To ask all Scottish MNrs to work together 2

[siiiiiiiiigh]

Sorry, filled the last thread with this, thought I'd better be part of Team Scottish MN and work together for those of us on the old thread...

Here's Armando's thoughts. I vote him in for everything.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/scottish-referendum-massive-voter-turnout-means-politics-changed-for-ever

With regards to another referendum, and to the suggestion that Scotland could unilaterally declare independence - these both make me very concerned.

I think that the referendum caused a lot of uncertainty in Scotland, and I think we need a period of stability - and to me, that means a period without an imminent referendum, where we know for sure that there will be no referendum, and where all parties have pledged to work with the result of the recent referendum - ie. within the UK.

If I were a businessman, considering whether to invest in Scotland, I think I would want some clarity on what was going to be happening here over the next few years - I'd want to know that Scotland was not going to declare UDI, and that there wasn't going to be a referendum, for a stated number of years. I wouldn't want the uncertainty of investing somewhere where there could be another period of division and economic uncertainty (sorry - too many uncertainties, but I can't think of another word) that might affect my business.

And on a personal level, I really want to know that I won't have to go through another referendum, with all the effects that it had on me personally, and on my family. Selfish, I know, but it made me really ill, and I can't go through that again. For me, it speaks volumes, that I have slept better, and suffered far less from insomnia in the week following the referendum than I did in the 3-4 months leading up to it.

Numanoid I'm quite shocked at that story.

Can you link to what exactly Ruth Davidson said? Can't believe any politician would say what she seems to have said so openly??

SDTG it worries me too, unless she's just playing politics to force the devolution committee to keep up the pressure - a nice threat to have in the back pocket in case things get bogged down

another verified issue? Where are the others?

Obviously if this is proven to have happened there will be ramifications for those involved, but I don't see how it could have had an affect either on the vote or the result.

and I'm glad you're feeling better SDTG - I also have been sleeping much better, and not waking up with that feeling of dread.

In fact, thinking about it, another referendum - is it in NS's gift to have one? Wouldn't it have to be agreed with WM anyway?

What - on the link Numanoid posted on the RHS is a video of exactly what she said...
Don't think she would have been so ill advised to say it if it was illegal...

Can you link to what exactly Ruth Davidson said? Can't believe any politician would say what she seems to have said so openly??

I've only just read the story, it's in the article linked above and The Herald. I haven't seen the original tweets/statements, it just seems there are a lot of things being brought up after the vote.

another verified issue? Where are the others?

I mean it as in this one seems to be a genuine issue - that the postal votes were viewed by the No campaign before the final count. The other issues (accusations of rigging) aren't verified and so far, have no concrete evidence that I can see.

I don't think it will affect the result either, I don't want a revote myself. I think there should be a good few years before the next referendum.

11:13: Police assess postal vote claims Police have been asked to examine claims that pro-UK campaigners breached electoral law by counting some postal votes ahead of referendum polling day.
Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said Better Together agents had been "taking tallies" of postal votes at sample openings held in the weeks before the count.
Election rules state the results of these openings must be kept secret.
Police Scotland said it was assessing whether a crime had been committed.

From the beeb

But all she says on that is that she's not pushing for one, we've just had one...but that she doesn't think it should be in the power of politicians to say there won't be another one within a certain time frame no matter what changes if the Scottish people want one.

What's wrong with that? That's basically I'm not planning for one, but if enough people want one because something huge changes I'd not say no to them...?

I think the SG would need to tread very carefully on this one and not assume that another referendum is wanted simply because one side is shouting more loudly than the other....

Well watching all of it, to me it wasn't about if enough people asked for it now...but in the case of things like the UK leaving the EU, which was also mentioned.

I don't think you can promise it's off the table no matter what if you have big things like that potentially happening, surely?

WhatWouldFreddieDo - I think there are two ways to do the referendum for independence.

The first is to do what happened this time - negotiate an agreement with Westminster that, in the event of a Yes vote, Westminster will honour Scotland's choice of independence.

The second would be for Scotland to decide, unilaterally, to hold a referendum and then, in the event of a Yes vote, to go to Westminster and say, 'Look - Scotland wants independence - now you must negotiate with us on how to achieve this', but there would be no guarantee in place that Westminster would agree to negotiate. But, if there was a resounding Yes vote, I suspect Westminster would find it very hard indeed to refuse to negotiate.

Pressed 'Enter' too soon...

I guess it comes down to whether Holyrood has the power to hold referenda. They have budgetary control, and it would partly be a budgetary issue (footing the bill for another vote), but I don't know if they have the constitutional power.

And if they don't have the constitutional power, I don't know if there is anything that would stop them having a referendum anyway.

If the UK were to vote to leave the EU, and then Scotland were to decide to hold another referendum, timing might be very significant.

It would depend which was the quicker process - leaving the EU or holding a referendum and achieving independence (in the event of a Yes vote, based on Scottish people wanting to stay in the EU).

If leaving the EU was a quicker process than holding a referendum and implementing the result, could Scotland find themselves outside the EU before they achieved independence - in which case, wouldn't they be forced into the position of being new applicants to join the EU anyway? With all that that would entail - like using the Euro, and joining European monetary union?

thanks for all the above - am not able to follow links atm, but will have a proper look later.

I guess tho that if the UK voted to leave the EU, another independence referendum might be justified - but oh god, the disruption, the politicking, endless negotiations, cost and putting all our lives on hold again ...

I think there might be major changes which could force another referendum....but honestly, do we want to go down that route every single time a significant change takes place? I'm not sure that would be good for the stability or collective nerve of Scotland.

The second would be for Scotland to decide, unilaterally, to hold a referendum and then, in the event of a Yes vote, to go to Westminster and say, 'Look - Scotland wants independence - now you must negotiate with us on how to achieve this', but there would be no guarantee in place that Westminster would agree to negotiate.

The referendum has caused a lot of people outside Scotland to think for the first time about the relationship. There are already MPs who disagree with the promised devo max. If Scotland had another referendum there would be a lot of pressure to say "Right, just sod off then. No more Barnet, no more subsidies, take your oil and close the door after you."

I personally hope that doesn't happen BTW.

Even if there is another referendum, surely WM could say that there needs to be e.g. 60% of the population voting in favour of independence for it to happen. I'm still fuming that they didn't this time. It's too big a change to have just over 50% in favour of it winning.

Oh I'm not saying we should have a referendum everytime something happened, I don't think Nicola Sturgeon was either, lol.

But the EU did seem to be a big sticking point for lots of people during the run up to the referendum?

I mean personally I would be telling them to shove another referendum up their bahookey at the moment, but I can't say that I wouldn't change my mind if certain things happened...I don't know what at this present moment in time.

I don't think a referendum will happen without Westminster consent btw...and this is just my opinion, but, SNP declaring one just on election results with no different circumstances would make them hugely unpopular and pretty much guarantee a huge no and Westminster refusing to negotiate one after huge changes that the majority of people were unhappy with would pretty much guarantee the opposite.

So strange to think the referendum was only this day last week. Feels like so much time has passed.

Even if there is another referendum, surely WM could say that there needs to be e.g. 60% of the population voting in favour of independence for it to happen. I'm still fuming that they didn't this time. It's too big a change to have just over 50% in favour of it winning.

In the interest of fairness, they'd have to say the same about the No vote.
I think a majority either way is fair.

I disagree, Numanoid - if you said there had to be a 60%+ majority in favour of staying in the Union, what would you do if, say only 59% voted No to independence?

You couldn't say that the majority to stay in the Union was too small, so Scotland should leave - because you couldn't make Scotland independent if only a minority of the vote had been in favour of it, and the majority wanted to stay in the Union, even if that majority was under the limit set.

and this is why referendums seem so simple, and yet are soooo not.

can you imagine, eg, if the bar had been 75%, and it had ended up 74/26?