Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Why Is It Okay For Some Countries To Gain Independance But Not Others?
47 Answers
http://
Isn't it strange that the whole of the Western world rejoiced when certain countries broke away to form independent countries, ie the Eastern European countries, Yugoslavia etc etc. Yet when Scotland wishes to break away from the UK all hell is let loose, why?
Isn't it strange that the whole of the Western world rejoiced when certain countries broke away to form independent countries, ie the Eastern European countries, Yugoslavia etc etc. Yet when Scotland wishes to break away from the UK all hell is let loose, why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
True, jeffa and look how many immigrants they have up there;
http://
Quite a lot, I wonder have they been asked?
http://
Quite a lot, I wonder have they been asked?
Sp, it's obvious that if Scotland gains independence, the SNP will not go on campaigning for that; that would clearly be absurd. However, if it does not, your idea is that (quote):
"The easy response is, "Look - you went to a vote and you lost. The Scottish people said 'No', so give it up"."
Who exactly do you suppose would be giving this response? If the SNP include a plan to hold an independence referendum in their manifesto for the NEXT Scottish parliamentary election - as they did for the 2011 election - and go on to WIN that election with an overall majority, just who can tell them they can't?
"The Scottish people" are not a fixed, never-changing body and what they say in two or three years may very well NOT be what they say tomorrow!
"The easy response is, "Look - you went to a vote and you lost. The Scottish people said 'No', so give it up"."
Who exactly do you suppose would be giving this response? If the SNP include a plan to hold an independence referendum in their manifesto for the NEXT Scottish parliamentary election - as they did for the 2011 election - and go on to WIN that election with an overall majority, just who can tell them they can't?
"The Scottish people" are not a fixed, never-changing body and what they say in two or three years may very well NOT be what they say tomorrow!
Khandro, if they are on an electoral roll in Scotland and have access to news media, they can scarcely have missed what's been going on for the past two plus years! It's not a matter of being "asked"; the information has been available to immigrants just as it has been available to natives and the vote is there for them if they choose to use it.
Q.M. True they might, - given that they have a working knowledge of English (or Scottish!) But it's hard to see that people who have come to the United Kingdom would now wish to break away from it.
There are around 60,000 Poles there, and about 25,000 people born in the Indian subcontinent, plus many other groups, making a sizeable total.
I'm not making a point, it's just one of the many thoughts the issue brings to mind, including the fact that an independent Scotland would not have any embassies throughout the world.
There are around 60,000 Poles there, and about 25,000 people born in the Indian subcontinent, plus many other groups, making a sizeable total.
I'm not making a point, it's just one of the many thoughts the issue brings to mind, including the fact that an independent Scotland would not have any embassies throughout the world.
"This indicates that if they keep having a referendum every couple of years, they'd get a YES eventually!"
I don't think so, horseshoes. The admission of 16 and 17 year olds to the referendum was clearly designed to secure an advantage for the "Yes" vote and should have been ruled out by the Westminster government. Of course when those voters get a little older and no longer know everything (but may have started to pay a few bills o their own) their judgement may be a little a little more mature.
I don't think so, horseshoes. The admission of 16 and 17 year olds to the referendum was clearly designed to secure an advantage for the "Yes" vote and should have been ruled out by the Westminster government. Of course when those voters get a little older and no longer know everything (but may have started to pay a few bills o their own) their judgement may be a little a little more mature.
Divebuddy, you refer to someone claiming (quote): "No political party abandons key policies when they lose a vote."
I assume that was a reference to what I'd written, except that what I actually wrote was, "I know of no political organisation that simply gives up IF THEY FAIL AT ONE ATTEMPT." Rather a different statement from yours, I'm sure you must agree. Indeed, it utterly negates the validity of the purported 'example' you offered. Blair made the changes after 18 YEARS of his party failing to beat the Tories.
"The admission of 16 and 17 year olds to the referendum was clearly designed to secure an advantage for the 'Yes' vote."
Anyone who imagines the granting of the vote to 16/17-year-olds was nothing but a cynical ploy by Alex Salmond really needs to be reminded that this very topic was debated at Westminster in 2010. 542 votes were cast there and of these 196 were 'for'. That's getting close to four out of ten UK MPs.
Of course, the Tories were in power at the time and it was a Labour MP who proposed the matter, so perhaps something of a foregone conclusion!
If one considers the things any 16-year-old in Britain can legally do…ie effectively make him/her an ‘adult’…it’s amazing that they are barred from voting. If the “other” vote next May produces the right result, we may well see the subject back in Westminster.
I assume that was a reference to what I'd written, except that what I actually wrote was, "I know of no political organisation that simply gives up IF THEY FAIL AT ONE ATTEMPT." Rather a different statement from yours, I'm sure you must agree. Indeed, it utterly negates the validity of the purported 'example' you offered. Blair made the changes after 18 YEARS of his party failing to beat the Tories.
"The admission of 16 and 17 year olds to the referendum was clearly designed to secure an advantage for the 'Yes' vote."
Anyone who imagines the granting of the vote to 16/17-year-olds was nothing but a cynical ploy by Alex Salmond really needs to be reminded that this very topic was debated at Westminster in 2010. 542 votes were cast there and of these 196 were 'for'. That's getting close to four out of ten UK MPs.
Of course, the Tories were in power at the time and it was a Labour MP who proposed the matter, so perhaps something of a foregone conclusion!
If one considers the things any 16-year-old in Britain can legally do…ie effectively make him/her an ‘adult’…it’s amazing that they are barred from voting. If the “other” vote next May produces the right result, we may well see the subject back in Westminster.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.