SNP's Nicola Sturgeon announces she is to publish a second referendum bill next week

[-:Undertaker:-]

I was asking for something from the official Remain campaign, not what one remain backer has said.

I have not yet seen one Remain official admit to it.

Instead, like Clegg, they deny it as a delusion of eurosceptics when EU officials say it themselves.

But it got like what 3+million votes? And you honestly think that's only good enough for one seat? Are you a joke? Somehow it's OK for me to suggest ignoring the referendum since it's only advisory but screw those 3 million who get next to no real representation on a daily basis.
Honestly the fact you're using raw figures is also a huge joke and I can't even tell if you're doing it intentionally or not.

It isn't "good" but at the end of the day you have to win seats in Parliament. That's our parliamentary system, and Ukip - through its own faults but also external events - could not do this where as other parties have managed this. But that doesn't matter as it has achieved its goals anyway through exerting pressure on a mainstream party to bring about its aims. I was a member of Ukip, but I am very happy with what we've done and achieved. It was never about the party or acquiring power for the party, it was about the country.

Except, as you said yourself, we would have to take their laws into account anyway. At the end of the day, neither of us are economists nor have I done adequate research into this so I won't bother refuting further.

Sure, but they'll have to take our laws into account. That's what happens when you export goods. I do not mind abiding by other people's regulations when selling in their country: but I do mind being ordered on my own regulations.

"He did say the quote" he says with no proof.
In that second quote you sent, not only was that well before anything even existed, it explicitly states "form a federation or a European entity". Arguably, the EU falls under "Europeon entity" so this doesn't really support your theory of further integration.
I also want to say that just because someone said something a long time ago, doesn't make it applicable to today. Surprisingly, things change.

Things do change yes, and now the European Union has a currency, a central bank, a flag, an anthem, is setting up defense forces and is talking about a single treasury, having a single financial minister and EU-wide taxation. Oh, and eventual political union. Now I ask you, what do you define that as? That is building a state by any measure.

Except, and I believe you like to make this point, there's very little difference between the Labour we saw in recent government (i.e. New Labour) and the Conservatives, so where is this change you speak of?

Well now there's actually differences emerging thanks to the right-wing coup in the Tories and Corbyn's election.

The European Union is one, grammar schools, action in Syria, immigration is another and the replacement of our Trident nuclear weapons system. They're some pretty big differences now opening up between the two major parties.

I also want to point out honestly how shitty your argument is. If that government was so loathed they wouldn't get votes in the first place and thus would have no chance in government. If they are needed to actually make up coalition numbers then yes there is change in the government that you seem to be complaining about since the "big player" changes. Imagine how different it would have been if the Lib Dems and Conservatives switched places during 2010-2015.

You haven't got me.

Say in a hypothetical country with proportional representation people are very angry and vote in a radical new party which manages to get over 50% of the vote which is very hard under proportional systems. Now, five years down the line that party - let's call it the Radical Party - is an absolute failure and is polling a mere 5% (which often happens in PR due to the fluid nature of it). The election comes, and the Radical Party polls 10%. Two other parties, the Communist Party and the Monarchist Party have won the most votes in the parliament with 22% of the vote each.

To form a government, those two parties who are the total opposites of one another will then have to form a Coalition with the much loathed Radical Party to form a government. They're hated. People ask why this party is still in power if it was so badly beaten. And why, despite only having 10% of a vote, it has so much influence on the government. Answer? Because it can blackmail the other two at anytime and bring the government down.

That's not a good situation to be in and I believe Italy is trying to move away from it because of unstable government.

I'm honestly baffled about someone who in this very thread is complaining about how ignoring he "will of the people" is such a bad thing, but ignoring what is almost certainly a majority of people during an election cycle is OK because you have a belief, with absolutely no historical backing, FPTP "averts potential revolution". And then, the cheek of it, says it's more democratic even though it is almost certainly less so since more people get ignored in elections!

The historical backing is between ourselves and the continent. It's also my belief for example that because we haven't got a written constitution that we've also avoided revolution and bloodshed: an unwritten constitution has made us much more fluid to response to societal changes and FPTP has - when there's a genuine sea change in public opinion - allowed us to throw an unpopular government out of office immediately.

Right but you said to me if I didn't like what the government was doing then I should vote for change, which is presumably what you did with UKIP but that ultimately didn't work so you had to revert to other means. You fought, sure, but you didn't get change in government is the whole point. I'd also sort of argue UKIP had very little to do with the actual referendum coming about too (though probably did impact the actual result), but that's a rather different topic.

But voting for Ukip in those European Elections and the General Elections did work because I helped force the referendum which we went on to win. Without the external pressure of Ukip, the Tory backbenchers would've had a hard job.

I'm not going to continue this assumption of peoples motives.

Read up on it, very interesting: it is one of the reasons I am so keen on the Commonwealth and would prioritise trade relations with them. Not just because we're more similar, but because of the blood they sacrificed for us over centuries.

I was reading the other day an interesting piece on this, said how really we betrayed those loyalists in the Raj after World War I by granting concessions (which eventually led to independence) to the Hindu and Muslim nationalists who never fought.

So basically, exactly where it suits you.

But perhaps in the last 500 years, the Scottish, Irish and maybe Welsh might like to have a word with you.

The Scottish, Irish and Welsh are a part of this realm - they're not colonies.

[dbgtz]

I have not yet seen one Remain official admit to it.

Instead, like Clegg, they deny it as a delusion of eurosceptics when EU officials say it themselves.

So, no, the Remain campaign never claimed such a thing.

It isn't "good" but at the end of the day you have to win seats in Parliament. That's our parliamentary system, and Ukip - through its own faults but also external events - could not do this where as other parties have managed this. But that doesn't matter as it has achieved its goals anyway through exerting pressure on a mainstream party to bring about its aims. I was a member of Ukip, but I am very happy with what we've done and achieved. It was never about the party or acquiring power for the party, it was about the country.

Right, true, but it's only like that because people like you refuse to move from a system which doesn't suit more than 2 parties. It shouldn't have to be a struggle to get representation. In fact, by saying it isn't good you've essentially agreed FPTP is a bad system but are either far too stubborn or too fixated on what was rather than what could be.

Sure, but they'll have to take our laws into account. That's what happens when you export goods. I do not mind abiding by other people's regulations when selling in their country: but I do mind being ordered on my own regulations.

Yes and it's a good thing we're in a much stronger position.

Things do change yes, and now the European Union has a currency, a central bank, a flag, an anthem, is setting up defense forces and is talking about a single treasury, having a single financial minister and EU-wide taxation. Oh, and eventual political union. Now I ask you, what do you define that as? That is building a state by any measure.

The currency doesn't concern us, a central bank relates back to the currency, a flag is used by lots of non-states, depends on the extent of these defence forces, next 2 make sense for the Euro and EU-wide taxation, well I'm not sure what you mean by that but I honestly don't see that happening if it's what I think it is. You also just used "talking about", I could talk about becoming King but doesn't mean it will happen.
You do have to recognise the Euro is very much a different beast so some of those makes sense. There's also no guarantee of us being part of anything further quite honestly.

You know, I'm not even necessarily trying to deny what people are trying to do, but quoting someone from before the EU existed really doesn't prove anything.

Well now there's actually differences emerging thanks to the right-wing coup in the Tories and Corbyn's election.

The European Union is one, grammar schools, action in Syria, immigration is another and the replacement of our Trident nuclear weapons system. They're some pretty big differences now opening up between the two major parties.

But the differences don't matter since I believe as it stands, Corbyn would not get a majority next election so we could just see it go back to New Labour times so they have a greater chance of winning. The fact of the matter is, even if they are both different they're not the only options available and we shouldn't be needlessly limited.

You haven't got me.

Say in a hypothetical country with proportional representation people are very angry and vote in a radical new party which manages to get over 50% of the vote which is very hard under proportional systems. Now, five years down the line that party - let's call it the Radical Party - is an absolute failure and is polling a mere 5% (which often happens in PR due to the fluid nature of it). The election comes, and the Radical Party polls 10%. Two other parties, the Communist Party and the Monarchist Party have won the most votes in the parliament with 22% of the vote each.

To form a government, those two parties who are the total opposites of one another will then have to form a Coalition with the much loathed Radical Party to form a government. They're hated. People ask why this party is still in power if it was so badly beaten. And why, despite only having 10% of a vote, it has so much influence on the government. Answer? Because it can blackmail the other two at anytime and bring the government down.

That's not a good situation to be in and I believe Italy is trying to move away from it because of unstable government.

You use Italy as an example, but looking they seem to have ~10 parties with 3-5 in government. It is ultimately in the second party's interest to not only stay in power too, but remain electable so they would not want to shit all over everything (for no better way to describe it atm). What you describe as blackmail is actually negotiation and that's a benefit of coalitions.

I should say I used to support FPTP for basically the same reasons until I saw that it actually kind of worked in 2010-15.

The historical backing is between ourselves and the continent. It's also my belief for example that because we haven't got a written constitution that we've also avoided revolution and bloodshed: an unwritten constitution has made us much more fluid to response to societal changes and FPTP has - when there's a genuine sea change in public opinion - allowed us to throw an unpopular government out of office immediately.

Sorry, but that's not actually giving any historical backing to your claims.

But voting for Ukip in those European Elections and the General Elections did work because I helped force the referendum which we went on to win. Without the external pressure of Ukip, the Tory backbenchers would've had a hard job.

No. Tory back benchers are the only ones who really pressured Cameron to put the election. Nobody running Leave even wanted UKIP support if I remember rightly. Again, I won't deny UKIP responsibility for the actual result I just see no evidence they were the force for the initial referendum.

The Scottish, Irish and Welsh are a part of this realm - they're not colonies.

Right but I think a lot of their law and sovereignty changed when they stopped being their own countries Same goes for England I suppose. Also I'm pretty sure Wales was initially actually part of England after what I assume is after being invaded before splitting off again (can't be bothered to look it up tbh).

[-:Undertaker:-]

So, no, the Remain campaign never claimed such a thing.

Head of the Remain campaign.

Right, true, but it's only like that because people like you refuse to move from a system which doesn't suit more than 2 parties. It shouldn't have to be a struggle to get representation. In fact, by saying it isn't good you've essentially agreed FPTP is a bad system but are either far too stubborn or too fixated on what was rather than what could be.

I actually used to, until a few years ago, support moving to proportional representation. I spoilt my ballot in the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum because that choice wasn't on the ballot. Now though - just as I changed my opinion on the House of Lords upon closer examination - I support FPTP because it is the better electoral system. Not perfect of course, can result in strange results but ultimately better for a variety of reasons. Stable government, more control over your local member of parliament and less under the control of the party hierarchies with the PR 'list' system.

Yes and it's a good thing we're in a much stronger position.

From what?

The currency doesn't concern us, a central bank relates back to the currency, a flag is used by lots of non-states, depends on the extent of these defence forces, next 2 make sense for the Euro and EU-wide taxation, well I'm not sure what you mean by that but I honestly don't see that happening if it's what I think it is. You also just used "talking about", I could talk about becoming King but doesn't mean it will happen.
You do have to recognise the Euro is very much a different beast so some of those makes sense. There's also no guarantee of us being part of anything further quite honestly.

Yes but there's a difference between you talking about becoming King and European Union officials signalling very strongly what their next treaty will include. And whilst it is true to say Britain was not included in the currency requirements it is also true to say that it would as a result make it very difficult for us to have remained if these changes take place. How for example would the European Union work and our membership of it work if the Eurozone states acted as one in negotiations and voting (as they're increasingly having to do)? We'd be in a permanent voting minority against the EZ bloc. That's why I said earlier, our exit was not a question of IF but a question of WHEN.

You know, I'm not even necessarily trying to deny what people are trying to do, but quoting someone from before the EU existed really doesn't prove anything.

When the people who wrote the first EU treaties say these things, you listen. When the people who all the buildings in the EU complex in Brussels are named after, you listen. When they're referred to as the Founding Fathers by federalists you listen. Many of the founders have died, but the project lives on. Ideology often outlasts the men who create it: Karl Marx was dead and buried long before the first Communist state (Russia) existed.

But the differences don't matter since I believe as it stands, Corbyn would not get a majority next election so we could just see it go back to New Labour times so they have a greater chance of winning. The fact of the matter is, even if they are both different they're not the only options available and we shouldn't be needlessly limited.

Even under proportional representation you'd still face the "realistically it is X or Y so pick X or Y" choice.

You use Italy as an example, but looking they seem to have ~10 parties with 3-5 in government. It is ultimately in the second party's interest to not only stay in power too, but remain electable so they would not want to shit all over everything (for no better way to describe it atm). What you describe as blackmail is actually negotiation and that's a benefit of coalitions.

Negotiation can often mean that nobody then gets what they wanted.

I should say I used to support FPTP for basically the same reasons until I saw that it actually kind of worked in 2010-15.

Under FPTP it is very rare for coalitions though, that is the beauty of it. Infact you could take the Conservative-Liberal Coalition of 2010-2015 as a prime example of why PR is bad. Neither Tories or Liberals were happy with it.

Sorry, but that's not actually giving any historical backing to your claims.

Look at the number of ineffective weak governments that countries with proportional representation often have. Belgium, Italy and now Spain have faced difficulty with forming coherent and strong governments capable of carrying out reforms. I think it stands to reason that if a government is always on the verge of falling, you do not get strong reforms.

No. Tory back benchers are the only ones who really pressured Cameron to put the election. Nobody running Leave even wanted UKIP support if I remember rightly. Again, I won't deny UKIP responsibility for the actual result I just see no evidence they were the force for the initial referendum.

I don't buy it was the backbenchers. If you remember in the 1990s the Conservative had hell with the eurosceptic backbenchers over the Maaschtrict Treaty which nearly brought the government down: yet no referendum was held. Ukip put the pressure on the government through the European Elections 2009 and 2014 (which they won) as well as by-election results and the defections prior to the election in 2015.

I'll agree with you it wasn't all Ukip but I do think history will remember Farage and Ukip as securing the referendum, although they alone did not win it. After all, it was Farage who first made the link between immigration and the EU: over and over and over again so the two became inseparable. In that piece from the Guardian I linked it had an interesting bit from Farage that I have long thought myself. He says that whilst the likes of Hannan, Carswell and the other Tories would bang on about sovereignty (and rightly so) that doesn't resonate on the doorsteps. You have to make the argument applicable to people's lives because reciting the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights on the doorsteps in Sunderland won't do any good.

Right but I think a lot of their law and sovereignty changed when they stopped being their own countries Same goes for England I suppose. Also I'm pretty sure Wales was initially actually part of England after what I assume is after being invaded before splitting off again (can't be bothered to look it up tbh).

Indeed but that was the formation of a state which is what the EU is doing but which many EU advocates simply do not understand or bury their heads to the reality of it. And yes Wales was an annexation into the Kingdom of England in the 1300s (from memory) where as Scotland and Ireland were Acts of Union (ie equal partners) although adopting much of the continuing English constitutional set up which became the British constitutional set up.

[scottish]

[Rue]

BREAKING: @NicolaSturgeon says Independence Referendum Bill will be published for consultation next week #indyref2 https://t.co/rwGOwqUfGO

— BBC Scotland News (@BBCScotlandNews) October 13, 2016

Good. Hold it. I dare you. Infact, Westminster ought to pre-empt her and hold a snap one on our terms not hers.

Quite frankly at the end of my tether with her and her supporters. We had it on this forum too - one or two Scots telling us they'd now go and vote for 'independence' because they didn't get their way in the EU referendum vote. Well why don't you just **** off and vote to be ruled by Belgium/France/Germany then because you're not going to hold the rest of us to ransom anymore.

I'm a Unionist but the Scottish who pretend to be Unionist so long as it benefits just them piss me off.

PS I understand there's a majority of Unionist Scots out there who detest this woman and her ilk as much as I do.

I love Nicola!

She is a brilliant first minister and is the leader we need. I voted for Independance from the UK and we were told that if we left then we wouldn't be a part of the European Union and now that the country stayed, it is leaving.

From work, general chat, I've not heard a lot of people speaking about the issue or their opinions on the subject (normally because it leads to arguments lol) but I don't know if there is lots more of a drive towards independance still... Mind you I know Nicola would not risk another independance to be wasteful.

Just my view on it.

[Zak]

As a Scot, please do not tar us all with the same brush due to the moron that is Nicola Sturgeon. The majority are not like her nor do they support independence. I wish they'd bloody get on and govern!

Ikr I'm fed up with all the drama. Everyday I see BREXIT in the news, its got real old, real fast.

[dbgtz]

Head of the Remain campaign.

OK fair enough.
At the end of the day I thought both sides were full of shite. At the very least, the veto part is true.

I actually used to, until a few years ago, support moving to proportional representation. I spoilt my ballot in the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum because that choice wasn't on the ballot. Now though - just as I changed my opinion on the House of Lords upon closer examination - I support FPTP because it is the better electoral system. Not perfect of course, can result in strange results but ultimately better for a variety of reasons. Stable government, more control over your local member of parliament and less under the control of the party hierarchies with the PR 'list' system.

FPTP is certainly not without positives, sure and the MP being more "local" I suppose is easily one of it's best merits compared to some other systems. Though, not all PR systems are list based and I would never really desire one that is since the control is at the hands of the party rather than the people (and I'm really not a fan of parties to be honest, but equally I would never suggest getting rid of them).

From what?

I was just being sarcastic as the EU is in a much stronger negotiating position, but that should be obvious.

Yes but there's a difference between you talking about becoming King and European Union officials signalling very strongly what their next treaty will include. And whilst it is true to say Britain was not included in the currency requirements it is also true to say that it would as a result make it very difficult for us to have remained if these changes take place. How for example would the European Union work and our membership of it work if the Eurozone states acted as one in negotiations and voting (as they're increasingly having to do)? We'd be in a permanent voting minority against the EZ bloc. That's why I said earlier, our exit was not a question of IF but a question of WHEN.

True, but lots of talks go on every day but it doesn't mean it will be successful.
I suppose that's a fair point, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when it comes to a voting minority. We can veto a lot of decisions, and iirc the Parliament is only advisory or something? I don't know exactly, I'm a bit rusty on the subject.

When the people who wrote the first EU treaties say these things, you listen. When the people who all the buildings in the EU complex in Brussels are named after, you listen. When they're referred to as the Founding Fathers by federalists you listen. Many of the founders have died, but the project lives on. Ideology often outlasts the men who create it: Karl Marx was dead and buried long before the first Communist state (Russia) existed.

Whilst I don't inherently disagree, it's quite possible messages get warped over time. I'm just going to take the bible as an example. People often like to listen to the good parts, love thy neighbour and that but don't seem to care too much about gluttony, homosexuality or the many deaths that happen. They will choose the bits they like essentially, and maybe for some in the EU that is the federalism aspect, but I don't think it's ever going to get to the point of federalism without any other kind of arrangement.

Even under proportional representation you'd still face the "realistically it is X or Y so pick X or Y" choice.

Less so. Even if that is the case, it can still massively change the result. I suspect a lot of people would actually vote one of the big parties first and another last, and since a good chunk, possibly even a majority of MPs don't have a majority of the vote, it will almost certainly change the overall result

Negotiation can often mean that nobody then gets what they wanted.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I like the balance that comes with coalitions as it's essentially the result of many views. I don't like the idea of a single party government having essentially free reign thanks to whips and most (or a lot of) MPs being more interested in their careers rather than the people they represent. It would almost certainly be easier to vote individual MPs out on certain other voting systems, well ones that aren't list based.

Under FPTP it is very rare for coalitions though, that is the beauty of it. Infact you could take the Conservative-Liberal Coalition of 2010-2015 as a prime example of why PR is bad. Neither Tories or Liberals were happy with it.

Well, the Conservatives probably are happy with it considering how well they did in 2015
You say beauty though, I obviously disagree with that. I don't want them to be happy with it, I want them to be on edge. I always bought the argument a coalition is inherently unstable, but 10-15 proved that wrong.

Look at the number of ineffective weak governments that countries with proportional representation often have. Belgium, Italy and now Spain have faced difficulty with forming coherent and strong governments capable of carrying out reforms. I think it stands to reason that if a government is always on the verge of falling, you do not get strong reforms.

Then look at strong governments and countries doing well. Germany, Nordic countries etc.

I don't buy it was the backbenchers. If you remember in the 1990s the Conservative had hell with the eurosceptic backbenchers over the Maaschtrict Treaty which nearly brought the government down: yet no referendum was held. Ukip put the pressure on the government through the European Elections 2009 and 2014 (which they won) as well as by-election results and the defections prior to the election in 2015.

I'll agree with you it wasn't all Ukip but I do think history will remember Farage and Ukip as securing the referendum, although they alone did not win it. After all, it was Farage who first made the link between immigration and the EU: over and over and over again so the two became inseparable. In that piece from the Guardian I linked it had an interesting bit from Farage that I have long thought myself. He says that whilst the likes of Hannan, Carswell and the other Tories would bang on about sovereignty (and rightly so) that doesn't resonate on the doorsteps. You have to make the argument applicable to people's lives because reciting the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights on the doorsteps in Sunderland won't do any good.

Yes but 1990s was a very different time with Major and Cameron being very different in their approach. I'd argue that people probably saw the referendum as a means of helping a few people out (both Cameron and Boris) since they both seemed to think we would vote remain.

True, but thanks to his focus on presenting immigration as a bad thing we are actually now driving away lots of "good" immigration because not only can people not tell the difference, but they're becoming more intolerant and xenophobic/race crimes have actually risen from what I have read. This isn't to say that all those who voted leave are racist/xenophobic, but rather it was some peoples reasons to vote leave. I do believe if this actual behaviour continues then we will drive certain people away, not just immigrants but also those born here and they will tend to be the more educated ones.

Indeed but that was the formation of a state which is what the EU is doing but which many EU advocates simply do not understand or bury their heads to the reality of it. And yes Wales was an annexation into the Kingdom of England in the 1300s (from memory) where as Scotland and Ireland were Acts of Union (ie equal partners) although adopting much of the continuing English constitutional set up which became the British constitutional set up.

Huh didn't realise Wales was that early, but I guess it makes sense. Still arguably a massive change though, for all countries and I would still say bigger than the EU. Maybe when the EU gets to an actual federation, I will say differently