The Student Room Group

David Cameron dismisses second Scottish Referendum before 2020

Scroll to see replies

Scotland had a referendum and voted to stay in the union. Just cause this isn't the result the SNP wanted doesn't mean we should keep having referendums until they get what they want...that's not how democracy works. They had an idea, they gave the idea to the Scottish people and it was rejected. To have another referendum so soon is ridiculous.

TBH the whole way that the union is managed is not working. The fact Scottish MPs can vote for laws that affect Scotland and we can't but they can vote for laws that only affect England just makes no sense. Really wouldn't be surprised if we become the united states of great Britain and northern Ireland in the not so distant future...might actually work better and be fairer.
Original post by david9640
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.


I'll give you the unique in its nature but the concept wasn't. So I'll put that down to interpretation on my behal and take your point.

The concern with the no vote was always voter apathy. The reluctance tk turn up.

This is the issue that the SNP has succeeded. They've engaged the normally disengaged . This has been done by promising more uncosted giveaways of course, but their success wa getting those people to vote in the GE. Look at the numbers that voted yes and those that voted SNP during the GE and you'll see that they're quite similar.

The SNP manqged to get those that don't vote in vote whilst the main parties supporters stayed away.
Original post by MatureStudent36
I'll give you the unique in its nature but the concept wasn't. So I'll put that down to interpretation on my behal and take your point.

The concern with the no vote was always voter apathy. The reluctance tk turn up.

This is the issue that the SNP has succeeded. They've engaged the normally disengaged . This has been done by promising more uncosted giveaways of course, but their success wa getting those people to vote in the GE. Look at the numbers that voted yes and those that voted SNP during the GE and you'll see that they're quite similar.

The SNP manqged to get those that don't vote in vote whilst the main parties supporters stayed away.


Weirdly, I agree with you on all counts. And I would include the point about a lot of SNP policies being un-costed, although I don't necessarily completely agree with that being their route to success. I think their success was mainly due to managing to turn Scottish patriotism into a self-censuring political 'left wing' movement, to the extent that many who support Independence actually advocate policies they don't necessarily agree with in an attempt to help the cause of Scottish Independence. My case in point would be the welfare cuts; evidence has shown that cutting welfare is very popular, especially among the working classes (surprisingly), yet in Scotland the same people who would otherwise support such cuts will claim to oppose them just to help the anti-Westminster narrative.

I would point out that although I do fully believe that those who support Independence were more likely to vote in the General Election and that affected the result, the SNP remain hugely popular in Scotland to the point that I do have a concern that Scotland could eventually evolve into a one-party state. In Daily Mail commissioned poll recently, the Scottish sub-sample showed Labour below the Conservatives on only I think 14%, I know sub-samples are not entirely trustworthy, but I think it does show that the SNP have taken the majority of the previous Labour vote. Whether they can convert these individuals to support Independence in the future remains to be seen, they're almost 'unionists on life support', but Labour really need to get their act together if they want to save the Union.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by david9640
I don't think that there should be another referendum until at least 2024 and would vote 'no' out of principle.


You think ten years represents a lifetime?
Original post by Good bloke
You think ten years represents a lifetime?


No, and I would never claim that. I don't support the 'once in a lifetime' policy, but equally I think it would be ludicrous to lose a referendum in 2014, then to hold another one a few years later.

I do however think a mandate of the Scottish people shouldn't be ignored. If the Scottish people want a referendum then they should have one; but I do think a 60% of the electorate requirement for a referendum should be created.
Original post by david9640
No, and I would never claim that. I don't support the 'once in a lifetime' policy, but equally I think it would be ludicrous to lose a referendum in 2014, then to hold another one a few years later.

I do however think a mandate of the Scottish people shouldn't be ignored. If the Scottish people want a referendum then they should have one; but I do think a 60% of the electorate requirement for a referendum should be created.


We had a referendum less than 12 months ago and the outcome was pretty conclusive.

I just wish the 'progressive' SNP would start acting a little more progressive.

I wonder how they'll blame Westminster for the increasing gender pay gap in Scotland.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scotland-lags-rest-of-uk-as-gender-pay-gap-widens-1-3845838
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
We had a referendum less than 12 months ago and the outcome was pretty conclusive.

I just wish the 'progressive' SNP would start acting a little more progressive.

I wonder how they'll blame Westminster for the increasing gender pay gap in Scotland.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scotland-lags-rest-of-uk-as-gender-pay-gap-widens-1-3845838


I fine well know that there was a referendum less than 12 months ago, and I've said that I don't support another referendum within the next 10 years. You're attacking the wrong person.

As for the gender pay gap, can you tell me the cause and can you suggest a solution? You've attacked the SNP for as you see it blaming Westminster at every opportunity. You seem to assume that every problem is the result of Holyrood or the SNP, you're effectively what you despise from the opposite political persuasion.
Reply 47
Original post by david9640
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.

The 1973 referendum on the position of Northern Ireland in the UK. It achieved a high turnout among unionists, but was boycotted by nationalists. The boycott didn't really have the intended effect, because the high unionist turnout was sufficient to push the 'stay in the UK' option over 50% of the registered electorate by a solid margin.

Original post by david9640
Weirdly, I agree with you on all counts. And I would include the point about a lot of SNP policies being un-costed, although I don't necessarily completely agree with that being their route to success. I think their success was mainly due to managing to turn Scottish patriotism into a self-censuring political 'left wing' movement, to the extent that many who support Independence actually advocate policies they don't necessarily agree with in an attempt to help the cause of Scottish Independence. My case in point would be the welfare cuts; evidence has shown that cutting welfare is very popular, especially among the working classes (surprisingly), yet in Scotland the same people who would otherwise support such cuts will claim to oppose them just to help the anti-Westminster narrative.

Certainly the most interesting point you've made in this thread.

In Daily Mail commissioned poll recently, the Scottish sub-sample showed Labour below the Conservatives on only I think 14%, I know sub-samples are not entirely trustworthy, but I think it does show that the SNP have taken the majority of the previous Labour vote.


I think we can go from 'not entirely trustworthy' to 'sometimes bat**** crazy'. My evidence? In recent years, the Tories have outpolled both Labour and the SNP in Scotland in subsamples, even coming top on the odd occasion.
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?


I'm afraid there are some inconsistencies in your argument that you're glossing over. You're saying that David Cameron has the power to control foreign policy (with reference to, in particular, our membership of the EU), and that the SNP don't have the power to challenge constitution. Yet you're ignoring a couple of things which make the two cases very similar. Both have, or are at least claiming to have, a mandate to renegotiate our membership of the EU then hold a referendum and to hold another independence referendum. Both have - if we assume that when people voted for them in the election, they voted in particular for their positions of the EU and independence - a mandate to try to get these policy positions enacted. However, Cameron has no authority as such to challenge EU constitution just as the SNP don't have authority to challenge UK constitution.
I think if the SNP maintain their dominance over Scottish politics after the 2020 election then it would be reasonable to look at another referendum between 2020 and 2025 but I agree it's not a good idea to have one in this parliament as it's so soon after the last referendum. I get the impression the SNP will just keep pushing for more referenda until they get the answer they want.
Reply 51
Original post by ibzombie96
I'm afraid there are some inconsistencies in your argument that you're glossing over. You're saying that David Cameron has the power to control foreign policy (with reference to, in particular, our membership of the EU), and that the SNP don't have the power to challenge constitution. Yet you're ignoring a couple of things which make the two cases very similar. Both have, or are at least claiming to have, a mandate to renegotiate our membership of the EU then hold a referendum and to hold another independence referendum. Both have - if we assume that when people voted for them in the election, they voted in particular for their positions of the EU and independence - a mandate to try to get these policy positions enacted. However, Cameron has no authority as such to challenge EU constitution just as the SNP don't have authority to challenge UK constitution.


Except of course that the EU is an organisation of sovereign member-states where the source of law is ultimately agreement of those states. The UK Government also has a position in the central institutions of the EU, in terms of the Council of Ministers and so forth.

The EU is an international body with a central apparatus. The UK is a single democracy where power is devolved in certain areas.
Original post by L i b
Except of course that the EU is an organisation of sovereign member-states where the source of law is ultimately agreement of those states. The UK Government also has a position in the central institutions of the EU, in terms of the Council of Ministers and so forth.

The EU is an international body with a central apparatus. The UK is a single democracy where power is devolved in certain areas.


That is, of course, correct; it is not, however easily changed by one member of the organisation (even though they may be a senior member). One cannot easily accept an invitation to a party and then think it doable to ask for the location, music etc to be changed. In the case of the EU, we may get a successful deal, given our position and the precedent set by France a couple of years ago, but as it stands our position with reference to the EU is not unlike the SNP's position with reference to independence.
Reply 53
Original post by ibzombie96
That is, of course, correct; it is not, however easily changed by one member of the organisation (even though they may be a senior member). One cannot easily accept an invitation to a party and then think it doable to ask for the location, music etc to be changed. In the case of the EU, we may get a successful deal, given our position and the precedent set by France a couple of years ago, but as it stands our position with reference to the EU is not unlike the SNP's position with reference to independence.


Fundamentally I agree with you. Firstly, as much as I am a Conservative voter, I do not support a referendum on EU membership. That said, I suspect David Cameron sees it as little more than a tactic: he thinks he can win it relatively comfortably and make it look like him 'winning for Britain' or whatever trite rubbish passes for political discourse when you're trying to battle for Eurosceptic voters.

Regardless of the result, however, I won't undermine the outcome - as the SNP are apparently trying to do. It ought to be, in my mind, decisive for a generation or more.

The distinction between the SNP and Conservatives in this, however, is that David Cameron is making a case for reform, and actively supporting the idea of membership of a reformed EU. The SNP are pushing for independence, and everything on the way is simply a stepping-stone.

In the EU context, I think the renegotiation will be moderately successful and then Cameron ought to celebrate that and end his discussion on the issue. Meanwhile the Scottish Parliament is getting an extensive package of more powers, and yet we're still seeing calls for separation from the SNP. To relate back to your previous post, I don't mind anyone taking a view on things beyond their remit: I do mind them banging on about things that are settled, particularly when the level of government with ultimate control over the issue has bent over backwards to address the issue.
Original post by ibzombie96
I'm afraid there are some inconsistencies in your argument that you're glossing over. You're saying that David Cameron has the power to control foreign policy (with reference to, in particular, our membership of the EU), and that the SNP don't have the power to challenge constitution. Yet you're ignoring a couple of things which make the two cases very similar. Both have, or are at least claiming to have, a mandate to renegotiate our membership of the EU then hold a referendum and to hold another independence referendum. Both have - if we assume that when people voted for them in the election, they voted in particular for their positions of the EU and independence - a mandate to try to get these policy positions enacted. However, Cameron has no authority as such to challenge EU constitution just as the SNP don't have authority to challenge UK constitution.


Very different cases. Scotland is not a sovereign nation with complete autonomy. It is a country which has been granted limited powers by the UK parliament.

The UK Parliament, on the other hand, has the power to make or unmake any law. So by repealing the European Communites Act 1972, the UK can revoke its membership of the EU. Scotland does not have unchecked legislative power.

The relationship between Scotland and the UK cannot be compared to the UK and the EU. The EU is not a state which has delegated powers to the region of the UK. The UK is the state which has chosen to be part of the EU. There is a clear difference.
Original post by tengentoppa
Very different cases. Scotland is not a sovereign nation with complete autonomy. It is a country which has been granted limited powers by the UK parliament.

The UK Parliament, on the other hand, has the power to make or unmake any law. So by repealing the European Communites Act 1972, the UK can revoke its membership of the EU. Scotland does not have unchecked legislative power.

The relationship between Scotland and the UK cannot be compared to the UK and the EU. The EU is not a state which has delegated powers to the region of the UK. The UK is the state which has chosen to be part of the EU. There is a clear difference.


I didn't for one moment say the cases were exactly the same; I am saying that there is much more of a parallel than you make out. You talk about the UK's ability to revoke its membership of the EU, but that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about its ability to change the nature of its membership. Both entities (SNP and Tories) have mandates - or, at least, they think they do - to change law. The SNP want to have another independence referendum, yet do not have authority to do so; Cameron wants to have a renegotiation of our membership of the EU, yet also doesn't have the full authority to do so - he, as a senior member of the group, may get extra bargaining power, but there is a limit to how much he can change EU constitution - the UK may have chosen to enter the group, but that doesn't mean it has the authority to change the nature of its membership completely.
Original post by ibzombie96
I didn't for one moment say the cases were exactly the same; I am saying that there is much more of a parallel than you make out. You talk about the UK's ability to revoke its membership of the EU, but that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about its ability to change the nature of its membership. Both entities (SNP and Tories) have mandates - or, at least, they think they do - to change law. The SNP want to have another independence referendum, yet do not have authority to do so; Cameron wants to have a renegotiation of our membership of the EU, yet also doesn't have the full authority to do so - he, as a senior member of the group, may get extra bargaining power, but there is a limit to how much he can change EU constitution - the UK may have chosen to enter the group, but that doesn't mean it has the authority to change the nature of its membership completely.


Ah I see. You're right that the UK doesn't have the right to completely change the EU. But the question at hand was whether an SNP victory would guarantee a second referendum. I agree that it would make it more likely, but it would not guarantee it.
Original post by L i b
Fundamentally I agree with you. Firstly, as much as I am a Conservative voter, I do not support a referendum on EU membership. That said, I suspect David Cameron sees it as little more than a tactic: he thinks he can win it relatively comfortably and make it look like him 'winning for Britain' or whatever trite rubbish passes for political discourse when you're trying to battle for Eurosceptic voters.

Regardless of the result, however, I won't undermine the outcome - as the SNP are apparently trying to do. It ought to be, in my mind, decisive for a generation or more.

The distinction between the SNP and Conservatives in this, however, is that David Cameron is making a case for reform, and actively supporting the idea of membership of a reformed EU. The SNP are pushing for independence, and everything on the way is simply a stepping-stone.

In the EU context, I think the renegotiation will be moderately successful and then Cameron ought to celebrate that and end his discussion on the issue. Meanwhile the Scottish Parliament is getting an extensive package of more powers, and yet we're still seeing calls for separation from the SNP. To relate back to your previous post, I don't mind anyone taking a view on things beyond their remit: I do mind them banging on about things that are settled, particularly when the level of government with ultimate control over the issue has bent over backwards to address the issue.


Oh, I completely agree with you; I was only making quite a narrow point that Cameron's position at the moment isn't a million miles away from the SNP's.
Reply 58
Original post by MatureStudent36
The SNP said the referendum
would be a once in a generation event.

They're now telling more lies claiming that promises have been broken when they unite obviously haven't.

It would be interesting to see their campiagn strategy for a second referendum.

We know we lied to you about automatic entry to the EU the first time around. We know we lied to you about the economic argument the first time around. We know we lied to you about a shared currency the first time around. Remember the first time around when billions left Scotland?

The SNP have one strategy and one strategy only, to promote a sense of victimhood. We're already seeing that their policies are leaving education and healthcare falling behind the rest of the UK.


Sources? For.. any of those statements?

Quick Reply

Latest