "appointment" have removed their income? Do we live in a country where we are "equal partners" in a Union, rather than, as now, an unwelcome addition to the English Parliament...and in which it is unlikely that a Scottish constituency MP will ever be PM...or even in the Cabinet, given the EVEL rule which would mean they couldn't vote on the laws they are instrumental in introducing, if they are deemed by English MPs to be "English only applicable"

Bet JK Rowling is glad we don't expect her to produce anything but fiction, when she said "My guess is that, if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go. I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay" Aye, right!

So explain to me why what has come to pass since the NO vote is a situation to be respected?

You make good points and yes the landscape has changed dramatically, if the oil price was at an 2014 $100 plus a barrel, then given Brexit alone, never mind the undelivered promises and misrule you allude to, I would have expected indy2 asap as the SNP would be in a powerful position, but its not turning out that way , so assuming everything you've written is correct the fiscal sums dont add up at the moment,the economic timing is out, revenues are down and cuts are a comming. If what you say is accurate then why is the "cautious" wing of the SNP waiting until at least 2020 to instigate indy2, if things are so bad, why not go the Salmon route, indy 2 in 2018 why wait until a tory victory in 2020 (thats the tactics being adopted ) and progress indy2 on the fact that we will be ruled by a party which does not reflect Scotland's landscape. Oh..and both sides in 2014 "lied" just as both sides lied in the EU referendum, so yep indy2 will come in time, but lets have a truthful engagement this time around, and respect its outcome whatever it maybe.

[rob murray]

We will know the post Brexit landscape fully within next 4/5 years, so 2020 as a minimum for indy2 is sensible anything sooner is just reckless, and indy2 will be fought on how different an EU (once we're in ) Scotland will look like / measure up against continuing involvement in the new UK landscape. The best of 2 bad choices as I see it 1 Stay in a tory dominated ( thanks Corbynistas !!! ) UK or 2 Get out and eventually ( once we get in ) surrender key fiscal based policy powers to the EU and European Central bank.

[rob murray]

We will know the post Brexit landscape fully within next 4/5 years, so 2020 as a minimum for indy2 is sensible anything sooner is just reckless, and indy2 will be fought on how different an EU (once we're in ) Scotland will look like / measure up against continuing involvement in the new UK landscape. The best of 2 bad choices as I see it 1 Stay in a tory dominated ( thanks Corbynistas !!! ) UK or 2 Get out and eventually ( once we get in ) surrender key fiscal based policy powers to the EU and European Central bank.

SNP MSP 's qoutes : "We have to be really careful and not rush this. It's unlikely we'll get what we want from the Brexit process but we have to build a solid economic case for independence among those who voted No in 2014. That looks like a second referendum after 2020. The polls show they're not there yet. The bottom line is: we can't afford to lose another one." So why is Sturgeon comming out with the indy for indys sake arguement when more informed party MSP's obviously see the battleground as being fought on the economic case Sturgeon ( yet again ) the case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets and of passing political fads and trends”. SO independence for independence sake, after all what more can you expect from a nationalist party.....IS this a case of throwing red meat to the committed yessers if so thats no way to make converts, she's sounding more Salmon like by the day !

[Oddquine]

We will know the post Brexit landscape fully within next 4/5 years, so 2020 as a minimum for indy2 is sensible anything sooner is just reckless, and indy2 will be fought on how different an EU (once we're in ) Scotland will look like / measure up against continuing involvement in the new UK landscape. The best of 2 bad choices as I see it 1 Stay in a tory dominated ( thanks Corbynistas !!! ) UK or 2 Get out and eventually ( once we get in ) surrender key fiscal based policy powers to the EU and European Central bank.

What key fiscal based policy powers do we hand to the EU and European Central Bank? I've heard this time and again, but I have never been able to find anything bar indirect taxation, which is considered necessary to harmonise competition.....and we can veto changes to that anyway.

[bekisman]

Just seen Salmon wittering on about another 'independence referendum', so had a look at the actual Edinburgh Agreement (link at bottom), just a couple of years have passed and his agreeing to "A result that everyone will respect" shows conclusively what a liar he is, he is NOT a man of his word, he has not respected in anyway the result. But I suppose the SNP's raison d'etre is to get independence at any costs.. the mere fact of honesty, integrity just goes out of the window - one wonders where this minority government will be in a few years..



Edinburgh, 15 October 2012

The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.
The governments are agreed that the referendum should:

• have a clear legal base
• be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament
• be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people
• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect

http://www.gov.scot/About/Government...n-independence

STILL waiting for someone to explain why the Scottish Government LIED? And nothing was said 'ah but material things have changed' crap.. they did NOT honour the agreement; simply.. Mention this as my grandson (24 and living in Canada) was just saying he thought the Scotch (sic) had had their Independence Referendum? - I said think it was "the best of three"

[Oddquine]

STILL waiting for someone to explain why the Scottish Government LIED? And nothing was said 'ah but material things have changed' crap.. they did NOT honour the agreement; simply.. Mention this as my grandson (24 and living in Canada) was just saying he thought the Scotch (sic) had had their Independence Referendum? - I said think it was "the best of three"

The result was not one we could all respect and was not a fair test of the views of people in Scotland...ergo the "contract" if such it was, was broken.

It could never have been a decisive test as decisive means settling an issue...and no government can ever settle an issue to preclude any other Government from revisiting it.

And as it turned out, the status quo.....which many voted for, no longer exists, and the promises, including those contained in the VOW which moved others to vote NO, have lived up to even the most pessimistic expectations.

So explain to me why we should not revisit the question, particularly given the list of promises and assurances binned by Westminster spokesmen after they got the vote they wanted.

[rob murray]

The result was not one we could all respect and was not a fair test of the views of people in Scotland...ergo the "contract" if such it was, was broken.

It could never have been a decisive test as decisive means settling an issue...and no government can ever settle an issue to preclude any other Government from revisiting it.

And as it turned out, the status quo.....which many voted for, no longer exists, and the promises, including those contained in the VOW which moved others to vote NO, have lived up to even the most pessimistic expectations.

So explain to me why we should not revisit the question, particularly given the list of promises and assurances binned by Westminster spokesmen after they got the vote they wanted.

I agree with you, things have changed since 2014, and there should be another referendum as the "game" has changed, but people need to know what BREXIT actually is / will be, and also need to know SNP alternatives, then a vote, but not before we know both sides of the situation surely ? That should put the issue to bed once and for all, however polls show that leave UK stands at 45% same as 2014 so SNP / Sturgeon has a very hard call to make on when or if to have an independence referendum.

[tonkatojo]

I agree with you, things have changed since 2014, and there should be another referendum as the "game" has changed, but people need to know what BREXIT actually is / will be, and also need to know SNP alternatives, then a vote, but not before we know both sides of the situation surely ? That should put the issue to bed once and for all, however polls show that leave UK stands at 45% same as 2014 so SNP / Sturgeon has a very hard call to make on when or if to have an independence referendum.

I think she will chicken out and crow about this forever more.

[rob murray]

I think she will chicken out and crow about this forever more.

Polls are currently not in indy favour, according to some sources, still stuck at 45%, but polls are proved wrong, sturgeon has a very tough call to make on this

[bekisman]

[QUOTE=Oddquine;1156775]The result was not one we could all respect and was not a fair test of the views of people in Scotland...ergo the "contract" if such it was, was broken.

It could never have been a decisive test as decisive means settling an issue...and no government can ever settle an issue to preclude any other Government from revisiting it.

And as it turned out, the status quo.....which many voted for, no longer exists, and the promises, including those contained in the VOW which moved others to vote NO, have lived up to even the most pessimistic expectations.

So explain to me why we should not revisit the question, particularly given the list of promises and assurances binned by Westminster spokesmen after they got the vote they wanted.[/QUOTE your reply is totally without merit; Edinburgh, 15 October 2012

The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.
The governments are agreed that the referendum should:

• have a clear legal base
• be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament
• be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people
• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect

[bekisman]

"So explain to me why we should not revisit the question" (oddquine) 'cos your lot said they would accept the result? duh?

[Oddquine]

"So explain to me why we should not revisit the question" (oddquine) 'cos your lot said they would accept the result? duh?

And once we get a referendum without lies and scaremongering and a fair crack of the whip in the UK media, it may well be considered a fair test.....but the last one wasn't by a country mile.

And don't bother repeating that Edinburgh Agreement for a third time......you will get the same response. Westminster didn't keep its side of the bargain.

Just explain to me why we should not revisit the question, particularly given the list of promises and assurances binned by Westminster spokesmen after they got the vote they wanted.