Freedom for Tooting! And other similar nutty fringe communities

[chrisp65]

I don’t think there would be anything stopping people in an independent Scotland lobbying for a referendum to be allowed back in union.

If it’s a democracy, they can lobby for that all they like and if there are sufficient supporters, get to vote on it.

Just like if the UK votes a massive LibDem majority next time, we can begin the process of asking to re join the EU.

It’s just that once independent, there’s rarely a desire to overtly surrender control back to others. Leaving aside whether the others would then want you back.

[snowychap]

48 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's for that reason that I have much more time for the 'once in a generation' line that snowychap doesn't like. If the voting *margin* can't be restricted, then it makes sense to restrict the *frequency* with which the ballot is held. Obviously 'a generation' is not a particularly meaningful unit of time - and it would have been better to be more explicit about what it meant at the time - but I don't think it's completely unreasonable, and they're not lying when they say they said it at the time.

It was said by different people to mean different things. As far as I can remember, it was almost exclusively part of the campaigning (i.e. I'm not sure it was said with reference to the actual legislation necessary for the vote - though I may be wrong in that someone may have mentioned it in one of the debates) and a lot of the time by the people wanting out as a recruiting tool suggesting that there wouldn't be another opportunity (that could be argued that they foresaw that any future Tory or Labour government would have their own political reasons not to grant a future referendum rather than it would necessarily be an illegitimate request).

I do think it's both silly and unreasonable (to hark back to an ill-defined phrase). If there had been a specific time involved when the referendum legislation was put forward then this would be have been a much sounder basis on which to deny a future one, i.e. not for another twenty years should mean not for another twenty years.

'Once in a generation'? I mean people can't even agree about that when they're comparing footballers.

Edited November 17, 2020 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

If an electorate is split pretty close to 50-50 then there is going to be a constant call to hold referendums. If independence gets up in one of them then it would just switch to being a constant call for a 'rejoin' referendum (which will likely apply to Brexit just as much as 'Scotxit').  Ether a super majority or a time limit between referendums is a pretty sensible idea to maintain some sort of stability.

It feels sensible, until you think a minority of the population could control the majority for evermore.

When Welsh devolution was first offered in 1979, the split was 20% wanted it, 80% were against it.

80% voted against having more direct control of their own affairs.

In 1997 when it was run again, Wales voted FOR devolution, 50.3% to 49.7%

In 2011 when the referendum was run to have more powers and a law making assembly / government, the YES vote was 63.5%

There is a clear direction of travel there, that would be denied if we adopted ‘once in a generation super majority’.

People will have the option in next year’s elections to vote to abolish the Welsh Government.

Should we demand those abolition candidates, as they are against the status quo, require a super majority?

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It was said by different people to mean different things. As far as I can remember, it was almost exclusively part of the campaigning (i.e. I'm not sure it was said with reference to the actual legislation necessary for the vote - though I may be wrong in that someone may have mentioned it in one of the debates) and a lot of ther time by the people wanting out as a recruiting tool suggesting that there wouldn't be another opportunity (that could be argued that they foresaw that any future Tory or Labour government would have their own political reasons not to grant a future referendum rather than it would necessarily be an illegitimate request).

I do think it's both silly and unreasonable (to hark back to an ill-defined phrase). If there had been a specific time involved when the referendum legislation was put forward then this would be have been a much sounder basis on which to deny a future one, i.e. not for another twenty years should mean not foor another twenty years.

'Once in a generation'? I mean people can't even agree about that when they're comparing footballers.

It's pretty noticeable isn't it that most political conversations end up coming back to the constitutional recklessness and arrogance of the Conservative party, and worth remembering - lest his role be forgotten - that Cameron was arguably even more reckless and arrogant than May or Johnson.

It certainly would have been better to have been clear about 'once in a generation' at the time. However, just like the supermajority, we are left with a 'well I wouldn't start from ere' moment.

[LondonLax]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It feels sensible, until you think a minority of the population could control the majority for evermore.

When Welsh devolution was first offered in 1979, the split was 20% wanted it, 80% were against it.

80% voted against having more direct control of their own affairs.

In 1997 when it was run again, Wales voted FOR devolution, 50.3% to 49.7%

In 2011 when the referendum was run to have more powers and a law making assembly / government, the YES vote was 63.5%

There is a clear direction of travel there, that would be denied if we adopted ‘once in a generation super majority’.

People will have the option in next year’s elections to vote to abolish the Welsh Government.

Should we demand those abolition candidates, as they are against the status quo, require a super majority?

 

 

I think for changes of this magnitude it is not unreasonable to set a higher threshold than a simple 50-50 vote.

We had a referendum in Australia about 20 years ago on the question of whether to become a Republic. It would require a change in the constitution which can only be done if a majority of people in a majority of states vote in favour. The fact that it is more difficult to achieve means it has to be overwhelmingly popular and not just the mood of the moment type thing.

If Brexit  had been voted on in a similar way the result would have been tied 2-2 with England and Wales voting for and Scotland and NI voting against. Maybe Gibraltar could have had the casting vote 

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's pretty noticeable isn't it that most political conversations end up coming back to the constitutional recklessness and arrogance of the Conservative party, and worth remembering - lest his role be forgotten - that Cameron was arguably even more reckless and arrogant than May or Johnson.

It certainly would have been better to have been clear about 'once in a generation' at the time. However, just like the supermajority, we are left with a 'well I wouldn't start from ere' moment.

Agree with all of that.

Btw, the 'silly' about the once in a gneneration line wasn't meant to be an attack on your point of view as you've explained your reasonable take on it - I was rather criticising the angle that had it down as 'never again, not in a million years, not on your nelly'.

[snowychap]

19 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

if we adopted ‘once in a generation super majority’

I think that's a double lock that hasn't been argued for.

Both @LondonLaxand @HanoiVillanhave suggested an either or approach (with a specific time period), with which I agree.

Edited November 17, 2020 by snowychap

[blandy]

4 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's for that reason that I have much more time for the 'once in a generation' line that snowychap doesn't like. If the voting *margin* can't be restricted, then it makes sense to restrict the *frequency* with which the ballot is held. Obviously 'a generation' is not a particularly meaningful unit of time - and it would have been better to be more explicit about what it meant at the time - but I don't think it's completely unreasonable, and they're not lying when they say they said it at the time.

I completely agree. I've got sympathy with the frustration and annoyance and worse that the last 10 years or so of Tory Governments have made the cases (from the perspective of people who want independence) much more compelling, and wanting another indy ref so soon after the last one, but like I said, you can't just keep asking every few years. A generation is as you say a bit indefinite, I'd put it at around 17 years, but some may say 10 years, others 20 - whatever. The last one was 2014, I think. 6 years is not a generation in anyone's language. As you say all sides accepted the once in a generation thing in 2014, so whatever nasties have happened since, that should stand, IMO.

[blandy]

36 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I don’t think there would be anything stopping people in an independent Scotland lobbying for a referendum to be allowed back in union.

No, of course not. Yet the practicalities (as we're seeing with Brexit) of changing status from in to out, or we've seen with nations joining the EU are vast. Huge amounts of legal work, law changes, regulatory changes, passport stuff, trade stuff, policing, aviation, farming, fishing, shipping...finance, currency ...the list is endless. So frequent in - out - in - out moves are just massively impractical and burdensome. To prevent that, there has to be a limit on how often these Refs can be held. @snowychapis right that it would be better to nail that down with a "10 year, or 20 year" statute, but even so, as I said above "a generation" is still a term which though indefinite, doesn't mean 6 or 7 years.

[HanoiVillan]

15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Agree with all of that.

Btw, the 'silly' about the once in a gneneration line wasn't meant to be an attack on your point of view as you've explained your reasonable take on it - I was rather criticising the angle that had it down as 'never again, not in a million years, not on your nelly'.

Don't worry, didn't take it as such

[chrisp65]

Turns out Johnson might be a two faced forgetful liar.

Again that word ‘allowing’.

 

 

[ml1dch]

I trust that everyone is very excited for "There's bound to be a solution to get rid of the border if people would just be creative Volume II"

Quote

 

AN independent Scotland should aim for a “smart” rather than a hard border with England, according to a new report published by the Scottish Independence Convention (SIC).

...

The SIC report, written by Bill Austin, calls for an independent Scotland to adopt “smart borders” where revenue, immigration and safety functions can be checked not at “a line on a map” but at “the most appropriate, cost effective and convenient real or virtual space.”

 

 

[chrisp65]

58 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I trust that everyone is very excited for "There's bound to be a solution to get rid of the border if people would just be creative Volume II"

 

 

So what he’s suggesting, is a bit like what we still enjoy here, for the next 5 weeks?

Ridiculous.

 

[HanoiVillan]

Interesting/notable public policy achievement yesterday from devolved Scottish government:

Not massively relevant to the demographic on this forum I guess! Good policy though.

[chrisp65]

Can’t get enough of this guy, just wish he’d wear a top hat a bit more often.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

Huh:

I wonder if it's maybe not great for MP A in the party to call MP B a transphobe, and MP B to respond that MP A is being ageist, and to do all this in public on Twitter.

(Of course there is a backstory here, which is to do with Cherry being very unpopular with most of her colleagues because she is very obviously pushing Salmond's reintegration to the SNP as a way of undermining Sturgeon; this is a potentially deep fissure in the SNP's otherwise immaculate edifice, which so far other parties have been completely incapable of exploiting, but which may yet cause huge problems for the party).

[chrisp65]

On 02/11/2020 at 10:01, chrisp65 said:

Over the course of the weekend just gone, an additional 2,000 people signed up to a small monthly direct debit to promote the campaign for Independence.

Small, but a definite direction of travel. 

Edit: plus another 1,000 today

...and another 1,000

16,000 people now paying a monthly sub to promote the idea of leaving the asylum

[blandy]

 

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

Their Twitter account reads like a parody and..."We're not English, we are Northumbrian" isn't really going to work

[chrisp65]