Another vote t'other side of the Border.

[gomgeg]

Respect for Democracy ? Would that apply to the lies and exaggerations of the Leave campaign in the EU referendum ? In some ways I`m looking forward to the declaration of Article 50, I can`t wait to see what the Leave lot will say when so many of their lies (as to what will happen post Brexit*) are revealed for what they are. What`s so sad, and undemocratic in my view, is that it`ll be too late......

 

* "We`ll get a good deal (heavily implying 'no worse than at the moment') because the EU sells more to us than we sell to them", if I had a pound for every time I heard (and continue to hear) Brexiteers saying that I`d be a rich man.

 

What lies are those Justin? One bloke on here said his nephew believed the £350 million then regretted voting for brexit, then a while later told us the same anecdote but this time it was his cousin, when this was pointed out to him he said he'd got his nephew and cousin mixed up, haha. Mind you it's easy done so he's probably confused again.

I can't remember who it was, can you?

[Justin Smith]

In an ideal world people would not lie. Democracy is designed to operate within the framework of fallibly humanity in which people routinely mislead each other. Remain deceived us too. There's no value or merit in arguing about who was more deceptive (it was remain by the way). Everybody has ample opportunity to point out each others' deceit at the time.

 

Oh I don`t agree with that at all, but we shall see over the next 2 to 5 years won`t we ?

 

As to ample opportunity to point out each others deceit, would that apply to Daily Mail, Daily Express or Sun readers ? Many millions there, yet it was still a close result.

[Dr Afzal]

I`ve never undertood why the location of where the rules are made i.e London, is so important to the Scots. What does it matter. What if parliament was in Jersey or Guernsey or Wales? I live in Yorkshire and It would not bother me one bit where parliament was situated and why should it.

[L00b]

That's the justification. But the independence referendum could have been held after the EU referendum in the first place. The EU referendum was already scheduled.

Indulging in a bit of historical revisionism, unbeliever?

 

The EU referendum wasn't scheduled (to be held at all) until 09 June 2015 at the earliest.

 

The Scottish referendum was done and counted by 19 September 2014.

 

Sturgeon has a full democratic mandate to push for the 2nd referendum, it was inscribed in the SNP's manifesto for the May 2016 Scottish Parliament as the consequence of a "material change of circumstances" relative to 2014.

 

I would not think that you'd have any problem with a devolved government exercising its devolved prerogatives as approved by its majority electorate...surely?

[NigelFargate]

Indulging in a bit of historical revisionism, unbeliever?

 

The EU referendum wasn't scheduled (to be held at all) until 09 June 2015 at the earliest.

 

The Scottish referendum was done and counted by 19 September 2014.

 

Sturgeon has a full democratic mandate to push for the 2nd referendum, it was inscribed in the SNP's manifesto for the May 2016 Scottish Parliament as the consequence of a "material change of circumstances" relative to 2014.

 

I would not think that you'd have any problem with a devolved government exercising its devolved prerogatives as approved by its majority electorate...surely?

 

There has also been a material change in circumstances from an economic viewpoint. The economic outlook for Scotland is now much worse. Also, the last referendum resulted in more economic and financial powers being devolved to Scotland and a pledge to maintain the Barnett formula.

[unbeliever]

Indulging in a bit of historical revisionism, unbeliever?

 

The EU referendum wasn't scheduled (to be held at all) until 09 June 2015 at the earliest.

 

The Scottish referendum was done and counted by 19 September 2014.

 

Sturgeon has a full democratic mandate to push for the 2nd referendum, it was inscribed in the SNP's manifesto for the May 2016 Scottish Parliament as the consequence of a "material change of circumstances" relative to 2014.

 

I would not think that you'd have any problem with a devolved government exercising its devolved prerogatives as approved by its majority electorate...surely?

 

If you check I already admitted my mistake on that. I was sure it was coming but I suppose others weren't.

 

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2017 at 14:43 ----------

 

There has also been a material change in circumstances from an economic viewpoint. The economic outlook for Scotland is now much worse. Also, the last referendum resulted in more economic and financial powers being devolved to Scotland and a pledge to maintain the Barnett formula.

 

yes. It needs to be made clear to May that she is not empowered to bribe Scotland to save the union as Cameron did. Irish unification is on the cards too.

 

Maybe it's time to dismantle this union. Northern Ireland and Scotland will be poorer. A lot poorer. I'm all but certain about that.

But people told us that about Brexit so who's left with the standing to make that case and have it believed?

 

I expect Wales will stay, at least for a while, so we need a name for Wales+England. Not "Country-Mc-Country-face" surely?

"Engles" sound stupid to me. Do I hear a second for "Wangland"?

Edited March 13, 2017 by unbeliever

[L00b]

There has also been a material change in circumstances from an economic viewpoint. The economic outlook for Scotland is now much worse.

Is it?

 

I thought everything was all sunshine and lollypops in the UK, no post-referendum economic apocalypse, the experts are all wrong, <etc, etc.>?

Also, the last referendum resulted in more economic and financial powers being devolved to Scotland and a pledge to maintain the Barnett formula.

Does the Barnett formula extend to match-funding EU structural spend?

<...>

 

Maybe it's time to dismantle this union. Northern Ireland and Scotland will be poorer. A lot poorer. I'm all but certain about that.

But people told us that about Brexit so who's left with the standing to make that case and have it believed?

 

I expect Wales will stay, at least for a while, so we need a name for Wales+England. Not "Country-Mc-Country-face" surely?

"Engles" sound stupid to me. Do I hear a second for "Wangland"?

Wow. Just wow. Edited March 13, 2017 by L00b

[apelike]

 

I would not think that you'd have any problem with a devolved government exercising its devolved prerogatives as approved by its majority electorate...surely?

 

But does Scotland's majority want another INDY referendum so soon as it seems Sturgeon is only wanting one in retribution to being ignored in the Brexit appeal. When the first one was agreed Sturgeon stated it was to be a "once in a generation" referendum, not a once every 2 yeas until we get a leave vote. May should also not allow a new section 30 to go ahead so soon, and also not until we have left the EU. When the dust has settled from Brexit then let the Scots go ahead with one.

[NigelFargate]

If you check I already admitted my mistake on that. I was sure it was coming but I suppose others weren't.

 

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2017 at 14:43 ----------

 

 

yes. It needs to be made clear to May that she is not empowered to bribe Scotland to save the union as Cameron did. Irish unification is on the cards too.

 

Maybe it's time to dismantle this union. Northern Ireland and Scotland will be poorer. A lot poorer. I'm all but certain about that.

But people told us that about Brexit so who's left with the standing to make that case and have it believed?

 

I expect Wales will stay, at least for a while, so we need a name for Wales+England. Not "Country-Mc-Country-face" surely?

"Engles" sound stupid to me. Do I hear a second for "Wangland"?

 

There would be no need to change the current title of UK, if Scotland left. Wales is unlikely to leave, so no need to conjure up a neologism.

[unbeliever]

There would be no need to change the current title of UK, if Scotland left. Wales is unlikely to leave, so no need to conjure up a neologism.

 

Well the United Kingdom is Great Britain plus Northern Ireland. What would it mean with no Northern Ireland?

Great Britain is England and Wales plus Scotland. What would it mean with no Scotland?

No I think it's going to have to be "Wangland".