Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scotland starts renewed case for independence

gov.scot

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 745 posts

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#671

Post by xenadu02 »

gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #356
afavour wrote: post #2

As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around: good luck to them. Brexit has shown very clearly that Scotland wants to chart a different path to England and IMO they should be allowed to do it. …just be generous to English folks seeking asylum from Tory rule, yeah?

As a Welsh secessionist, I can't for the life of me square the idea of wanting to leave union that for all its massive faults is at least something you can understand and engage with, to replace that by joining a union that is distant, more artificial and certainly more vague and impenetrable to the common person. Why would you leave economic and political dominance by Westminster with no control over the economics o…

I find it hilarious that all of the anti-EU arguments are more or less the same as the arguments against the United States government. The states joining up to form a larger entity certainly took some power away from the individual states and removed local control but it seems to have worked out OK.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#672

Post by brigandish »

modo_mario wrote: post #258
brigandish wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year. Life does not go backwards. I'm still not clear why that means "once in a generation" becomes "as soon as I can get what I want". > > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU > Which means two third, the majority, voted for the EU? Seems like a legit reason for a new vote. Has that figure changed dramatically? Even if it ha…

Didn't the UK made a rather unprecedented move of lowkey changing some Scottish sea-border since to get some potential gas fields on the english side?

In 1999. You can read a pro-independence argument on that here[1], as you can tell from this quote:

> In 1999 Tony Blair, abetted by the Scottish traitor Donald Dewar, redrew the existing English/Scottish maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England, including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields. The idea was specifically to disadvantage Scotland’s case for independence.

Whether you think he makes his case or not, it's been a while and it didn't stop the first referendum.

[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengl...

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#673

Post by brigandish »

smcl wrote: post #415
brigandish wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really seismic though, is it? Both options in each referendum were reasonable, there's plenty of countries in the EU and plenty out that do well, plenty have left the Britain and done well, those in the UK are doing fine. I didn't like the scare tactics in either campaign on either side (though the status quo sides' in each were notably more on the scare side). I see it as an excuse from those who would take…

Yes it really is seismic, it is a huge stretch to claim it was anything less than that (otherwise it wouldn't have been such a big issue to threaten the Yes vote with). And furthermore as a Scot living in the EU, believe me it is not simply an "excuse".

> as a Scot living in the EU, believe me it is not simply an "excuse"

Your living situation does not obviate the SNP's pledge.

> Yes it really is seismic,

My living situation is to live in a region with actual earthquakes, big ones at times too. A change of a trade deal is not in the same universe, let alone world, of effect upon people's daily lives or political events as that. You need to calm yourself down and get some perspective.

If this referendum comes to pass I'll move back to give my vote against it (unless I get my chance from here). That's how much I'm against it, and keep in mind, I voted for independence the first time. It's slimy and I won't have it.

Edit: I accidentally left part of the responder above's comment that I pasted in, not quoted properly. It was confusing so I removed it.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#674

Post by brigandish »

mvc wrote: post #590
brigandish wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't support Boris Johnson, I'm not a Tory, I don't care about the stupid parties, cake and beer by anyone and I'd like to know why you're claiming the opposite? Please, I'd like to know why you felt the need to write a completely false comment.

He is the current PM of the UK. The Tory party is dominant in the UK. Now and for the forseeable future. And even in the unforseeable future, more years than not. Independence is the only escape.

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Why did you state things about another member of HN that you cannot know and are in actual fact entirely wrong. I didn't see an apology either.

Are you sure you're in the right place?

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#675

Post by brigandish »

cyberpunk wrote: post #556
brigandish wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A few years later, an unrepresentative (to scotland) tory government takes it from us anyway because they were frightened of nigel farage and some middle englanders don't like hearing polish in their local tescos. You want a referendum because other people you disagree with were given a referendum that you then lost? And you paint this as "tory government takes it from us"? I also note that millions voted, it'd be…

It's not quite as straightforward as that. Scotland overwhelmingly voted remain. Scotland also is not represented by the Tory government in Westminster. These are constitutional issues, and the people should be given the choice if they want this to continue or not. I don't think being asked to chose is undemocratic, it's /exactly/ democracy. Let the people decide.

> Scotland overwhelmingly voted remain. Scotland also is not represented by the Tory government in Westminster.

Scotland did not get a vote, and there are Scottish Tories, and there are members of parliament from all the regions of Scotland. Scottish people are represented better than English people in all respects.

> These are constitutional issues, and the people should be given the choice if they want this to continue or not.

I agree, I voted in the last referendum and I will vote in the next. I disagree with the behaviour of the nationalists so I will vote against them.

> I don't think being asked to chose is undemocratic, it's /exactly/ democracy. Let the people decide.

Do you think that politicians making blatant lies to the public is democratic? I'm not asking if it happens or is likely or an unfortunate aspect of politics, I'm asking if you think it should be part of the way things are actually done and if the voters should overlook it - is it democratic?

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#676

Post by brigandish »

ncmncm wrote: post #603
brigandish wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're changing the point. Why is it none of my business?

It is nobody's business. A vote is a vote.

If I get to vote then it is my business, else I wouldn't or shouldn't get a vote.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#677

Post by brigandish »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #591
brigandish wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We had at least 2-3 last decade? Which countries? I note 4 if Ukraine is part of Europe, but that would mean you have to recognise Crimea's referendum as legal and valid. Not a hill I'd die on. Catalunya's and Venice's were not recognised by Spain or Italy, so we're left with Scotland's. Unless there were others?

Nouvelle-Calédonie/Kanak (3 times in the last decade), Scotland, Catalonia are the ones I had in mind, thus the 2-3 . I was not aware of Venice's one, so make that 2-4. I am sure there are others, considering my area of knowledge is limited to western european countries.

I mentioned Catalonia's, it was not legitimate or recognised by Spain. I sympathise with their movement but it's not relevant here, anymore than if I hold a vote in my bedroom to set up my own state.

Nouvelle-Calédonie is in the Pacific, not Europe, but I'll give you that one because it makes your argument look like a giant stretch.

> I am sure there are others

Forgive me, but are you expecting me to take you seriously if you can't be bothered to look it up? I could characterise my time on HN as wasting time, but I don't engage on here for a total waste of my time. Please, give me and everyone else here more respect than that and put in some effort, even if you don't have the knowledge or expertise or insight. At least that would be understandable and forgivable.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#678

Post by brigandish »

justin66 wrote: post #605
brigandish wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the crazy logic there? - I do not control whether there is a vote - Those proposing the vote said they wouldn't do it - I will work to spoil it I'd prefer that you work through the simple and obvious points yourself instead of implying some mental problem on my part, if only to remove yourself from the irony of such a claim.

> I will work to spoil it You've failed to communicate the why? of this. I can express it a different way: you have decided that you know what is best for yourself and your country regarding independence - a big and highly consequential topic - and you're going to act in opposition of that to spite a relatively small number of powerful people whose actions you disapprove of. Those powerful people will not suffer rega…

> You've failed to communicate the why? of this.

Because I'm against lying, and because their own statement contained the logic that it's bad to continually vote on this issue - I'm using their ostensibly given logic because, if we take their actual words as truthful, they are correct. Most people agreed at the time and it was one of the reasons they convinced the public to go along with a referendum.

Usually I can't really take into account the lies of politicians as each side does it and it usually doesn't make a difference anyway (e.g. their electoral promises can be compared to actual behaviour so I can vote based on the latter) and I don't usually get to vote on a specific instance of lying, nor to directly affect the ambitions of the liars. Here, I can.

> you have decided that you know what is best for yourself and your country regarding independence

Yes, I'm a voter so that's implied for everyone with a vote.

> and you're going to act in opposition of that to spite a relatively small number of powerful people whose actions you disapprove of

Yes.

> Those powerful people will not suffer regardless

They will suffer if they lose, as I alluded to above.

> but you and your country certainly will

The country will be fine either way. It may be better or worse but I'm not into eschatology generally, let alone when it's about politics unrelated to war.

> Hence my curiosity about your logic.

That's a more respectful way to put it, you might keep that in mind for future interactions on HN.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#679

Post by ncmncm »

brigandish wrote: post #676
ncmncm wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is nobody's business. A vote is a vote.

If I get to vote then it is my business, else I wouldn't or shouldn't get a vote.

It's none of your business why they want to call a referendum, or why anybody would vote as they would, or how they would vote, individually. There may be as many reasons as votes. You will of course vote on it as you please, or not vote, and it's also nobody else's business whether or how you voted, or why.

You are free to announce how you will vote, and why. And you can change your mind afterward, and vote the opposite, without telling anybody.

This is all absolutely elementary civics.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#680

Post by brigandish »

tapeloop wrote: post #462
brigandish wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote against the SNP's wishes. They said it was a once in generation vote. I made my case, as did everyone else, we all had the chance to vote on it, and my side lost. Democratic votes need the consent of the loser, not I didn't get my way so let's have another vote . B…

they didn't say that it was a once in a generation vote (whatever that means), they said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a difference. The actual difference in meaning between the two should be clear. The terms of the actual agreement signed by all parties agreed legally that there was nothing in it to preclude a further referendum, so even if by some chance your interpretation is what was meant then…

> a once in a generation vote (whatever that means)

Surely it means a referendum on independence once in around 30 years. It's not difficult to parse. Once in a lifetime would be longer.

From the [Scotsman]:

> Speaking on the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme yesterday, he said: “My estimation was that political constitutional referendums are once in a generation and I was making the example of 1979 and 1997 - that is why I always put it in that context every single time I said that.

Of course, he goes on to say things have changed. What are the odds he would make the same case for another referendum if he thought things were changing against his favour?

Nicola Sturgeon in interview with the [Guardian]:

> And if the result is No? "Will there be another referendum round the corner? No. We can't bind our successors, but we've made very clear our belief that constitutional referenda are once-in-a-generation events."

From Sturgeon's conference [speech]:

> Next year, we have a once in a generation opportunity

There's *lots* of examples of them saying it and reiterating in, in several forms, that all mean it wasn't going to happen often. That's what once in a lifetime means, right?

Who knew that the SNP would bring me the real second life!

> The terms of the actual agreement signed by all parties agreed legally that there was nothing in it to preclude a further referendum

Very true. I'm not even sure if it's possible under the constitution, as Sturgeon pointed out above "We can't bind our successors", but that's why pledges about the circumstances of a vote are so important.

> so even if by some chance your interpretation is what was meant then they have no actual power to enforce it.

Right. What does that have to do with my voting intention? I'm also interested in what your interpretation of "once in a lifetime" means. Are you over 30?

[Scotsman] https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-once-gen...

[Guardian] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/nicola-stur...

[speech] http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesscotland/pages/3159/...

Post reply on HN