Should all areas that vote differently leave the UK? Watch

Treetop321
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
Scotland voted to stay in the UK. The UK then voted to leave the EU. Why should Scotland be given another chance to leave? Should all areas that voted remain leave the UK then?
0
reply
Batman 2.0
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Yes let's have a new country called London 😂
2
reply
smithstar01
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
No, stupid question. Scotland had their referendum and decided to stay in the UK.
5
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by smithstar01)
No, stupid question. Scotland had their referendum and decided to stay in the UK.
Indeed. But this was based on a pact fromm all the main party leaders that under no circumstances would the UK leave the EU.

Now things have changed. Anyway, if the UK is better off out of Europe surely it follows that Scotland would be better off outside Westminster?
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
Nope. You have to treat a country (the U.K. in this case) if Scotland gets to remain in the EU, what’s stopping say Maidenhead or other remain areas doing the same?
1
reply
studymango
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by smithstar01)
No, stupid question. Scotland had their referendum and decided to stay in the UK.
things have changed a lot since then, they decided to stay in a different uk which like i said has changed. but many are still sceptical. also, why are English people (I’m assuming) so bothered if Scotland is independent? you voted for a different government than they did so it’s only fair to let them at least try.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by ByEeek)
Indeed. But this was based on a pact fromm all the main party leaders that under no circumstances would the UK leave the EU.
That simply never happened. Indeed, the Conservatives were quite clear at the time that if they won a majority in the upcoming 2015 election that there would be an in-out referendum on EU membership. To suggest this was not known at the time is nonsense: it was even in the SNP's independence white paper, as well as forming a major part of the campaign.

Now things have changed. Anyway, if the UK is better off out of Europe surely it follows that Scotland would be better off outside Westminster?
Obviously not. The UK is, for example, a net contributor to the EU - Scotland is a net recipient (to the tune of billions) from the UK budget. Or we could look at it in another sense: the UK works effectively as a monetary union because there is a level of homogeneity in our national economy, underpinned by a fiscal union that simply does not exist in the Eurozone.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by studymango)
things have changed a lot since then, they decided to stay in a different uk which like i said has changed. but many are still sceptical. also, why are English people (I’m assuming) so bothered if Scotland is independent? you voted for a different government than they did so it’s only fair to let them at least try.
I think when it was broadly agreed across all participants that the referendum would be a once-in-a-lifetime or, at the very least, once-in-a-generation event, it was quite clear that the UK would change. I doubt anyone would suggest things have not changed significantly between, say, 2014 and 1984. The referendum was about making decisions together, not about planning what a future government would do.

Would the UK, for example, revoke Scottish independence if the pledges made by the SNP were not delivered? I would assume not. Their economic prospectus was a tissue of utter nonsense and could never have been fulfilled in any case.

I suspect English people are rather concerned not just about Scotland, as part of their country, but also about their country - the United Kingdom - being pulled apart. It's not just a transactional union we're talking about (although I would argue that it is in the interest of the people of England that Scotland is part of the UK, and vice-versa), it's about the future of the United Kingdom as a country. If anything, I think too few English people appreciated the fundamental change that Scotland leaving would have on them.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by L i b)
That simply never happened. Indeed, the Conservatives were quite clear at the time that if they won a majority in the upcoming 2015 election that there would be an in-out referendum on EU membership. To suggest this was not known at the time is nonsense: it was even in the SNP's independence white paper, as well as forming a major part of the campaign.


Obviously not. The UK is, for example, a net contributor to the EU - Scotland is a net recipient (to the tune of billions) from the UK budget. Or we could look at it in another sense: the UK works effectively as a monetary union because there is a level of homogeneity in our national economy, underpinned by a fiscal union that simply does not exist in the Eurozone.
Agreed with all that. But one year before Cameron was saying there would be no EU referendum and that is why Scotland should vote No. And then one year later, faced with a revolt from the 40 or so Euroskeptics in his own party, he appeased them by putting in the option for a referendum.

But if there is one thing I have learned in this whole sorry episode, it is that practicalities and reality are no argument against that feeling some people have of sovereignty. If Scots feel they should be independent that that is enough. On paper, there is no advantage whatsoever to leaving the EU, but that has not stopped the Island mentality and that feeling that somehow someone else is pulling the strings from blossoming. We (the English) have had our say on Brexit. Who are we to deny the Scots from their chance at freedom and self determination?

The sad thing about Brexit is that we will be free of Europe only to be sold out to the mediocre standards of American companies selling us more expensive drugs and genetically modified, anti-biotic pumped, chlorine soaked chicken.
Last edited by ByEeek; 1 month ago
1
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
Expecting Scotland to merrily accept another 5 years of Tory hell just doesn't seem realistic now, people are fuming. If BoJos majority gives him mandate to claim 'will of the people' leave as he wishes, the SNPS bigger majority surely does the same?
0
reply
Treetop321
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by StriderHort)
Expecting Scotland to merrily accept another 5 years of Tory hell just doesn't seem realistic now, people are fuming. If BoJos majority gives him mandate to claim 'will of the people' leave as he wishes, the SNPS bigger majority surely does the same?
The EU referendum result was to leave. That was the will of the people (even if the whole campiagn wasn't exactly fair). The independence result was to stay in the UK. That was the will of the people. Not everyone voting for SNP would support another IndyRef, like how not everyone who voted conservatives like the party, they were just the lesser of two evils.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
I support Scottish independence. I believe that the whole of Ireland should be one country.

Neither will be a question to be asked over the next five years though.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by StriderHort)
Expecting Scotland to merrily accept another 5 years of Tory hell just doesn't seem realistic now, people are fuming. If BoJos majority gives him mandate to claim 'will of the people' leave as he wishes, the SNPS bigger majority surely does the same?
The majority of those who voted did not vote Conservative. Whilst I think many Scottish people will be very upset at not having IndyRef 2, it will not happen under Mr Johnson's government.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by L i b)
I suspect English people are rather concerned not just about Scotland, as part of their country, but also about their country - the United Kingdom - being pulled apart. It's not just a transactional union we're talking about (although I would argue that it is in the interest of the people of England that Scotland is part of the UK, and vice-versa), it's about the future of the United Kingdom as a country. If anything, I think too few English people appreciated the fundamental change that Scotland leaving would have on them.
I must be different from many English people then (well I'm sure I am). Scotland becoming independent is a fundamental change, but one I support. Scotland is a different place culturally, in education, in its legal system, and in its economy.
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Treetop321)
The EU referendum result was to leave. That was the will of the people (even if the whole campiagn wasn't exactly fair).
True, Not exactly fair is one way of putting it, bearing in mind Scotland voted to remain, but again we're getting forced by a party that managed to scrape together what? 5-8% of Scottish seats? Scottish Tories are openly claiming this election result = The Scottish people voting for the union, which is comical.

The independence result was to stay in the UK. That was the will of the people. Not everyone voting for SNP would support another IndyRef, like how not everyone who voted conservatives like the party, they were just the lesser of two evils.
True, but also, not every Tory or Labour ect would automatically support keeping the union, many made it clear it was a price they were willing to pay to 'get Brexit done'. I agree it's generally unwise to directly compare a vote for the SNP as a vote for Indy2, but at the same time you can't deny they are consistently holding a solid majority while openly stating their intent. Is this driving support for another power in Scotland? evidently not.

Scotland did essentially get shafted at Indy1, Tories & Lab joined forces at the last min, in violation of accepted Purdah rules, and made a bunch of wild last min promises to sway people on their way to vote, which they immediately reneged upon, which is exactly the sort of crap Purdah rules are made to prevent. Tories claimed Purdah didn't apply to them as it sounded a bit Scottish, yet were happy to observe it during this election. We were promised the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in the union, the same 'union' which is now taking us out against our will...That's huge change and I don't think it's realistic to expect people to accept things like 'Once in a generation vote' and put up with it. (1000's out protesting around me yesterday btw, not a word on the BBC)
0
reply
Pencil
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
Yep, that's why I support self-determination.

Where you have a group of people living in a geographic area with wildly different political beliefs or cultures, then it's wrong (in my opinion) that they are governed by others who consider their land property - as is the case with Hong Kong and China.

That's also why it's so important that people respect democracy and the right to hold referendums when a group of people democratically demand it.
Last edited by Pencil; 1 month ago
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by barnetlad)
The majority of those who voted did not vote Conservative. Whilst I think many Scottish people will be very upset at not having IndyRef 2, it will not happen under Mr Johnson's government.
I'd love to just say 'Yes it will!' but tbh I've little idea what will actually happen, it feels like somethings going to have to give somewhere, one of those unstoppable vs immovable deals.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by StriderHort)
True, but also, not every Tory or Labour ect would automatically support keeping the union, many made it clear it was a price they were willing to pay to 'get Brexit done'. I agree it's generally unwise to directly compare a vote for the SNP as a vote for Indy2, but at the same time you can't deny they are consistently holding a solid majority while openly stating their intent. Is this driving support for another power in Scotland? evidently not.
"A solid majority"? The SNP lost their majority in the Scottish Parliament. They may hold a majority of seats in Scotland in the House of Commons, but obviously the party holding a majority in that chamber are the Conservatives. They've never received a majority of the vote in Scotland.

Scotland did essentially get shafted at Indy1, Tories & Lab joined forces at the last min, in violation of accepted Purdah rules, and made a bunch of wild last min promises to sway people on their way to vote, which they immediately reneged upon, which is exactly the sort of crap Purdah rules are made to prevent.
I'm not sure where you picked up that bull-**** from, but I suppose it's just another wild conspiracy theory about "The Vow".

Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats worked together as part of the Better Together campaign from summer 2012 until the referendum in September 2014. It was a pretty big thing.

Purdah rules prevent public money from being used for de facto party campaigning in an election period. It began on 21 August 2014 ahead of the Scottish independence referendum - the Scottish Government was bound to it in law, the UK Government voluntarily bound itself to it.

Purdah is not there to prevent promises being "reneged on" and it doesn't. It also doesn't prevent political campaigning in any way, including making pledges. There was never any suggestion that anyone violated that.

The idea that "the Vow" wasn't delivered on is again a nonsense. It led immediately to the creation of the Smith Commission, cross-party agreement on further powers and legislation in 2016.

We were promised the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in the union, the same 'union' which is now taking us out against our will...
Which was, of course, true. An independent Scotland would, if it had actually achieved independence in line with the Scottish Government's proposal in 18 months (which was, itself, laughable unrealistic) would have been outside of the EU from March 2016. The UK was not. It subsequently voted in a referendum to leave the EU - no-one ever "promised" that a referendum wouldn't deliver that outcome, and that referendum had been Conservative Party policy for many years before the 2014 referendum and was well known (and, indeed, mentioned many times by the SNP during their campaigning).

That's huge change and I don't think it's realistic to expect people to accept things like 'Once in a generation vote' and put up with it.
In that case, there's no point in having referendums at all then.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (19)
24.05%
My career doesn't need one (9)
11.39%
I'm sick of studying (14)
17.72%
I can't find a course I want to do (3)
3.8%
I don't know enough about them (9)
11.39%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (25)
31.65%

Watched Threads

View All