ctamblyn
Data Ghost
According to the Telegraph, 77k votes were removed. Total is currently 3.3M.
- Status
According to the Telegraph, 77k votes were removed. Total is currently 3.3M.
If one accepts the principle that allows Scottish independence / devolution, the principle applies to smaller units. This is why Norn Iron exists.
The SNP have already accepted that the Northern Isles are a special case that should have power devolved to them. The law in the Northern Isles differs (slightly) from Scotland. Historically the Northern Isles were Norwegian and there was no consultation with the islanders about the transfer to Scotland. The Northern Isles are clearly politically different from Scotland in the same way as Scotland is from England. See the general election and referendum results for how the Northern Isles differ from Scotland. There is no recognition of language rights for the Northern Isles - the Western isles get a huge hidden subsidy through gaelic language support. Small nations / crown dependencies do exist. Out of the EU the Northern Isles would be financially viable, especially if Scotland was in the EU (trips to Orkney would allow the purchase of duty free goods). It is only not an option because the Northern isles would take a lot of the oil, gas and fishing, impacting on the financial viability of Scotland.
Last edited:
True, but then they'll wonder where all that tax revenue went and why there's less money for the NHS (or whatever) because the government's borrowing costs are higher.
If the story is true about the originator of the petition the irony burns!
The vote in the referendum was a UK vote not a regional vote. The Scottish government has no right nor mandate to overturn a decision by the UK.
But there is 350 million pounds a week extra for the NHSs now!
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
It's not my problem that you cannot understand or analyse the data. It's not my problem that you cannot follow a simple argument and the fact I've spelt it out so that anyone who can count can understand it. It's not my problem that people like you swallow everything they read on the BBC, Guardian and Facebook if it fits your prejudiced view and refuse to do 30 seconds of work to find out what is going on.
Read the link and follow the links therein. 4Chan have had you all going:
http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brexit-2nd-referendum-petition-a-4-chan-prank-bbc-report-it-as-real/
It's all there and was obvious to anyone with a sceptic bent. It wasn't hard to see that someone was using a 'bot' scripted to add signatures. There will be more sources as this story finally gets into the MSM. The politics section is devoid of any scepticism on this site.
Lothian
should be banned
Don't be silly. We don't get it until we officially leave. That is why Boris is pushing for an early break. I think I heard him say 20:20 so come back in 2 hours and 20 minutes.
Last edited:
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
What? A few nothing-better-to-do cockwombles added a few tens of thousands of easily noticed fake non-UK signatures that are absolutely dwarfed by the UK ones?
You haven't addressed the postcode issue. UK postcodes have to be added during the signing process, and clearly those postcodes are mapped to Parliamentary constituencies. The signature counts for the latter are all in the files you think proves your point, so I will ask again, where in there is evidence of widespread UK-side fakery? Show me one constituency that has ended up with more votes than the actual electorate, or a constituency that voted overwhelmingly for Leave but has a significant percentage of petition votes, or some other anomaly. Either you can answer those questions, or you're not as smart as you think you are (and neither are the 4Chan cockwombles).
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
No, it wouldn't be. But you wont agree because you have a bee in your bonnet.
The Scottish Parliament represents the people of Scotland only. If the UK can't leave the EU without the consent of the Scottish Parliament to change its own constitutional arrangements then nobody but Westminster is to blame. It's a corner they have painted themselves into.
Equally if they can (and everyone seems to think that in reality they can) then they can.
The constitutional question at the heart of this is nothing to do with self-determination or even leaving the EU but whether Westminster can alter the constitutional arrangements of Scotland without the consent of Scotland.
I believe Nicola tried to negotiate with DC on the referendum prior to it being decided pointing out that Scotland were not happy with the idea of being voted out of the EU against their will by the rUK. I don't think she was given much of an ear. Perhaps he should have listened?
Francesca R
Girl
Scotland would be thwarting the settled will of the UK electorate. Of course it would be.
You apparently have selective ethical blinders when it comes to politics. That is extremely common of course.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
To be fair Cameron and almost everyone else expected Remain to win.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Look the Northern Isles can no more vote to join England than Scotland can vote to join France nor have they ever indicated any serious interest in doing so. I wouldn't use N Ireland as a shining beacon of anything. The whole idea was a complete invention just as we are now seeing #texit touted by some political troublemakers.
If you actually look at the results of the referendum the Northern Isles weren't even particularly anomalous. You might as well argue that Edinburgh could leave Scotland or that London could leave the UK after last week.
Everything you say is completely right but it's answering a different question.
Now I'll make it clear again I think this is a red herring and unlikely to actually happen but if Westminster has run a referendum they weren't competent to deliver the result of then they have royally screwed up and its up to them to solve that not Nicola Sturgeon.
The Scottish Paliament cannot be forced to vote for something by Westminster. Nor Nicola Sturgeon for that matter.
If, and its a huge if, the SP has to consent to implement the changes then DC should have consulted them first before holding the referendum. It's not even a political point it's a legal one.
I don't think even Nicola thinks that the case but she was asked a question and she answered the only way she could. She can't vote for Scotland to consent to changes that her electorate have told her they don't want. That same principle would apply to DC if he was being asked to do something such as run a second referendum. His people have spoken he has a requirement to implement that decision.
If this legal issue became a real one (and again I don't think it is) then it would just re-emphasise the shambles that the whole thing is was and will continue to be. And people who voted Leave would have every right to be up in arms about it.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
No it wouldn't be. And Westminster can't just tear up its own constitutional arrangements because they don't suit.
It's not my fault that you don't recognise the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament as legitimate when they don't suit.
DC can't do things that are illegal even if he wants to. Not even if the whole country votes for him to do it.
And you see, if it turns out, as I expect, that they can do it without the consent of the SP then I and Nicola and everyone else will say 'OK, fine. That's the law. You are within your rights to do what you are doing' Which is pretty much what Nicola says anyway and is why she said basically that she's exploring what she can do legally but it may be that the only option is to declare independence.
It would be a bloody stupid situation and one that would rightly have Leave voters foaming at the mouth but their anger should be aimed at the person who caused the problem - David Cameron.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Yep, but if he's promised something he's not able to deliver then he's made a pretty serious mistake. I expect in a week's time this won't even be an issue to discuss though.
Francesca R
Girl
Ha ha.
Nothing to do with constitutional arrangements. Constitutional arrangements allow for PM BoJo or whomever to disallow a second indyref indefinitely. I did not hear Nicola Sturgeon on Peston's show today saying "Oh well c'est la vie, that's fine"
You can't fall back on technicalities when it suits you and scream "self determination of people" when that does. Unless you have selective application of the principle. Which means you don't actually believe in the principle at all.
Maybe you should not so blindly praise and support everything the SNP says, simply because it is the SNP and you want what they want.
Francesca R
Girl
I should add--I don't think Sturgeon will go the blocking route. Because she has none of the dumbness of Salmond. Pretty much her only option is to go for independence yes. Early polls indicate a big enough swing in support.
The principle of independence from the United Kingdom applies to the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and not to smaller geographical areas. In the event of our gaining independence, it would be the height of arrogance for any future Scottish government to instruct the rump UK administration on how the affairs of Yorkshire, Gwent or Cornwall should be dealt with.
As I pointed out in #425, this is simply Unionist mischief making. The unionists don't give a toss about the particularities of the N Islands, as the UK has had centuries to deal with this, if any remedial action were required, and has done nothing. Any matter connected with those islands, or with any other part of this country, will be managed by an independent Scotland if and when it comes into being.
The partition of countries, including Ireland, that have had the impertinence to secede from the British Empire, is an old, tried and trusted imperial tactic. We're used to it. It is one of the things people expect in these processes. We are neither surprised not frightened by it.
By the way, the threat of territorial mutilation by amputation of the oil-rich N Islands conflicts with another Unionist scare tactic, which is to frighten people here with the notion that oil and gas are now permanently worthless, rendering independence financially impossible until the end of time.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Perhaps you shouldn't blindly criticise the SNP first and then find out the facts later?
It is EVERYTHING to do with constitutional arrangements. Arrangements that Westminster signed up to. You might not like them, hell I might not even like them and, other than for comedy purposes, I hope that Scotland doesn't have to consent to the change because as you rightly say it would be a legal technicality and more importantly would create a bit of a political omnishambles.
You really seem to struggle with the idea that the UK and Scottish Parliaments are not analogous nor is Scotland wholly subserviant to the UK in constitutional matters.
Nicola has no obligation to the people of the UK to implement their wishes nor does she have the remit to stop PM Bojo doing what he is legally entitled to do. It's really no different than DC not having to take into account the wishes of the rest of the EU when he decided to have the IN/OUT referendum. The very principle of self-determination that you say is being damaged is what has raised this issue in the first place. Westminster can't just toss out the agreement between it and Scotland when it suits them. No matter how many people in rUK vote for it.
If Westminster have screwed up and somehow require Nicola to vote against the wishes of her electorate to implement their decision then I think it's their problem and the person you want to be venting at is David Cameron. Nicola Sturgeon isn't even talking about it other than to answer a direct question asked of her.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
That kind of statement simply exposes your ignorance and/or prejudice.
If Salmond was 'dumb' then pretty much every UK politician must struggle to tie their shoelaces in the morning as he was widely regarded as one of the sharpest politicians in Westminster or Holyrood.
In fact the only person I'm aware of who called Salmond 'dumb' was Trump. So you're in good company.
- Status