David Cameron dismisses second Scottish Referendum before 2020
Scroll to see replies
Original post by david9640
No he has not, what you have just said is your opinion and is entirely subjective.
Claiming he is a troll is an assertion too, and entirely subjective. It is also false, as is proved by his long history of sensible debate. Don't do it again please.
Original post by david9640
The grievance would be among the majority of Scots.
That, of course, is an assertion, which is a bit rich considering what you have said in this thread. Prove it.
Original post by david9640
If any party puts something in their manifesto and wins more support from the electorate than any other party, they have a mandate
The SNP's problem is that they would be asking for a mandate to do something they don't have the power to enact, so the mandate is useless. The electorate knows they don't have the power so a vote for the SNP cannot be a vote for an independence referendum, no matter what the SNP claims.
Original post by david9640
Please look up the definition of mandate if you disagree. If any party puts something in their manifesto and wins more support from the electorate than any other party, they have a mandate.
If the SNP win over 50% or beat the Conservatives then they have more of a mandate from the Scottish people than David Cameron. This isn't difficult stuff.
If the SNP win over 50% or beat the Conservatives then they have more of a mandate from the Scottish people than David Cameron. This isn't difficult stuff.
Scotland has a reserved power model, meaning power has been devolved in all but a few select areas. One of these select areas is constitutional matters. The Scottish parliament has no authority on constitutional matters, and thus has no mandate.
As you said, this isn't difficult stuff.
Original post by Good bloke
Claiming he is a troll is an assertion too, and entirely subjective. It is also false, as is proved by his long history of sensible debate. Don't do it again please.
That, of course, is an assertion, which is a bit rich considering what you have said in this thread. Prove it.
The SNP's problem is that they would be asking for a mandate to do something they don't have the power to enact, so the mandate is useless. The electorate knows they don't have the power so a vote for the SNP cannot be a vote for an independence referendum, no matter what the SNP claims.
That, of course, is an assertion, which is a bit rich considering what you have said in this thread. Prove it.
The SNP's problem is that they would be asking for a mandate to do something they don't have the power to enact, so the mandate is useless. The electorate knows they don't have the power so a vote for the SNP cannot be a vote for an independence referendum, no matter what the SNP claims.
It isn't an assertion, it is based on my experience in dealing with him.
Again, it can be easily reasoned to be true. The majority of Scots describe themselves as 'Scottish not British', and while they don't necessarily believe Scotland should be Independent, they have a clear feeling of national identity. Just like England appears to be enraged over EVEL, the Scots would similarly be enraged, and even more so considering the more potent national identity.
Your logic is nonsense. The definition of mandate:
"a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative"
The definition has nothing to do with what the party have the power to achieve. A mandate is about the representation of the views of the electorate, and acting appropriately.
Original post by tengentoppa
Scotland has a reserved power model, meaning power has been devolved in all but a few select areas. One of these select areas is constitutional matters. The Scottish parliament has no authority on constitutional matters, and thus has no mandate.
As you said, this isn't difficult stuff.
As you said, this isn't difficult stuff.
See my post above for my response to that argument.
Original post by david9640
Your logic is nonsense. The definition of mandate:
"a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative"
The definition has nothing to do with what the party have the power to achieve. A mandate is about the representation of the views of the electorate, and acting appropriately.
Your logic is nonsense. The definition of mandate:
"a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative"
The definition has nothing to do with what the party have the power to achieve. A mandate is about the representation of the views of the electorate, and acting appropriately.
Exactly. And the Scottish parliament does not have the authority to act in this particular way, because the UK as a whole did not give them the authority.
The mandate of the UK parliament > The Scottish parliament.
The Scottish parliament was not given carte blanche by devolution. Its power is still very much limited
Original post by david9640
"a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative"
"a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative"
You are still forgetting the fact that the Scottish parliament has no authority to act in this way. It therefore has no mandate. By definition.
Original post by tengentoppa
Exactly. And the Scottish parliament does not have the authority to act in this particular way, because the UK as a whole did not give them the authority.
The mandate of the UK parliament > The Scottish parliament.
The Scottish parliament was not given carte blanche by devolution. Its power is still very much limited
The mandate of the UK parliament > The Scottish parliament.
The Scottish parliament was not given carte blanche by devolution. Its power is still very much limited
Just like David Cameron doesn't have the power to reform Europe but sought a mandate from the electorate so that he could negotiate, then hold a referendum.
Your position is nonsensical. ANY election is about the electorate choosing people to act and represent them in the way they want. If the Scottish electorate back a manifesto that includes policies out-with that party's power, then the policy still has a mandate of the people as the people have voted to give that manifesto their backing.
Original post by david9640
Just like David Cameron doesn't have the power to reform Europe but sought a mandate from the electorate so that he could negotiate, then hold a referendum.
Your position is nonsensical. ANY election is about the electorate choosing people to act and represent them in the way they want. If the Scottish electorate back a manifesto that includes policies out-with that party's power, then the policy still has a mandate of the people as the people have voted to give that manifesto their backing.
Your position is nonsensical. ANY election is about the electorate choosing people to act and represent them in the way they want. If the Scottish electorate back a manifesto that includes policies out-with that party's power, then the policy still has a mandate of the people as the people have voted to give that manifesto their backing.
The only nonsense is coming from you. The electorate cannot possibly give a mandate to do something that is impossible impossible.
The electorate knows that an independence referendum is outside the Scottish government's power, so they can't possibly be voting to give them a meaningful mandate (unless they are all mad, of course).
You already know that many of the SNP's voters don't agree with independence. It is impossible to state how many of their voters are in favour of it, and impossible to see if they have a true vote in favour of a referendum (and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to deliver one as they don't have the power to do so.
Original post by Good bloke
The only nonsense is coming from you. The electorate cannot possibly give a mandate to do something that is impossible impossible.
The electorate knows that an independence referendum is outside the Scottish government's power, so they can't possibly be voting to give them a meaningful mandate (unless they are all mad, of course).
You already know that many of the SNP's voters don't agree with independence. It is impossible to state how many of their voters are in favour of it, and impossible to see if they have a true vote in favour of a referendum (and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to deliver one as they don't have the power to do so.
The electorate knows that an independence referendum is outside the Scottish government's power, so they can't possibly be voting to give them a meaningful mandate (unless they are all mad, of course).
You already know that many of the SNP's voters don't agree with independence. It is impossible to state how many of their voters are in favour of it, and impossible to see if they have a true vote in favour of a referendum (and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to deliver one as they don't have the power to do so.
The electorate most certainly can. The electorate by voting for a manifesto give them the authority to try to achieve that manifesto, regardless of whether or not they have to power to do so. Voting for a manifesto is the electorate saying they support that manifesto. Therefore, the party who put forward that manifesto have the authority and the backing of the people to fight for those policies. That backing is a mandate, by definition.
Original post by david9640
Please look up the definition of mandate if you disagree. If any party puts something in their manifesto and wins more support from the electorate than any other party, they have a mandate.
If the SNP win over 50% or beat the Conservatives then they have more of a mandate from the Scottish people than David Cameron. This isn't difficult stuff.
If the SNP win over 50% or beat the Conservatives then they have more of a mandate from the Scottish people than David Cameron. This isn't difficult stuff.
How frequently do you think there should be an indyref?
At least next time 'Yes' can have the easier argument of being the 'No' campaign. And now oil has halved its a pretty easy sell on the economic argument too. And there wont be a distraction of a commonwealth games or Bannockburn anniversary so people can concentrate on independence.
Original post by Quady
How frequently do you think there should be an indyref?
At least next time 'Yes' can have the easier argument of being the 'No' campaign. And now oil has halved its a pretty easy sell on the economic argument too. And there wont be a distraction of a commonwealth games or Bannockburn anniversary so people can concentrate on independence.
At least next time 'Yes' can have the easier argument of being the 'No' campaign. And now oil has halved its a pretty easy sell on the economic argument too. And there wont be a distraction of a commonwealth games or Bannockburn anniversary so people can concentrate on independence.
The price of oil may only have halved but the OBR's forecast of tax receipts from the sector is now about a tenth of what the SNP was predicting at the time of the referendum. Independence would have been disastrous.
Original post by Good bloke
The price of oil may only have halved but the OBR's forecast of tax receipts from the sector is now about a tenth of what the SNP was predicting at the time of the referendum. Independence would have been disastrous.
Not for me, it'd have been awesome.
This is the Scottish National Party we're talking about, though, and they're going to keep trying until they get their beloved independence. I think you're quite right about the Scottish Government not having the power to deliver a second referendum without the authority of the Prime Minister. Anyhow, we'll have to see what happens at Holyrood next year...
Original post by Quady
How frequently do you think there should be an indyref?
At least next time 'Yes' can have the easier argument of being the 'No' campaign. And now oil has halved its a pretty easy sell on the economic argument too. And there wont be a distraction of a commonwealth games or Bannockburn anniversary so people can concentrate on independence.
At least next time 'Yes' can have the easier argument of being the 'No' campaign. And now oil has halved its a pretty easy sell on the economic argument too. And there wont be a distraction of a commonwealth games or Bannockburn anniversary so people can concentrate on independence.
I don't think that there should be another referendum until at least 2024 and would vote 'no' out of principle. I do think however, that if the electorate in Scotland vote for a manifesto that supports a referendum then one should be held. It might be useful for David Cameron to set up a '60% principle' where no referendum will be held unless 60% of the vote goes to parties who support a referendum. That would be a fair compromise.
As for it being an easier sell (for the against Independence campaign) I'm not entirely convinced. I can see that the budget deficit has increased, but I think the question would be asked: "who caused this?". The anti-democracy argument would also become more potent considering that there is a Conservative government once again, but also on the fact that Scotland can elect 56/59 SNP MPs, yet a party with 1 MP in Scotland can overrule them.
However, I don't believe a majority would support Independence. I think the SNP will be weary, not necessarily completely against though, but weary of pushing for another referendum when they can't be confident about the outcome and they don't have another thoroughly impressive leader to replace one resigning. Losing a second referendum would be catastrophic.
Original post by david9640
Just like David Cameron doesn't have the power to reform Europe but sought a mandate from the electorate so that he could negotiate, then hold a referendum.
Your position is nonsensical. ANY election is about the electorate choosing people to act and represent them in the way they want. If the Scottish electorate back a manifesto that includes policies out-with that party's power, then the policy still has a mandate of the people as the people have voted to give that manifesto their backing.
Your position is nonsensical. ANY election is about the electorate choosing people to act and represent them in the way they want. If the Scottish electorate back a manifesto that includes policies out-with that party's power, then the policy still has a mandate of the people as the people have voted to give that manifesto their backing.
Your David Cameron example is nothing like the question at hand. David Cameron has a mandate to deal with foreign policy, the Scottish parliament does not have a mandate to deal with constitutional matters. You don't seem to get it.
A mandate gives you the authority to do something. The Scottish Parliament does not have the authority to deal with constitutional matters, because that is a policy area which the UK parliament has reserved reserved. The Scottish parliament cannot get a mandate in an area in which it is not competent. Do you understand now?
Original post by tengentoppa
Your David Cameron example is nothing like the question at hand. David Cameron has a mandate to deal with foreign policy, the Scottish parliament does not have a mandate to deal with constitutional matters. You don't seem to get it.
A mandate gives you the authority to do something. The Scottish Parliament does not have the authority to deal with constitutional matters, because that is a policy area which the UK parliament has reserved reserved. The Scottish parliament cannot get a mandate in an area in which it is not competent. Do you understand now?
A mandate gives you the authority to do something. The Scottish Parliament does not have the authority to deal with constitutional matters, because that is a policy area which the UK parliament has reserved reserved. The Scottish parliament cannot get a mandate in an area in which it is not competent. Do you understand now?
You've changed from the word 'power' in previous posts to 'authority'. David Cameron doesn't have the power to reform the EU, just like the Scottish Government doesn't have the power to reform the UK. David Cameron sought a mandate to fight for EU reform, the SNP would be seeking a mandate for the UK government to transfer the power to them to hold a referendum. Just like Westminster has authority over Foreign Affairs, Holyrood has authority over its relationship with Westminster.
Either way, you're trying to debate the word rather than what it is in effect. If a majority of the Scottish people give their support for something, regardless of whether or not you call it a mandate, it means something, it means the party advocating that policy has the people of Scotland on their side.
My views would be exactly the same if the Scottish Conservatives commanded the support of the Scottish electorate.
Original post by david9640
The electorate most certainly can. The electorate by voting for a manifesto give them the authority to try to achieve that manifesto, regardless of whether or not they have to power to do so. Voting for a manifesto is the electorate saying they support that manifesto. Therefore, the party who put forward that manifesto have the authority and the backing of the people to fight for those policies. That backing is a mandate, by definition.
It gets a bit awkward though when a referendum which a much higher turnout than any election cleRly shows that the public don't want what that political party is selling.
Original post by MatureStudent36
It gets a bit awkward though when a referendum which a much higher turnout than any election cleRly shows that the public don't want what that political party is selling.
I think you're deliberately ignoring the unique nature of a referendum, and trying to catch me on your hook by posting what you know is a silly point.
You can apply the same logic, in fact to a far larger degree to the 'no' supporting parties. Where were the 'no' voters when the General Election happened? Yes, the 'yes' parties didn't achieve the same number of votes as during the referendum, but the 'no' parties didn't either, and by a much larger amount.
Original post by david9640
I think you're deliberately ignoring the unique nature of a referendum, and trying to catch me on your hook by posting what you know is a silly point.
You can apply the same logic, in fact to a far larger degree to the 'no' supporting parties. Where were the 'no' voters when the General Election happened? Yes, the 'yes' parties didn't achieve the same number of votes as during the referendum, but the 'no' parties didn't either, and by a much larger amount.
You can apply the same logic, in fact to a far larger degree to the 'no' supporting parties. Where were the 'no' voters when the General Election happened? Yes, the 'yes' parties didn't achieve the same number of votes as during the referendum, but the 'no' parties didn't either, and by a much larger amount.
There was no 'unique nature' tk the referendum.
The referendum was held with the SNP saying it would be a once in a life time generation referendum and they agree to abide by the outcome. They lost and are now acting like spoilt children wit their supporters going into overdrive peddling lies and myths as fact.
Original post by MatureStudent36
There was no 'unique nature' tk the referendum.
The referendum was held with the SNP saying it would be a once in a life time generation referendum and they agree to abide by the outcome. They lost and are now acting like spoilt children wit their supporters going into overdrive peddling lies and myths as fact.
The referendum was held with the SNP saying it would be a once in a life time generation referendum and they agree to abide by the outcome. They lost and are now acting like spoilt children wit their supporters going into overdrive peddling lies and myths as fact.
And that is what I believe it should be, a once in a generation event as I have made clear.
How was it not unique? Can you please remind me when the last referendum on the existence of the United Kingdom, held within just one nation of the UK was held? (Apart from 2014, of course). The referendum was a unique event, and such events have a higher turnout.
People who actively supported Independence were obviously very likely to register to vote and turn up, than they would in a General Election or Scottish Election because the vote could actually achieve Independence. Similarly, the individuals who were against were more likely to register to vote and turn up, because the existence of the UK was under threat. This explains the high turnout.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- Scottish universities
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- SLC Funding - Single Parent
- Participation crisis essay
- qualifying for student loan after ill health
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 1 - 7152/1 23 May 2023 [Exam chat]
- Constitutional law
- British passport holder, British citizen, Live in EU. Need student loan for home fees
- GovPol Reading
- Student finance for degree holders
- Student finance Scotland/ England Help!
- Home fee status but living in England
- Scottish Home Fee Status for UK nat in Spain
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- Student Finance for non-UK/EEA spouse of UK National
- Home fee status help
- Edinburgh Mathematics without FM?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
