Desert Nomad Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I'D like to have a veto.. Who wouldn't?Point being is that they see themselves as very different to everybody else(be that rScotland or rUK), probably why the still vote Liberal Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 eh, he does, and it's bad Then he copied it from me - I've used it for ages. Also, if my post is such a 'holocaust' then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a counter, right? I'm not sure there is any way to counter a view, other than with laughter, that believes a UK wide referendum vote requires to have individual regional approval to be binding in those regions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Then he copied it from me - I've used it for ages. I'm not sure there is any way to counter a view, other than with laughter, that believes a UK wide referendum vote requires to have individual regional approval to be binding in those regions. Maybe we could extend this to a general election too. That way Scotland can veto every single government forming that isn't a Labour one. Seems fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Or Northern Ireland can veto any government that isn't one of their mobs. After all, they genuinely NEVER get the government they voted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Then he copied it from me Haha, no. It's cute you think that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 it's always cringy when you start using other folks patter, it was particularly bad when you tried on Supras' really horrendous 'meight' banter. Please refrain from it, it's the forum equivalent of dad dancing at a wedding. I'm sure there is a counter argument to what I said, and you are free to make it. It doesn't really matter what this trolling w**k says, it still comes out as trolling wankspeak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Arguing over who came up with patter like 'meight' is tragic even for this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Arguing over who came up with patter like 'meight' is tragic even for this forum Nobody is arguing over who came up with it. So, I take it you don't read threads but dive in with irrelevant points and questions that have already been answered, all the time? There's no excuse for ignorance. Please educate yourself in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Nobody is arguing over who came up with it. Quite. It's just pointless tone trolling. I don't think this poster offers much other than that, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Quite. It's just pointless tone trolling. I don't think this poster offers much other than that, to be honest. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Then he copied it from me - I've used it for ages. I'm not sure there is any way to counter a view, other than with laughter, that believes a UK wide referendum vote requires to have individual regional approval to be binding in those regions. Lucky I never said that then. The point I've made previously, which you agreed with, is that Sturgeon was trolling, that it was a piece of political positioning. The point is not that Scotland can realistically have a 'regional' veto. The point is to position Scotland in a place where should there be a UK No vote where Scotland and England go seperate ways ,that further action can be taken to protect EU memberhsip for Scottish citizens. The popular counter to this is that the UK is the only relevent body involved and that as a unitary state, the further feelings of it's constituent parts are of no relevence. This is clearly the legal case. My point was that as a general rule, the idea of the seperate nations as a family within the UK persist, and therefore Sturgeon has a moral, rather than legal case for assuming that Scotland has a right to decide it's own EU fate post EU referendum, if it disagrees with the other home nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Nobody is arguing over who came up with it. So what's the disagreement then? Who used someone else's tragic patter first? Quite. It's just pointless tone trolling. I don't think this poster offers much other than that, to be honest. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The point is not that Scotland can realistically have a 'regional' veto. The point is to position Scotland in a place where should there be a UK No vote where Scotland and England go seperate ways ,that further action can be taken to protect EU memberhsip for Scottish citizens. . But there can be no such action. There's no such thing as a "Scottish citizen". This is fundamental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 and therefore Sturgeon has a moral, rather than legal case for assuming that Scotland has a right to decide it's own EU fate post EU referendum, if it disagrees with the other home nations. Right. So, in the same way Orkney and Shetland had a "moral" right to remain in the UK if they voted not to secede on Sep 18th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 But there can be no such action. There's no such thing as a "Scottish citizen". This is fundamental. It's certainly legally fundamental, it doesn't alter the fact that there are clear national identities within the British state and it's also clear that there are divergences of opinion on policy issues. I'm not arguing the legality of this, I'm suggesting that an EU out vote where Scotland is perceived to have voted in favour of staying is a realistic trigger for a second Indy ref, legally binding or no. That's all based on the slightly irrational setting of identities, nevertheless, it's real enough even if it has no legal character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I'm not arguing the legality of this, I'm suggesting that an EU out vote where Scotland is perceived to have voted in favour of staying is a realistic trigger for a second Indy ref, legally binding or no. That's all based on the slightly irrational setting of identities, nevertheless, it's real enough even if it has no legal character. It's exactly what Tavish Scott tried before the Indy referendum. Pointless posturing that means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Right. So, in the same way Orkney and Shetland had a "moral" right to remain in the UK if they voted not to secede on Sep 18th? yeah, they did, and had they set their own referendum in order to make that fact clear to them, more power to them. As I've said countless times you can reduce this argument to absurdity, Scotland can go on it's own, Orkney can go on it's own, why not Aberdeen? - you can go the other way, what's so special about the UK as an organsing unit. There is a clear irrationality in how people choose identities, at the same time, it has it's own life - Scotland as a cultural, geographical unit has a life of it's own that encompasses Orkney and Glasgow. Scotland is an indivisible unit, not for any real reason other than historical inertia, but that's real enough. The British state cannot make the same claim despite being legally so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Scotland is an indivisible unit, not for any real reason other than historical inertia, but that's real enough. The British state cannot make the same claim despite being legally so. Scotland is quite clearly not an "indivisible unit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Scotland is quite clearly not an "indivisible unit". The birth of scotland as a nation involved the elite carving the place up for their own ends without ever consulting the people. In reality, scotlands place in the UK has now got more legitimacy than the kingdom of Scotland ever had. It remains the ONLY constituent part of the united kingdom which has ratified it's continuing membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthEnclosure Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Why is it unbelievable? Leaving the EU would be a disaster for Scotland. The UK is supposed to be a democracy, why isn't every party willing to let the people have a say. The majority will win, whether we stay or go, and democracy is the winner. Why are they so terrified of that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.