Sturgeon demands another Scottish independence referendum 2 years after losing first

[-:Undertaker:-]

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon demands another Scottish independence referendum just two and a half years after losing the first

841255551895973888

841255003834712064

841254072565022720

841256488333148160

841263866503921664

841255688273813507

841263678049644544

Legally the ability to call another referendum is with the Houses of Parliament. She has as much legal power to call another referendum as I do. Westminster must block any referendum attempt by this chancer and if a referendum is to be held *after* Brexit in say 2021, then the terms must be on our conditions this time: namely that Scottish people living in the rest of the United Kingdom are given the vote they deserve which this woman and her party denied them the last time in an effort to get the result she wanted (and still lost).


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03019/scotland_3019008b.jpg


51% of Scots are against another independence referendum with only 34% supporting one. Tell her to do one!

Thoughts?

[buttons]

lol got a load of snp leaflets and register to vote at the weekend, planned it well
.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Number 10 basically rules it out.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6zHzU8XAAQqJbD.jpg

Even if you gave her a referendum before Brexit, and she lost, she'd demand another referendum *after* Brexit because something about conditions have changed blah blah blah. Basically she'll demand a referendum until she gets the answer she wants, EU style. She's aware that time is against her cause and time is on the Unionist side.

"Once in a generation" to the SNP is a very short time it appears. :P

[FlyingJesus]

Referenda are a terrible way to decide things in any case, the entire point of representative democracy is to avoid such absolute messes. I'm not a huge fan of May but she was bang on the other week when she accused Sturgeon of focusing more on an impossible referendum than on actually caring for the Scottish people

[-:Undertaker:-]

FlyingJesus;

I think referendums are fine so long as they're used for large constitutional changes, like say the first Scottish referendum and the EU referendum: although the EU referendum could have been avoided had earlier referendums on the treaties as promised been allowed and those treaties rejected. The problem is calling multiple referendums until the 'right' answer is given, she should simply be told no and that's it. Let's face it, she'd have called a referendum regardless of the EU result as she's been looking for an excuse since September 2014.

It hasn't been referendums which have caused all this it has been devolution which the Blair government brought in as a oh so clever way of making Scotland their little fiefdom when out of power at Westminster (because Scotland would always be Labour, right...). The Blair government even picked a voting system for Holyrod which made it incredibly hard to get a majority in. Well here we are a decade or so later with Labour wiped out in Scotland and an SNP majority.

Labour crippled the constitution for party political gain and they should never ever be forgiven for it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

841579400558714880This is exactly what I would do, public opinion in Scotland is on the PM's side and time is on the Unionist side too.

By 2021 we'll be out of the EU and Sturgeon will then have to face convincing (if she wins a Holyrood majority) people to hand over control of their laws to an increasingly federalising EU, joining the Euro currency, customs checks on the British-Scottish border, leaving the British Single Market and introducing a visa-system with the rest of the United Kingdom.

841633297922945025

[FlyingJesus]

It wouldn't even be handing over control to the EU, it'd set them totally on their own since they'd have to apply for EU membership as a single country. Would probably just be a formality but it would take time and money to sort all that out

[abc]

This soap opera is becoming boring now, same repetitive story lines.

[Zak]

https://youtu.be/Vtpk0dH9LJM

[dbgtz]

I don't agree with it, but it will happen.


FlyingJesus;

I think referendums are fine so long as they're used for large constitutional changes, like say the first Scottish referendum and the EU referendum: although the EU referendum could have been avoided had earlier referendums on the treaties as promised been allowed and those treaties rejected. The problem is calling multiple referendums until the 'right' answer is given, she should simply be told no and that's it. Let's face it, she'd have called a referendum regardless of the EU result as she's been looking for an excuse since September 2014.

It hasn't been referendums which have caused all this it has been devolution which the Blair government brought in as a oh so clever way of making Scotland their little fiefdom when out of power at Westminster (because Scotland would always be Labour, right...). The Blair government even picked a voting system for Holyrod which made it incredibly hard to get a majority in. Well here we are a decade or so later with Labour wiped out in Scotland and an SNP majority.

Labour crippled the constitution for party political gain and they should never ever be forgiven for it.

Large constitutional changes the vast majority of the public basically knows nothing about apart from whats spat out in the local rag or on TV.

Also the SNP don't have a majority at the moment, they have a plurality :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

841777292665847809

An encouraging poll out tonight from YouGov which suggests Sturgeon may have pissed people off. As my manager was saying today in work, there comes a point where she turns into a joke as she demands a referendum on virtually every day of the week.



I don't agree with it, but it will happen.

Large constitutional changes the vast majority of the public basically knows nothing about apart from whats spat out in the local rag or on TV.

If the public cannot be handed decisions about large constitutional changes, then why should they be given the vote at General Elections in appointing a party to implement large constitutional changes as well as running the health service, national defence, schools, universities, counter-terrorism and running an economy? This elitist view of democracy is pretty thin: a yes/no question on EU membership or the status of Scotland is what was needed as the main two political parties were unable to properly represent significant feeling on those issues. The EU referendum proved this beyond doubt as voters rejected the advice of all the major Westminster parties apart from Ukip and the DUP.

Would it be healthy for our politics/democracy for example if the European and Scottish had simply been swept aside?


Also the SNP don't have a majority at the moment, they have a plurality :P

Correct sorry, what I meant to say was it [voting system] was put in place by Labour so that there was a permanent Unionist majority at Holyrood. They envisaged a permanent strong Labour vote, with the Conservatives and Liberal bloc. It changed as history proved.