Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Illegal "Referendum"?
218 Answers
https:/
Why is the SNP wasting effort and resources on pursuing an illegal "referendum" when they should be fighting the war on COVID-19 with the rest of the UK?
Why is the SNP wasting effort and resources on pursuing an illegal "referendum" when they should be fighting the war on COVID-19 with the rest of the UK?
Answers
All you English"
13:46 Wed 03rd Feb 2021
If indeed it's inevitable that there's support in Scotland for leaving, then by all means hold the referendum, and I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. What saddens me instead is that there is such support in the first place. I would never have blocked the first referendum, only campaigned in favour of "no". Likewise in a second.
// But saying it will only be so often, and then changing that, only shows you can't be trusted. //
The mistake is in saying it in the first place. It would compound the error to stick to a "promise" that never should have been made, especially if the facts and public opinion appear to change. People shouldn't make such statements, I agree; but nor should they be held to them, when they have no legal weight.
// But saying it will only be so often, and then changing that, only shows you can't be trusted. //
The mistake is in saying it in the first place. It would compound the error to stick to a "promise" that never should have been made, especially if the facts and public opinion appear to change. People shouldn't make such statements, I agree; but nor should they be held to them, when they have no legal weight.
There may be no legal weight, Jim... but honesty is a big problem for any politician, and they need to stay popular. Now that they have said once.... they need to stick to that now. I would have no problem if they left today, myself. But they must realise that insincerity will be held against them forever.
Sometimes, it's the principles they need, more than the result.
Sometimes, it's the principles they need, more than the result.
At last someone, Jim @ 16.12, has grasped that “once in a generation/lifetime” is no more than an idiomatic phrase used to emphasise the importance of a decision or situation.
Given that independence is and always has been the raison d’etre for the SNP’s very existence, there never was any intention that they would abandon pressing for that to happen for any given number of years…25 or 75 perhaps…suggested by the key words in the quote in the opening paragraph.
On an Andrew Marr programme in 2014, referring to the upcoming first Scottish Independence referendum, Alex Salmond - leader of the SNP at the time - said, “In my view this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity.”
Notice the opening three words, “In my view…” This statement was, perfectly clearly, just a personal opinion of Mr Salmond’s at the time and certainly not a promise or a policy statement made on behalf of the SNP as a party.
Indeed, Mr Salmond actually said later in the same interview, "In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
In other words, it in no way compelled any future leader of that party to avoid for decades any further attempt to attain the party’s ends.
Yet, every single time the matter arises here, it is met by at least one but more frequently a veritable chorus of complaints about the supposed “promise/policy”!
It was obviously neither Alex Salmond nor Nicola Sturgeon who made any such promise, so who did? As they have been the two most recent leaders of the SNP, who else, indeed, ever had any right to make such a promise? It's conceivable, of course, that other SNP members may have 'echoed' Mr Salmond's opinion, but party policy regarding future referenda on the subject it never was.
Please, if you can, provide checkable evidence that it ever WAS. If you can’t, please stop mindlessly trotting it out every time you see the words ‘Scotland’ and ‘referendum’ on AnswerBank. If you can’t, you really have no justification for ever making such a claim again.
Given that independence is and always has been the raison d’etre for the SNP’s very existence, there never was any intention that they would abandon pressing for that to happen for any given number of years…25 or 75 perhaps…suggested by the key words in the quote in the opening paragraph.
On an Andrew Marr programme in 2014, referring to the upcoming first Scottish Independence referendum, Alex Salmond - leader of the SNP at the time - said, “In my view this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity.”
Notice the opening three words, “In my view…” This statement was, perfectly clearly, just a personal opinion of Mr Salmond’s at the time and certainly not a promise or a policy statement made on behalf of the SNP as a party.
Indeed, Mr Salmond actually said later in the same interview, "In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
In other words, it in no way compelled any future leader of that party to avoid for decades any further attempt to attain the party’s ends.
Yet, every single time the matter arises here, it is met by at least one but more frequently a veritable chorus of complaints about the supposed “promise/policy”!
It was obviously neither Alex Salmond nor Nicola Sturgeon who made any such promise, so who did? As they have been the two most recent leaders of the SNP, who else, indeed, ever had any right to make such a promise? It's conceivable, of course, that other SNP members may have 'echoed' Mr Salmond's opinion, but party policy regarding future referenda on the subject it never was.
Please, if you can, provide checkable evidence that it ever WAS. If you can’t, please stop mindlessly trotting it out every time you see the words ‘Scotland’ and ‘referendum’ on AnswerBank. If you can’t, you really have no justification for ever making such a claim again.
From Google...
//A generation is "all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively." It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children//
//A generation is "all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively." It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children//
//Why are you all so worried about a second referendum in Scotland.//
I don’t think anybody on here is particularly worried, Maggie, apart from Jim who says it bothers him
//…it's simply the wrong decision to try and break up the UK, and both countries would be worse off because of it.//
I haven’t really thought about the effect of Scottish Independence on Wales or NI, but I cannot see how England will be worse off for it (unless they agree to part with huge sums of cash to tide the Scots over until they can start drawing funds from the EU). As much as I like Scotland and the Scots there’s simply nothing I can see in the Union that benefits the English apart from somewhere to park the UK’s submarines and a place to which we can send any spare cash we might have. I’d really be interested to learn what’s in it for England apart from the nebulous “stronger together” and similar slogans.
If the "wrong decision" is ultimately enacted and the Union breaks up the blame for it will rest solely on the shoulders of the Scots in general and the SNP in particular as I don't see any great clamour for it from anywhere else.
I don’t think anybody on here is particularly worried, Maggie, apart from Jim who says it bothers him
//…it's simply the wrong decision to try and break up the UK, and both countries would be worse off because of it.//
I haven’t really thought about the effect of Scottish Independence on Wales or NI, but I cannot see how England will be worse off for it (unless they agree to part with huge sums of cash to tide the Scots over until they can start drawing funds from the EU). As much as I like Scotland and the Scots there’s simply nothing I can see in the Union that benefits the English apart from somewhere to park the UK’s submarines and a place to which we can send any spare cash we might have. I’d really be interested to learn what’s in it for England apart from the nebulous “stronger together” and similar slogans.
If the "wrong decision" is ultimately enacted and the Union breaks up the blame for it will rest solely on the shoulders of the Scots in general and the SNP in particular as I don't see any great clamour for it from anywhere else.
In answer to NJ, I'm thinking primarily of factors like prestige and international status. It would diminish the UK, make our voice literally smaller, and just generally be a step against history. Never mind any of the practical issues that might then arise, especially if Scotland sought EU membership, and was successful, thus raising the prospect of a border marked by far more than just road signs and the odd viewpoint. For those reasons and many more, I hope very much that if a second referendum did happen, Scotland rejected it again.
QM: "Please, if you can, provide checkable evidence that it ever WAS. If you can’t, please stop mindlessly trotting it out every time you see the words ‘Scotland’ and ‘referendum’ on AnswerBank. " - tell you what, I will when the remoaners stop deliberately pretending not to comprehend the English on the side of a bus.
// Wee Jimmy could find herself in the slammer like the Catalans that tried this in Spain.// foo yeah to vat ! right on!
// What would be the charge?// corbo - you and I corbo can choose to break the law but legal entities cant.
so corporation for example have to submit tax returns and cant move at board level - 'just not to do that this year'
so the scots govt cannot just hold a ref
they need a say so from London
it is a surprising thing to say official bodies have to obey the law and I note no mention of it in NJ's post
so I suppose the scots cd hold an unofficial poll
labelled - "fou-fou's tea party this is not a referendum"
and then questions like - do you want independence
Judges may not like it on - on the legal rule of 'if it looks like a pig and grunts like a pig then it s a pig" or not. Judges are funny people
I dont mind being wrong again - this is the usual joke thread
// What would be the charge?// corbo - you and I corbo can choose to break the law but legal entities cant.
so corporation for example have to submit tax returns and cant move at board level - 'just not to do that this year'
so the scots govt cannot just hold a ref
they need a say so from London
it is a surprising thing to say official bodies have to obey the law and I note no mention of it in NJ's post
so I suppose the scots cd hold an unofficial poll
labelled - "fou-fou's tea party this is not a referendum"
and then questions like - do you want independence
Judges may not like it on - on the legal rule of 'if it looks like a pig and grunts like a pig then it s a pig" or not. Judges are funny people
I dont mind being wrong again - this is the usual joke thread
// Quiz, how often do you personally think a referendum, on the same subject, should be held?
If one was done now.... should there be another in 7 years time, or does that just depend on what the result is? //
I'm not Quiz, but my own answer would be again that this conflates several issues. The logistical challenges and the expense alone speak against holding a referendum on any given question too often; and, besides, in practice public opinion doesn't tend to swing wildly enough to justify asking the same question too frequently. But those are, as I say, completely separate from the underlying legal point: there is no legal force to a "once in a generation" pledge, and, stupid as it was to have made or suggested it, that's not justification enough to refuse to revisit this or any other decision after an arbitrary amount of time has passed.
It's wrong to hold people to promises that they shouldn't have made, but it's infinitely more wrong to have made those promises in the first place, of course.
If one was done now.... should there be another in 7 years time, or does that just depend on what the result is? //
I'm not Quiz, but my own answer would be again that this conflates several issues. The logistical challenges and the expense alone speak against holding a referendum on any given question too often; and, besides, in practice public opinion doesn't tend to swing wildly enough to justify asking the same question too frequently. But those are, as I say, completely separate from the underlying legal point: there is no legal force to a "once in a generation" pledge, and, stupid as it was to have made or suggested it, that's not justification enough to refuse to revisit this or any other decision after an arbitrary amount of time has passed.
It's wrong to hold people to promises that they shouldn't have made, but it's infinitely more wrong to have made those promises in the first place, of course.
Give it time,Jim,give it time.I would recommend a second IndyRef about 2028.Any illegal referendum should or would be boycotted.Lets stop pandering to nationalists,eh.The Yanks got rid of a nationalist,Farage is a zero,Putin and Bolsanaro holding on to power by the skin of their teeth....why the hell should we give any leeway to nationalists like Sturgeon or Salmond?
Jim, yes, they should never have said it if they didn't mean it, but they did.
My question is more....if they hold a referendum after 7 years to leave, should there be another one 7 years later to rejoin? Or does that just depend what the result is?
It seems a bit like Brexit, that some people called for another, because they didn't like the previous result. Maybe there should be a standard time, on the same subject?
I also am not convinced that countries are stronger together... purely from a business point of view, the bigger they get, the more disorganised and slapdash. I don't think it's particularly different with regions of land.
My question is more....if they hold a referendum after 7 years to leave, should there be another one 7 years later to rejoin? Or does that just depend what the result is?
It seems a bit like Brexit, that some people called for another, because they didn't like the previous result. Maybe there should be a standard time, on the same subject?
I also am not convinced that countries are stronger together... purely from a business point of view, the bigger they get, the more disorganised and slapdash. I don't think it's particularly different with regions of land.
I don't think we should "give any leeway to nationalists like Sturgeon or Salmond" either, but (a) that's a political judgement, and (b) I still maintain that it's no argument to point to "but you said 'once in a generation'" as justification enough. It also feels a bit of a cop-out, in a way: why bother wasting time arguing the positive case for the Union if you won't allow another vote for 20-odd years anyhow?
