Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Y'know, if you can be arsed.

You fully expect me to not be arsed.

I shall be arsed, but it will take some effort to do it properly.  Allow me at least the weekend. There's some paid-for work and familial activities to take priority, and not letting the rest of the forums slide behind would be useful, but there'll be gaps of opportunity...

[martinuzz]

As expected, the Scots are going to hold another referendum for independence. Scottish parliament just approved a new referendum.

In an icy meeting between May and Sturgeon (the Scottish first minister) May has said that that is out of the question, especially during the Brexit procedure. The British government does not want complications during what are going to be the most difficult negotiations in the history of the UK.

This raises the question for me. Is it legally possible for the UK government to forbid a referendum approved by the Scottish parliament?

EDIT: unrelated to Scotland, the British Brexit minister David Davies has said that the promises made by the Brexit camp, like 350 million to healthcare, and getting the same trade deal as we have while still in the EU cannot be fulfilled, because that would be impossible. He says that people should also not expect the number of immigrants to drop. Instead he says that he expects the number of immigrants to slightly rise.
"But the important thing is that we have control over our own borders."

I wonder, if they were to hold a new Brexit referendum now, if they would even manage to get 10% to vote yes. Best thing May can do IMO is call Juncker and beg politely to stop the whole silly Brexit thing.

[PTTG??]

We have a word, in America, for the sort of thing that forbidding Scotland from leaving is: "hypocrisy." I dunno if the British English version is different or what. Maybe it's "Jolly-good-take-the-biscut" or something.

[smjjames]

Sounded a bit more like May just didn't want any additional headaches while doing the whole proccess of Brexit.

Probably the only person that can REALLY stop Scotland from leaving is The Queen, and she knows better to stay out of meddling in things, so, she isn't going to. At least overtly, I'm sure she wields plenty of subtle background power.

She let the other former British colonies go their own way, so, I don't see why not.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That still sounds hypocritical, given that the primary arguments of Better Together were centered around Scotland's EU membership. The situation has radically changed, much in the same way that if an Illuminati plague had turned all Englishmen into reavers who then enslaved the Welsh Scotland might be justified in reconsidering their nation's status.

Or less drastically, the way all referendums work. It's never been "one and done", but always a matter of political will. In those states of the US where the barrier to entry is very low (via signatures) ballot measures get attempted year after year. It really can't be any other way either, since people's opinions on things change rather rapidly, the desire to only have a single referendum ever is based in political maneuvering. Let's not call things "whinging", though. Everybody under the sun tries to accuse their political opponents of being hysterical manchildren who need to become mature by believing what they believe instead. It's a non-argument.

[TD1]

We have a word, in America, for the sort of thing that forbidding Scotland from leaving is: "hypocrisy." I dunno if the British English version is different or what. Maybe it's "Jolly-good-take-the-biscut" or something.

Really? I'll just move to the Confederate States, then.... Oh, wait, I can't.....

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Scotland's been in a union with the rest of the UK for over three hundred years. Whereas at the time of the last Scottish referendum we'd been in the EU for what, forty years? Scotland's EU membership was an important part of the argument, certainly, but it was hardly the be all and end all.

Literally all I remember from the Better Together campaign was "muh EU benefits" and "the Tories will take over the day we leave and restore the Empire". It is, by all accounts, a main factor for a lot of voters. SNP made gains after both the Scotland vote and the Brexit vote, so they clearly have a mandate as well.

And for that matter, it still *is* an important part of the argument. Is anyone seriously expecting Scotland to leave the UK and immediately be inducted into the EU, deficit-twice-as-big-as-Greece and all? After statements from, for example, Spanish representatives to the contrary?

I think the Europhiles might decide to expedite them if Hard Brexit comes to pass.

I decide who is European.

Scotland might end up choosing between being in a union with the rest of the UK, and being in a union - European or otherwise - with absolutely no one.

And regardless of whether they get a pass or not, it's still their right to hold a referendum. Just as it was Leave's right to vote for economic insolvency and Remain's right to vote for handing sovereignty over to Brussels and burning the British flag.

Everybody under the sun tries to accuse their political opponents of being hysterical manchildren who need to become mature by believing what they believe instead. It's a non-argument.

I know, right?

But yeah, whinging seems accurate. Feel free to substitute in 'whining', 'moaning', or 'throwing a shitfit' if they strike your ear better.

That's not the argument? The point is that whining is a totally emotional appeal about your opponents, and works for literally anything, including Literally Hitler. It lacks persuasive substance.

[Starver]

My own recollection is that the EU was primarily an argument for the Independence campaign. 'If we stay, we'll be dragged out of the EU!'. They voted to stay anyway.

That's flipwise. There was no sign of Brexit coming to pass, then, and it was all "if you leave the UK, you'd have difficulty (re)gaining the EU membership that you like, so vote Stay".

Interesting read, of something prior to either of the referenda even being solidified...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My own recollection is that the EU was primarily an argument for the Independence campaign. 'If we stay, we'll be dragged out of the EU!'. They voted to stay anyway.

I question this recollection, since it was almost a certainty that there would be issues with retaining EU membership if they left the UK and at the time Brexit was showing very bad numbers. Though the argument is one that was possible, it was not considered likely compared to difficulties with independence.

We'll see. Given the general sentiment from commentators such as posters here, it certainly wouldn't surprise me to see Europe acting out of pique. Though I doubt they'll be quite so keen when they realise they have to start throwing piles of money into the black hole of Scottish policing, education and healthcare.

Not like fiat currency is real anyway. Scotland's unemployment is a fairly normal 5%, which might be a better metric. But then, economics is right up there with chaos magik in terms of reliability.

Trying to control the language used by others is a poor road to go down, in my opinion. It leads to 'problematic' outcomes And as I said, whinging/whining/moaning/bitching seems to sum up their behaviour fairly well.

Next thing you know, you'll be complaining when I call her Wee Jimmy Sturgeon.

I'm not controlling your language, I'm criticizing your argument as being an appeal to emotion. Not only are accusations of whining universal, they don't prove anything even if they're true. Scotland can both be whining for a referendum and be correct in desiring it post-Brexit. And people who don't want Scotland to have a referendum can be said to be whining that Scotland doesn't have to go down with the rest of the UK from a deal they didn't agree to. There's nothing there from a rhetorical standpoint, it's all pathos.

[Neonivek]

In all fairness appealing to emotion for an emotion based issue... isn't really a logical fallacy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It was not an emotional issue. The original argument was about whether or not people should be allowed to hold successive referendums on the same subject.

[Starver]

We know that Leavers would have asked for another chance, had they lost far less narrowly...

[Starver]

Do you have any sources on Brexit showing bad numbers at the time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#/media/File:UK_EU_referendum_polling.svg

We know that Leavers would have asked for another chance, had they lost far less narrowly...

No, you know that Nigel Farage said something to that effect on the night of the referendum. Based as he is, he's hardly an unbiased figure in all this, given he didn't want to be defeated and out of a job. As for Leavers as a whole, I personally don't recall being asked whether we'd demand referendum after referendum until we got the result we wanted.

Remember this..?

[Starver]

Do you have any sources on Brexit showing bad numbers at the time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#/media/File:UK_EU_referendum_polling.svg

The poll you're linking to show it as close to 50/50 at the time of the Scottish referendum, which somewhat detracts from MSH's argument that Brexit was considered unlikely.

It was less likely than it was likely, and heading further into the "even less likely" direction for a further 8 months or so, as a trend (but with a December blip in a set of the dots). I think you're just being wilfully dismissive, but never mind.

['60% for Remain or Leave'. Seems like some people just wanted different parameters for the referendum, as opposed to wanting to change a result they didn't like.

The result wasn't even known when that petition was created, and it was done so upon the assumption that Leave would fail (the first time) by someone who was a Leaver.

You surely remember all this.

I retroactively disagree with the proposed change, obviously. There's no sense giving the status quo an even bigger advantage than it already had. Or are we going to pretend that the government and its 'Brexit Information Leaflet', or the BBC, were fair and unbiased?

The government's leaflet always seemed like a useless thing, to me. It didn't form any part of my decision on the day (I was still not committed), and may have backfired when the nihilist crowd threw it back as nebuluous (but loud sounding) ammunition for their cause. And I know you were all against MSM before that was even acronym, but really?  The BBC has balanced things far better than most news organisations (and definitely than an overwhelming number of newspaper titles), unless you just want to complain that reality has a liberal bias...

[Starver]

Mate, it's your poll.

It's a mass of polls, from multiple sources.  I'm trying to be nice to you, but there's still that little something about the way that you deflect things by your apparent misunderstanding.

I don't know who made it, nor do I know under what assumptions they did so.

Be enlightened. (But I must commiserate you upon your amnesia.)