Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elitepower)
    Again, people who voted stay regret it. There is no trust or faith in the union. It doesn't benefit them, it doesn't help them. It is the English making a decision, ignoring the Scottish, forcing that decision through and expecting gratitude. No wonder they are leaving.

    Because the people who share their island belittle them, constantly ignore their feelings, drag them into messes time and time again, jeopardise their futures, throw them into a completely unneccessary economic downturn, take rights that they value away from them. People they see as small minded and intolerent. *
    I voted stay and do not regret it. Nationalism 101, attach pride to being born on one side of an arbitrary line on a map and generalise people who live on the other side. Blame them for your problems, forget the nuance and forget the facts.

    1. Wales also voted to leave, where is your bile against them?

    2. 40% of Scots, over 1 million people, voted to leave, including a third of SNP voters. How do you account for that?

    3. London voted to remain by the same margin as Scotland, along with other large cities like Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool etc. Do you think they are delighted with the outcome?

    4. Scotland constantly receives far more funding than it contributes even when a geographical share of oil money is accounted for. It gets nearly twice as much per head as some regions of England, while England overall receives the least from the central pot compared to the other 3 constituent states. Your whining that Scotland is victimised while the streets of England are paved with gold does not stand up to scrutiny.

    5. Everywhere outside Scotland's central belt is ignored by the Scottish government. The rest of Scotland has to go with whatever the central belt votes for. The SNP rejected requests for Shetland and Orkney, overwhelmingly pro-UK areas, to be allowed to stay in the event of a Yes vote. They have merged all of the regional police forces to be like Glasgow and shut down local call centres to move to Govan. Yet they and their supporters complain that the UK government is too Londoncentric.

    6. The EU dismissed the fishy one's requests to meet with them separately. Their fishing quotas allow Norwegian fishermen to undermine your own in the North Sea. Scotland has very little representation in the European Parliament and has minimal say on the laws that get passes there and impact on Scots. Despite this Westminster is evil and Brussels is a great thing to be a part of?

    Just admit it, you watched Braveheart, got told that the English are all nasty and you swallowed it all without thinking.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Funny then, how the only polls that have been conducted since showing a "yes" vote in the lead have been margin-of-error stuff. It seems your assurance that Scotland would leave the UK is not matched by any evidence whatsoever.

    I've posted several times on here about people who go around asserting their political views are inevitably going to win out. They're usually the least secure: it doesn't take a degree in psychology to see that is why they feel they have to go around making these assertions. Often it's easier to keep fighting than accept defeat.

    For my part, as a Remain voter, I accept the view of the people on this one. I accept that we are leaving the EU, yet I'm looking to what can be secured and what elements of our relationship with Europe can be retained despite that.

    As for Scottish nationalism, I think any objective analysis would suggest it is more important than ever: providing security, a single domestic market both more integrated and more important to Scotland than the EU, billions of pounds worth of fiscal transfers supporting Scotland's public spending.

    Scotland exports four times as much to the rest of the UK as it does to the rest of the EU combined - it is extremely clear what union is more important. In terms of free movement, many times as many Scots use their free movement within the UK than live or work in the rest of the EU.

    Yes, I feel we've lost something by voting to leave the EU - but to suggest that this set-back somehow endorses the ridiculous case for Scottish nationalism is straightforwardly batty. Indeed, it's the usual desperation of the Scottish nationalists in action: trying to link everything to their one issue of independence.

    As for the "Terry English wanting to go back to the days of the Empire and disliking Immigrants" stuff, that's just bigoted abuse and doesn't deserve any sort of answer.
    There hasn't been any large scale vote either way since the referendum. So dismissing the evidence at hand is stupid. 45% wanted Independence in 2014. This has shown the union will do nothing except ruin Scotland. The natural progression of time favours the Independence movement, as those who grew up with the SNP helping them have kids and install these values. Dismissing this is naive. People aren't* getting over this issue. It is a deal breaker. This isn't going to be forgotten or resolved or accepted. The disgust at Brexit will seep in and when given the opportunity, it will bite back. You trigger Article 50, there will be official calls for another Independence referendum within the week.*
    *
    There is no accepting defeat because this is a colossal mistake. You don't need a psychology degree to tell forcing something through that rips the rights away from the population that roughly half don't want to give up is going to breed resentment. This isn't going to go smoothly. This is a absolute mess that has already caused economic instability and *a rise in hate crime but you want to roll over and accept it? Give up your rights, they aren't taking mine.*
    *
    Also it is highly ironic you are trying to (politely) accuse me of being a *"desperate Scottish nationalist" considering I am English (and ashamed to say that since the result). *
    *
    Additionally your dismissal of this linking to racism or nationalism is incredibly naive. Hate crime after the results went up - you think that is a coincidence? Are most Leave voters racists? Probably not. Did UKIP and the Leave campaign play on these lines where refugees are swarming into the country and taking British jobs and all the voters problems are their fault and they need to Leave to Make Britain Great Again? Yes, they blamed on the ego of voters, on scapegoating other people who were different, on blaming modern problems on migrants to convince them the EU is damaging the country. I grew up and know several areas in the North that voted Leave. Having spend my younger years there, I can tell you there is a very 1950s attitude there where there is casual racism and sexism. I am not saying all leave voters are like this - I'm sure some did a lot of research and made an informed decision - but I can guarantee you a fair amount of several areas did vote this way because of racist connetations, viewing all migrants as drains and part of the problems of Britain and like Trump in America is doing wanting to return to past times (which often would be more racist).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I think they should be allowed to hold another referendum given that Brexit would qualify a significant change of circumstance.

    I don't think they would do well outside of the UK, they are currently running a deficit of 8% of GDP, it is hard to imagine them surviving as a global economy given the lack of diversity in Scotland's economy and its employment figure is currently on a downward trajectory.

    Scotland relies heavily on the rest of the UK (especially London) to finance their budget. Considering the SNP's track record and its manifesto of increasing public spending, it does not look like they have a strong economic case for independence. As for other factors, I don't think there is any significant reason in support for leaving the union.

    If they do choose to exit I think it would be both good and bad thing for the UK. The bad thing would obviously be market uncertainty in the short to medium term, added to the effects of Brexit. On the plus side it would loosen the UK's fiscal burden and create a more efficient economy in the long term.

    Given that the UK's unemployment rate of 4.9% (currently falling) and Scotland's 6.2% (rising), I would expect a migration of workforce from Scotland to the UK as people move to where the money is. This could further harm Scotland's economy, especially the financial sector. I would also expect a re-union to happen in 3-5 years as the SNP loses support over the outcome.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elitepower)
    There hasn't been any large scale vote either way since the referendum. So dismissing the evidence at hand is stupid. 45% wanted Independence in 2014. This has shown the union will do nothing except ruin Scotland. The natural progression of time favours the Independence movement, as those who grew up with the SNP helping them have kids and install these values. Dismissing this is naive.
    I'm sorry, but all of that is just nonsense. If it were true, we'd have a one-party system in the UK that would be entirely self-perpetuating. We don't.

    People aren't* getting over this issue. It is a deal breaker. This isn't going to be forgotten or resolved or accepted.
    I rather think the issue was resolved with a referendum about a 20 months ago.

    Also it is highly ironic you are trying to (politely) accuse me of being a *"desperate Scottish nationalist" considering I am English (and ashamed to say that since the result). *
    The Englishness thing may give you some leeway on naivety on Scottish politics, but it doesn't excuse parroting their daft lines and expecting no-one to call you on it.

    Additionally your dismissal of this linking to racism or nationalism is incredibly naive. Hate crime after the results went up - you think that is a coincidence? Are most Leave voters racists? Probably not. Did UKIP and the Leave campaign play on these lines where refugees are swarming into the country and taking British jobs and all the voters problems are their fault and they need to Leave to Make Britain Great Again? Yes, they blamed on the ego of voters, on scapegoating other people who were different, on blaming modern problems on migrants to convince them the EU is damaging the country. I grew up and know several areas in the North that voted Leave. Having spend my younger years there, I can tell you there is a very 1950s attitude there where there is casual racism and sexism. I am not saying all leave voters are like this - I'm sure some did a lot of research and made an informed decision - but I can guarantee you a fair amount of several areas did vote this way because of racist connetations, viewing all migrants as drains and part of the problems of Britain and like Trump in America is doing wanting to return to past times (which often would be more racist).
    Yes, there are undoubtedly people who believe these things. That does not mean that they somehow swung the vote. As any decent politician can tell you, campaigns are won in the moderate middle and there’s very little use appealing to those who will vote for you anyway.

    The vote last month tells us far more about the failings of the Stronger In campaign, the UK Government and – although it seems to have evaded a great deal of the blame at this point – the European Commission. It was not won, it was lost.

    People have very mixed views about immigration, and rarely fit into comfortable boxes of believing it to be wholly good or wholly bad. It is fairly unsurprising that uncontrolled migration from an economically disparate continent of 500 million people is a hard sell. What struck me, however, is that no-one actually bothered to give it much of a shot.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Personally, I think they should be allowed to hold another referendum given that Brexit would qualify a significant change of circumstance.
    At the risk of repeating myself here: how on earth can a "significant change of circumstance" justify a second vote?

    Did we really expect nothing significant to change in the UK for a generation? Did nothing significant change in the last 20 years? How about the 20 years before that?

    The SNP spoke about the referendum being once in a generation or once in a lifetime. It's not even been half the length of a parliamentary term yet.

    Foreign affairs was always going to be a reserved competence of the UK Parliament and Government. There was never any sort of dispute over that. When an electoral mandate was given to the UK, it was to govern in that regard. When the Scottish people voted for a Scottish Parliament in 1997, the powers weren't granted on the basis that there would be a second referendum to abolish it if the new parliament did anything that significantly changed how Scotland was governed. No state can survive on that basis.

    I don't think they would do well outside of the UK, they are currently running a deficit of 8% of GDP
    9.7% actually (GERS 2014-15, including North Sea revenue).

    I would also expect a re-union to happen in 3-5 years as the SNP loses support over the outcome.
    I'm not sure that's particularly likely. Nationalists are not going to stop blaming "the other" for their misfortune, even if Scotland is independent. There will still be grievances to be found against our nearest neighbours - and if the 2014 referendum showed us anything, people are likely to entrench themselves in their positions even when evidence shows the facts they ostensibly based their decision on were wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    At the risk of repeating myself here: how on earth can a "significant change of circumstance" justify a second vote?
    We have to look at the objective of a referendum - it is to find out what exactly the public wants. I think we can both agree that Brexit is a huge change of circumstance for the UK. When circumstances change, one can expect people to change their mind about decisions made earlier without the changes in consideration. It is therefore natural that we allow Scotland to hold another referendum, if we are truly interested in fulfilling the will of the public.

    It would also be unwise of us to deprive them of their vote. We've seen from the EU what happens when the public's voice is ignored. The EU is becoming a breeding ground for far-rights extremism and racial division.

    I think it will be most sensible to find out again what the Scottish public wants, and not shy away from the truth either way.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Being a middle class anglo-scot I can tell you that the liberal section of Scotland that was for staying in the UK has changed to prefering INDY within the EU.

    What has changed is that many Londoners now agree with them..

    If Scotland goes for a new kind of citizenship where anyone on this Island is eligible to be Scottish I think they will get the entire 48% of the Island as new citizens. That would really blow the Torys out of the water -

    More or less the entire population of the UK under 50 becomes Scottish!
    The problem with that it would be Indy outside the EU
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    We have to look at the objective of a referendum - it is to find out what exactly the public wants.
    I think it's rather more than that. It's also to decisively answer a question and to bring about a stable settlement endorsed by the people.

    I think we can both agree that Brexit is a huge change of circumstance for the UK. When circumstances change, one can expect people to change their mind about decisions made earlier without the changes in consideration. It is therefore natural that we allow Scotland to hold another referendum, if we are truly interested in fulfilling the will of the public.
    Referendums are not there to track public opinion. Yes, public opinion may vary and fluctuate - if, say, support for Scottish independence was to flip above 50% for a month against a backdrop of 20 years of support for the union, that does not justify dissolving the union any more that the government of the day slipping behind in the polls for a week justifies a general election.

    Referendums are only useful for the objectives I mentioned above if they are decisive. I have no problem with questions being revisited again after a considerable period of time - pretending they don't stand for a year and a half, however, is pretty questionable.

    Yes, Brexit is a change of circumstances. How significant it is, though, I think we really have to look at in perspective. Only a relatively small proportion of British businesses are exporters, only a relatively small number of British people ever use free movement to work and live abroad. Does it have all that significant direct effects on the average person? Not really. If we end up in a Norway-type situation, is it even that great a change? Probably not.

    Compare it with the economic changes of the 1980s, or the proposal to join the Euro in the late 1990s, exiting the ERM, reforming the welfare system and so on. I think all of these are far more significant changes than Brexit - which we should probably see in some sort of perspective.

    In any case, making significant changes is what Governments should be expected to do. To pretend that the referendum result should be seen as holding only on the basis of political inertia doesn't seem remotely right to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Referendums are not there to track public opinion. Yes, public opinion may vary and fluctuate - if, say, support for Scottish independence was to flip above 50% for a month against a backdrop of 20 years of support for the union, that does not justify dissolving the union any more that the government of the day slipping behind in the polls for a week justifies a general election.

    Referendums are only useful for the objectives I mentioned above if they are decisive. I have no problem with questions being revisited again after a considerable period of time - pretending they don't stand for a year and a half, however, is pretty questionable.

    Yes, Brexit is a change of circumstances. How significant it is, though, I think we really have to look at in perspective. Only a relatively small proportion of British businesses are exporters, only a relatively small number of British people ever use free movement to work and live abroad. Does it have all that significant direct effects on the average person? Not really. If we end up in a Norway-type situation, is it even that great a change? Probably not.

    Compare it with the economic changes of the 1980s, or the proposal to join the Euro in the late 1990s, exiting the ERM, reforming the welfare system and so on. I think all of these are far more significant changes than Brexit - which we should probably see in some sort of perspective.

    In any case, making significant changes is what Governments should be expected to do. To pretend that the referendum result should be seen as holding only on the basis of political inertia doesn't seem remotely right to me.
    Then I guess our difference is our judgement on what constitutes 'significant' change of circumstance.

    I agree that we should allow some time to observe the effects of Brexit for at least the medium term. Given that we are currently uncertain on the realistic effects, the Scottish people cannot make an educated decision at this point in time.

    However I still support a referendum maybe 2-3 years down the line, the reasons for holding another referendum still stand. We must acknowledge that a democratic government have no right to suppress the will of the people, especially when there is an obvious motivating factor behind it. What needs to be ensured is that the public has a stabilised environment to make an informed collective decision.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Then I guess our difference is our judgement on what constitutes 'significant' change of circumstance.

    I agree that we should allow some time to observe the effects of Brexit for at least the medium term. Given that we are currently uncertain on the realistic effects, the Scottish people cannot make an educated decision at this point in time.

    However I still support a referendum maybe 2-3 years down the line, the reasons for holding another referendum still stand. We must acknowledge that a democratic government have no right to suppress the will of the people, especially when there is an obvious motivating factor behind it. What needs to be ensured is that the public has a stabilised environment to make an informed collective decision.
    The will of the people has been heard already in 2014 who vote by a margin of 10% to stay in the union.

    As has already been mentioned it was a once in a generation decision and that is regardless of significant change.

    This has already been pointed out to you.

    Significant changes ALWAYS happen in the term of a generation they won't get another crack for 2 or 3 decades now.

    They certainly shouldn't have one in two or three years just at the point brexit negotiations are finishing lol


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The will of the people has been heard already in 2014 who vote by a margin of 10% to stay in the union.

    As has already been mentioned it was a once in a generation decision and that is regardless of significant change.

    This has already been pointed out to you.

    Significant changes ALWAYS happen in the term of a generation they won't get another crack for 2 or 3 decades now.

    They certainly shouldn't have one in two or three years just at the point brexit negotiations are finishing lol
    However I would argue that Brexit is probably the single biggest political change in the past 40 years, and this happens to occur just 2 years after the Scottish referendum. I'm all for playing by the rules of the referendum and I genuinely believe that Scotland would be worse off if they leave the UK, but I am against suppressing the will of the public.

    Personally I wouldn't be happy if they hold another referendum, but I must admit that the reasons for it are genuine. What is important though is that it shouldn't be held now but until we can observe the effects of Brexit on Scotland.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    However I would argue that Brexit is probably the single biggest political change in the past 40 years, and this happens to occur just 2 years after the Scottish referendum. I'm all for playing by the rules of the referendum and I genuinely believe that Scotland would be worse off if they leave the UK, but I am against suppressing the will of the public.

    Personally I wouldn't be happy if they hold another referendum, but I must admit that the reasons for it are genuine. What is important though is that it shouldn't be held now but until we can observe the effects of Brexit on Scotland.
    You won't even be able to measure the brexit solution for at least 5 years for all we know the eu China and eu USA deals could be drawn out we get access to the single market and do deals with both of those and they both funnel their eu business through us making us a fortune


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    And by the way the political change doesn't matter one jot things always change no matter how big or small the will was heard for a generation it won't happen for a generation and neither should it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    but I am against suppressing the will of the public.
    I think if you're going to adhere to that mantra, a referendum on deporting EU citizens resident in the UK, bringing back the death penalty, whether we renew Trident and replacing the Human Rights Act should probably be rather further up the agenda.

    Scotland has had six referendums in its history - on the EU, on devolution, on the voting system. I'm not sure what you think makes this issue so special that it deserves a second called within two years of the first.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I I rather think the issue was resolved with a referendum about a 20 months ago.
    Clearly we are not going to agree. You have given up and sided with Farage, fine. But don't be naive and assume people will get other this. This is going to breed resentment and hatred and when the time comes, have consequences.*
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Nationalism 101, attach pride to being born on one side of an arbitrary line on a map and generalise people who live on the other side. Blame them for your problems, forget the nuance and forget the facts. *
    *

    * Just admit it, you watched Braveheart, got told that the English are all nasty and you swallowed it all without thinking.
    *
    Nice description of the Leave people. You realise I'm English?
    **
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Whilst it's clearly not all roses, that figure of 9.7% is excluding North Sea revenue, correct?And the same IFS report suggested that that figure might well improve should Scotland become independent.
    What North Sea oil revenue is that? Have you not been keeping up to date with that story?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elitepower)
    Clearly we are not going to agree. You have given up and sided with Farage, fine. But don't be naive and assume people will get other this. This is going to breed resentment and hatred and when the time comes, have consequences.*
    The difference between you and me is that I have respect for the outcomes of referendums, whereas you don't.

    If you think that somehow ignoring the Brexit vote will make it go away, you're quite wrong. You talk about resentment - the sort of deluge that trying to get around the outcome of this referendum will bring will be of a measure UK politics has never seen before. If you want to see UKIP win swathes of the country - including in Scotland by the way, 40% of Scots voted Leave - this is the way to go about it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elitepower)
    *
    Nice description of the Leave people. You realise I'm English?
    **
    All nationalists have the same ideology, they just have different tribes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The difference between you and me is that I have respect for the outcomes of referendums, whereas you don't.

    If you think that somehow ignoring the Brexit vote will make it go away, you're quite wrong. You talk about resentment - the sort of deluge that trying to get around the outcome of this referendum will bring will be of a measure UK politics has never seen before. If you want to see UKIP win swathes of the country - including in Scotland by the way, 40% of Scots voted Leave - this is the way to go about it.
    *
    *
    I am not going to have respect for a colossal mistake.
    *
    If they want to leave fine. But they aren't taking my rights away. And if you continue to not believe this will cause resentment or deepen Scotland independence, go be delusional by yourself. *
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.