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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    have you been to Scotland?
    Yes, but I wasn't talking specifically about Scottish house prices. I was talking about UK prices as a whole, which are inexorably rising.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yes, but I wasn't talking specifically about Scottish house prices. I was talking about UK prices as a whole, which are inexorably rising.
    Well that is a bit silly on Scottish Independence referendum thread.... But taking Scotland prices as a whole the average Scottish price for a house is £180K

    The average price in Brexit heart land (Hull) is £125K... The average price in the "swing city" (that swung it to Brexit - Birmingham) is £170K. None of these prices are beyond the pale of an average married couple ...

    Where prices are high is in REMAIN areas - the reason they are high because everyone wants to live the REMAIN life .... That is the Brexit catch - you are voting against the thing you want...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think if they went for it this would be the new minimum vote for Indy:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...rt-poll-finds/

    Ruths arguments for staying in the UK are the same for staying in the EU....

    Its a coin toss.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Oh I see. They knew that the UK may may not leave the EU. How many people would have voted Yes instead of No had they known what the outcome would be? The timing of the referendum was ridiculous in that regard, and so the matter cannot currently be regarded as settled for a generation.

    I'd like to see the actual paper on that poll, especially sampling methods. It isn't based on a very big sample and many polling organisations veer towards the 'whatever's easiest' policy on sampling.
    Load of nonsense. The referendum wasn't about policy decisions, it was about what country we're in. You'll notice that the UK Government doesn't threaten to repeal devolution every time the Scottish Parliament makes a policy decision it doesn't agree with.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    I think if they went for it this would be the new minimum vote for Indy:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...rt-poll-finds/
    You do realise that the Sunday Post's "poll" was not in fact a regulated poll, but a survey conducted by an unregulated company, yeah? It's got about as much credibility as the TSR general election.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    You do realise that the Sunday Post's "poll" was not in fact a regulated poll, but a survey conducted by an unregulated company, yeah? It's got about as much credibility as the TSR general election.
    I think you fail to understand the reasons why people voted "no" last time - "House price crash" and "currency crash" and "staying in the EU"...

    You are missing the whole point of the "no" side. This time it would be "project fear" TO STAY in the UK
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Load of nonsense. The referendum wasn't about policy decisions, it was about what country we're in. You'll notice that the UK Government doesn't threaten to repeal devolution every time the Scottish Parliament makes a policy decision it doesn't agree with.
    Bigger load of nonsense. How significant does a long-term change have to be for it to no longer be dismissed as 'policy decision'? Perhaps we should have kept discussion on currency and nuclear weapons out of the debate on independence too, because that's all just policy decisions?

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Go to the YouGov website then.
    I already did...
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Well, I suggest you have stern words with the SNP leadership.
    Because the SNP decided to have a referendum in 2014 knowing an EU referendum was just around the corner? Hardly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    This time it would be "project fear" TO STAY in the UK
    Don't be silly. Leaving the UK would leave an independent Scotland with massive debts, no sovereign currency, falling employment, no support from the wider UK economy (which currently subsidises it heavily, especially with its borrowing power) outside both the UK and the EU (with years needed to get back into the latter on poorer terms) - all while there was virtually no taxation income from North Sea oil.

    A recipe for disaster. Most Scots aren't that stupid.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    I think you fail to understand the reasons why people voted "no" last time - "House price crash" and "currency crash" and "staying in the EU"...

    You are missing the whole point of the "no" side. This time it would be "project fear" TO STAY in the UK
    I voted no because I don't believe in building a fence at Berwick and blaming someone else for a country's problems. That hasn't changed.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    I think you fail to understand the reasons why people voted "no" last time - "House price crash" and "currency crash" and "staying in the EU"...

    You are missing the whole point of the "no" side. This time it would be "project fear" TO STAY in the UK
    Hmm, I don't think that's really the central issues.

    Probably at least three-quarters of the No vote was decided from the get-go. They believed fully in the concept of the United Kingdom, of its shared history and participating in that common project.

    The undecided were persuaded by the economic argument. All of the same arguments remain - and indeed are strengthened: being part of an established and secure currency, the pooling and sharing of billions of pounds across the United Kingdom, the common services we together can afford.

    I don't think many were persuaded on the basis of house prices, nor indeed the EU barring a stability case. In case you haven't noticed, even most Remain voters don't have a great deal of love for the EU.

    The reasons the EU harmed the Yes vote were various, the most important to my mind being--

    (1) Negotiating from the outside to get in at a time of upheaval would be problematic.
    (2) There were no answers over things like Schengen, taking on the Euro, retaining opt-outs and the financial contribution.
    (3) It was an area where a clear lie was pinned effectively on the Yes campaign, with Alex Salmond lying about legal advice. Incidentally, that lie caused exponentially bigger problems for the Yes campaign than telling the truth ever would have.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Bigger load of nonsense. How significant does a long-term change have to be for it to no longer be dismissed as 'policy decision'? Perhaps we should have kept discussion on currency and nuclear weapons out of the debate on independence too, because that's all just policy decisions?
    I'm saying that policy doesn't isn't the key part here at all. Let's not forget if there'd been a Yes vote, it's pretty clear that the day after the UK Government would have affirmed that there would be no currency union - a far bigger issue than EU membership. I'm sure you'd be crying foul if there was a second referendum held by the UK Government within a few months of a decisive Yes majority.

    The UK is a democracy and the legitimacy of democratic decisions taken together has to be respected on that basis. It's possible to discuss policy in constitutional referendums, but ultimately there are no guarantees of future policy direction: what perhaps is important is the flexibility and scope to deliver policies - which was far greater within the UK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm saying that policy doesn't isn't the key part here at all. Let's not forget if there'd been a Yes vote, it's pretty clear that the day after the UK Government would have affirmed that there would be no currency union - a far bigger issue than EU membership. I'm sure you'd be crying foul if there was a second referendum held by the UK Government within a few months of a decisive Yes majority.

    The UK is a democracy and the legitimacy of democratic decisions taken together has to be respected on that basis. It's possible to discuss policy in constitutional referendums, but ultimately there are no guarantees of future policy direction: what perhaps is important is the flexibility and scope to deliver policies - which was far greater within the UK.
    I do not think a referendum is democracy in action - its a dictatorship.

    A democracy looks after the minorities providing it does not harm the majority - This is perhaps the main ingredient of a liberal western democracy.

    There is no gain to the majority in Brexit, so democratically (looking after the minority) we need to stay in the EU.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Hmm, I don't think that's really the central issues.

    Probably at least three-quarters of the No vote was decided from the get-go. They believed fully in the concept of the United Kingdom, of its shared history and participating in that common project.

    The undecided were persuaded by the economic argument. All of the same arguments remain - and indeed are strengthened: being part of an established and secure currency, the pooling and sharing of billions of pounds across the United Kingdom, the common services we together can afford.

    I don't think many were persuaded on the basis of house prices, nor indeed the EU barring a stability case. In case you haven't noticed, even most Remain voters don't have a great deal of love for the EU.

    The reasons the EU harmed the Yes vote were various, the most important to my mind being--

    (1) Negotiating from the outside to get in at a time of upheaval would be problematic.
    (2) There were no answers over things like Schengen, taking on the Euro, retaining opt-outs and the financial contribution.
    (3) It was an area where a clear lie was pinned effectively on the Yes campaign, with Alex Salmond lying about legal advice. Incidentally, that lie caused exponentially bigger problems for the Yes campaign than telling the truth ever would have.
    Mate I was looking at houses at the time and talking to various estate agents, builders and house sellers - this was the bottom line - hence it was the OLD (the house owners) who voted remain

    you can't pull the wool over my eyes I was there looking at houses at that very moment - I know what was going on in the MIDDLE AGED TO OLD peoples heads - HOUSE HOUSE HOUSE.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Mate I was looking at houses at the time and talking to various estate agents, builders and house sellers - this was the bottom line - hence it was the OLD (the house owners) who voted remain

    you can't pull the wool over my eyes I was there looking at houses at that very moment - I know what was going on in the MIDDLE AGED TO OLD peoples heads - HOUSE HOUSE HOUSE.
    Wrong they lost the youth vote as well. 4/10 must try harder next time.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm saying it couldn't pass such a Bill. Given that you barely know its name, I doubt that you're particularly au fait with the pre-legislative scrutiny that Bills undergo in the Scottish Parliament. Anyway, barring a serious failure of that system, a Bill cannot become an Act that is patently outside the legislative competence of the parliament.

    Sometimes vires is determined by the courts in relation to proportionality and so on, so can be a debatable point. What you're suggesting is introducing a Bill that is entirely and unavoidably outside of legislative competence. It could not precede. If you want to see an example of how this works, in May 2015 a backbench MSP - Sandra White - attempted to introduce the "Footway Parking and Double Parking (Scotland) Bill", presumably not realising that the Scottish Parliament did not have the powers to legislate on parking on pavements as a road traffic issue. The Presiding Officer ruled immediately that it could not proceed.

    In any case, an Act of the Scottish Parliament that is ultra vires isn't an Act of the Scottish Parliament. It is of no effect.



    Yes.

    You don't understand what self-determination means. Colonies often exercised their rights to self-determination in this way. Scotland is not a colony, it is an integral part of a democratic state. The Scottish people self-determine in the same way as all British people - through democratic elections in the UK.

    You're confusing a right to secession with a right of self-determination. I - and indeed, the law - support the latter. The former, however, has no legal or political foundation either internationally or domestically.



    I'm afraid that's objectively false.



    Scotland is not a state, for a start. But out of curiosity, where do you think that right is granted in law? Or are we in the realms of "I think it should be true, therefore I'm calling it a right"? Because I think that's the only explanation for this confusion.
    You misunderstand me. Scotland self-determines as a member of the UK, a political union of four countries. Let's say the Scottish government judges that the majority of Scots want independence. Let's say that somehow they organise a referendum, be it legal by UK law or not, be it within their legislative competence or not. Let's then say with the same or higher turnout as in the 2014 referendum, the majority cast their vote in favour of independence. You can argue the referendum wasn't legal under British law, but you cannot argue that this wouldn't give Scotland the right to secede from the UK (especially if the referendum process is clean and fraud free and the participation rate is high). If the Scottish people decide that they want to self-determine as a nation state which isn't a member of the UK, then they have that right, UK government approval or not. That's my argument. A people's self-determination can change, and if a people's self-determination changes in favour of independence then secession from that larger state of which they no longer recognise themselves apart of becomes the answer. Secession (or accession if people want to join a political union) is inextricably linked to the right to self-determination. And also, which country on Earth allows a legal method for one of its constituent territories to secede if that territory's population no longer desires to be a part of the country? It's a non-argument to say that British law won't allow the Scottish to hold their own independence referendum, just because the law doesn't allow it, doesn't mean they can't do it and get a result which would validate any intention to become an independent country. Sure if they did it and didn't get a vote for independence that'd be a different story altogether, but if they did and independence won, then wailing "THIS IS AN ILLEGAL REFERENDUM!" doesn't remove their right to secede and become an independent state. That right applies to ANY territory on Earth whose population self-determine as an independent country, whatever the larger state thinks about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a Scot with good reason to favour the union — ideologically right-wing (something long since dead in Scottish politics) with unionist tendencies whose studied in England for some time and has no intention in leaving. Though on 'Indyref 2', I find myself in something of a quandary. My personal preference is to remain with the union, though I still maintain some things are more important; not least of which democracy. Whether it's in Scotland's best interests or not, if they (or perhaps I should say 'we') want out as a majority then I must reluctantly give way. There certainly is good reason for it — Scotland and England are divided in their politics, so much so that, I think, at least a political separation is an inevitability. The question is when will this take place, not if it will. In any case, with just under half the country voting for it, it's certainly not an issue that's going to go away however much Westminster hopes it will.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dkj50496)
    I'm a Scot with good reason to favour the union — ideologically right-wing (something long since dead in Scottish politics) with unionist tendencies whose studied in England for some time and has no intention in leaving. Though on 'Indyref 2', I find myself in something of a quandary. My personal preference is to remain with the union, though I still maintain some things are more important; not least of which democracy. Whether it's in Scotland's best interests or not, if they (or perhaps I should say 'we' want out as a majority then I must reluctantly give way. There certainly is good reason for it — Scotland and England are divided in their politics, so much so that, I think, at least a political separation is an inevitability. The question is when will this take place, not if it will. In any case, with just under half the country voting for it, it's certainly not an issue that's going to go away however much Westminster hopes it will.
    It's an interesting perspective.

    My Dad lives in Glasgow(been there 15 years with zero chance of ever moving back south), he's English and is 100% for Independence. He ended up resigning his Labour Membership and joining the SNP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    It's an interesting perspective.

    My Dad lives in Glasgow(been there 15 years with zero chance of ever moving back south), he's English and is 100% for Independence. He ended up resigning his Labour Membership and joining the SNP.
    I'm from Glasgow myself. And your dad isn't alone there — extraordinary numbers of Scots have done just that.

    Labour is a dead force in Scottish politics and, despite what its leaders are trying to remind us, I think the rest of the UK, too. For years the leadership of the party (would almost be tempted to say the 'metropolitan elite' if I was keener to resort to cliche) have been at odds with what their own voters think — in complete denial. With such a disparity between the leaders and those whom they claim to represent, it's no wonder that the party's on its knees. The only reason they still have the North is because there's none other party they'd dare vote for; there is in Scotland, the SNP, and hence Labour's brutal demise. The sooner the party is dismissed for one that's actually representative, the better.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dkj50496)
    I'm from Glasgow myself. And your dad isn't alone there — extraordinary numbers of Scots have done just that.

    Labour is a dead force in Scottish politics and, despite what its leaders are trying to remind us, I think the rest of the UK, too. For years the leadership of the party (would almost be tempted to say the 'metropolitan elite' if I was keener to resort to cliche) have been at odds with what their own voters think — in completely denial. With such a disparity between the leaders and those whom they claim to represent, it's no wonder that the party's on its knees. The only reason they still have the North is because there's none other party they'd dare vote for; there is in Scotland, the SNP, and hence Labour's brutal demise. The sooner the party is dismissed for one that's actually representative, the better.
    Yeah Scotland is lost forever for Labour, coming 3rd behind the Tories was the final nail in the coffin. I'm hoping Corbyn gets booted and Owen Smith can try and salvage the situation in England but I'm not holding my breath.

    The North is on the verge of heading to UKIP as well if they don't get their act together.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Yeah Scotland is lost forever for Labour,
    (Original post by dkj50496)
    Labour is a dead force in Scottish politics*and, despite what its leaders are trying to remind us, I think the rest of the UK, too.
    Like the Labour Party was bordering on extinction in the 1980s, or the Conservative Party was bordering on extinction in the late 90s and early 2000s?*

    Parties drop in popularity and other parties take over government. That doesn't mean they're going to die out. Things will probably get worse for the Labour Party before they get better, but I have no doubt they'll be back eventually - and I say that as a Scots Tory. *

    (Original post by dkj50496)
    There certainly is good reason for it — Scotland and England are divided in their politics, so much so that, I think, at least a political separation is an inevitability.
    Presumably given their very different politics, you'll assume that the Scottish Borders, or Orkney and Shetland, leaving Scotland is an inevitability too then? *

    I'd be hard-pressed to name a sovereign state without geographical variations in its politics. I do not think this means that virtually every country is going to break-up on that basis. I know we're used to being told that Scotland is terribly special and extraordinary, but it's really quite normal.**

    Let's not forget there was far greater variation in the EU referendum vote within Scotland than there was between Scotland and England. *
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.