Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that the new SNP leader just pledged to ignore the will of the majority of Scottish people?

543 replies

RudeBarbandCustard · 14/11/2014 17:28

Forgive me if I'm being naive - I may well be.

But Nicola Sturgeon pledging to continue to fight for Scottish independence is essentially a pledge to fight against the majority of the Scottish people's democratically expressed wishes?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30011423

I mean, it couldn't be clearer. The majority of Scottish people voted No. So she's essentially saying "Hey, majority of Scotland - I'm going to ignore what you voted for in a democratic process, and fight for the opposite!".

It smacks of arrogance, and a complete disregard for what people voted for!

I may be missing something though, but it's intriguing and bugging me so I'd be interested to hear what others think.

OP posts:
SetPhasersTaeMalkie · 15/11/2014 12:15

And what's so hard to understand that there are still huge numbers of people who still want independence? They won't go away either. And in the SNP they have a voice. That's why I joined the SNP shortly after the referendum and I'm sure that's why others did too.

SirChenjin · 15/11/2014 12:15

A referendum is not another election - that was always made very clear to Scotland. This was a decision that would determine our future. Now it seems that actually, the SNP do view it like an election, and by simple persuasion those of us who were not convinced by the strength of their arguments and the power of their actions first time round (after years and years of arguments and actions from the SNP) will come to realise the error of our ways and will vote correctly in the next election referendum. Only once Scotland votes correctly, there will be no election referendum to rejoin the UK. Convenient, that.

flippinada · 15/11/2014 12:16

May I be permitted a an eye roll at a the "trying to shut down debate" line?

Throughout the campaign, and afterwards, pro independence campaigners have been extremely vocal.

You'd have an easier job stopping the rain from falling!

Annunziata · 15/11/2014 12:18

You have a voice in the SNP but you don't have the right to pretend that the vote didn't happen because it didn't go your way.

It was supposed to be a one off and to be respected, but that was when the SNP thought they were going to win.

SirChenjin · 15/11/2014 12:19

It was supposed to be a one off and to be respected, but that was when the SNP thought they were going to win

This sums things up perfectly.

RudeBarbandCustard · 15/11/2014 12:30

SirChenjin completely agree. They'll keep pushing for a re-vote until (if ever) it goes their way. And THEN it will be a once only, never to be repeated vote.

and by simple persuasion those of us who were not convinced by the strength of their arguments and the power of their actions first time round (after years and years of arguments and actions from the SNP)

This is what struck a chord with me. As many have stated here, independence is the SNP's main goal. So I was pretty surprised, shocked in fact, that they hadn't built up a really good strong case for independence by the time the referendum came around. The fact that so many questions remained unanswered - even un-considered if the media were to be believed, such as the issue of the currency - just indicates huge incompetence. Now I accept that much of that might be media spin - but really, Mr Salmond knew what the key issues were likely to be, why on earth didn't he have answers to them?

It certainly didn't fill people with confidence on their ability to run a country.

And

It was supposed to be a one off and to be respected, but that was when the SNP thought they were going to win

Totally agree.

OP posts:
ChelsyHandy · 15/11/2014 12:45

Rude As many have stated here, independence is the SNP's main goal. So I was pretty surprised, shocked in fact, that they hadn't built up a really good strong case for independence by the time the referendum came around. The fact that so many questions remained unanswered - even un-considered if the media were to be believed, such as the issue of the currency - just indicates huge incompetence. Now I accept that much of that might be media spin - but really, Mr Salmond knew what the key issues were likely to be, why on earth didn't he have answers to them?

I have thought about that too, and I can only assume that it was as a result of a mixture of the typical incompetence that Scottish civic society is increasingly characterised by (trams network, Edinburgh City Council, Holyrood building project, dreadful infrastructure, etc.) and arrogance. Its probably well founded arrogance too - if you promise untalented people the prospect of riches and well paid jobs in an independent Scotland and to get one over on those who have taken a more traditional and hard working route to get where they have, you are not likely to be held to account for small matters such as constitutional rights, rule of law and disreguard for getting things wrong in your manifesto - "the Court of Justice of the European Community supports Scottish independence" - yeah, right.

The fact that Salmond and his cronies have reliably demonstrated a disreguard for legal rights and truthfulness, and encouraged SNP supporters to be abusive of anyone who challenges their mindset is not a mark of a philosophy that is likely to lead to a fairer and more equal society - more likely a worse and increasingly isolated one, ruled by someone who has more in common with dictators such as Putin than successful world leaders.

Even at the moment, Scotland has good laws ("Scotland has the best legal system in the world" is one of the typical "Scotland is the best" mantras some Scots like to trot out without thinking) but often they are not enforced. Freedom of information requests come to mind. Just google "City of Edinburgh FOI requests" or similar and look at the details of a few relating to something like the compulsory repairs/statutory notices scam - the Council frequently refuses to comply with them for various "exceptions" such as "economic reasons" or "not being in the public interest", except that such refusals are done in bad faith for the reason of denying justice. Its actually quite shocking and of course the wonderful Ombudsman for Freedom of Information to whom you can appeal is absolutely useless.

So that's a local authority in Scotland's capital city, compelling possibly unnecessary and fraudulent repairs on property owners (criminal charges are currently pending) but those citizens having to make freedom of information requests to attempt to challenge them, to get the information any reasonable person should have been given when presented with a bill for possibly tens of thousands of pounds of badly done work, and those FOI requests refused by that local authority.

Mollymoofer · 15/11/2014 13:03

And the majority of people didn't want it to happen! What is so hard to understand about that?

Where did I say I don't understand that?

Flippinada roll your eyes all you want. How would you describe it then?

Mollymoofer · 15/11/2014 13:04

It was supposed to be a one off and to be respected, but that was when the SNP thought they were going to win

before better together cobbled together a last ditch promise. It does no harm whatsoever to keep the pressure on them.

ChelsyHandy · 15/11/2014 13:07

And many congratulations from me too Santana, happy times!

WheresThat SNP have a horrific record on education and have slashed college funding. I think they should be held for account for that rather than wasting their time on something that most of Scotland doesn't want

That figures. They seem to have a particular hatred of anyone who has been to, or aspires to, world renowned universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. Scottish Highers are turning into learning by rote continual tests, rather than a means of teaching a good understanding of subjects and an ability to think and critically analyse.

They have also closed local sheriff courts and slashed court funding in their quest for a fairer and more equal society.

RudeBarbandCustard · 15/11/2014 13:09

It was supposed to be a one off and to be respected, but that was when the SNP thought they were going to win

before better together cobbled together a last ditch promise. It does no harm whatsoever to keep the pressure on them

Whether BT cobbled together a last ditch promise which swayed the vote or not, the above still stand. It was supposed to be a one off and to be respected.

They didn't say "It's a one off, to be respected, unless we don't like the other side's tactics"

And I think many posters here have illustrated just what harm it is doing to keep independence as a constant threat. I agree, it's good to keep up the pressure on Westminster to deliver their promises, totally agree. But they're not saying "OK, great, this is what the people have voted for, let's dedicate ourselves to making sure they get what was promised"..for that, I would totally respect them.

But They're saying "OK, this is what the people have voted for. But they're wrong, so let's dedicate ourselves to getting what we wanted in the first place"

That's quite a difference.

OP posts:
RudeBarbandCustard · 15/11/2014 13:11

Oh and I didn't want to ignore what a pp said about it being great that Scotland will have a female First minister. It is great, and something to be celebrated, whatever her policies may be.

OP posts:
flippinada · 15/11/2014 13:14

Molly - it wasn't intended as a dig, more a wry observation. Why not read it as a compliment about the tenacious and strongly held commitment to independence that many yes voters have?

Annunziata · 15/11/2014 13:15

before better together cobbled together a last ditch promise. It does no harm whatsoever to keep the pressure on them.

A promise which didn't make anyone change from yes to no! Everyone had made up their minds up before then, and it does harm to keep the pressure on them because it just looks like you are sore losers who refuse to accept that you lost. The no campaign was a shambles, it didn't convince anyone.

flippinada · 15/11/2014 13:19

I agree that the 'no' campaign was absolutely dire. I'd actually hazard a guess that many people vote no despite the campaign rather than because of it.

In fairness though, they were starting out from a difficult position.

SirChenjin · 15/11/2014 13:19

Agree Rude.

This isn't a promise to keep the pressure on opposition parties to deliver - this is a promise to ignore the will of the majority and to keep treating referendums (referenda?) like an election until we get to the point where they have the answer the want. Those are 2 very separate things.

cruikshank · 15/11/2014 13:19

Are people really surprised and outraged at the leader of the Scottish National [hint hint] Party continuing to campaign for independence? Surely she's just doing what she's supposed to.

SirChenjin · 15/11/2014 13:23

Surprised and disappointed. Their earlier promises that the referendum would be a once in a generational opportunity for the will of the Scottish people to be heard seems to have been conveniently forgotten about. Or perhaps it's just being ignored.

She is now supposed to lead Scotland forward as a united country whilst representing the majority's view. Perhaps they should think about renaming their party.

RudeBarbandCustard · 15/11/2014 13:23

Are people really surprised and outraged at the leader of the Scottish National [hint hint] Party continuing to campaign for independence? Surely she's just doing what she's supposed to

Yes, as leader of the SNP absolutely.
As First Minister - I'd expect her to act for ALL of Scotland. Not just the minority who voted the way she wanted.

I suppose what I'm saying is that she should accept defeat (or the will of the majority of the people she will represent) gracefully, and commit to representing them all.

OP posts:
cruikshank · 15/11/2014 13:24

How can she represent them all, when a small majority want one thing and a sizeable minority want another?

RudeBarbandCustard · 15/11/2014 13:25

I'm trying to think of an example of where a prime minister - past or present - has lost a debate but committed to delivering on a policy that the majority has voted for.

But I'm useless with politics - can anyone help me out with an analogy?

OP posts:
Annunziata · 15/11/2014 13:26

I think she should have said something like, we lost, but these are our values and this is how we are going to use the powers we have to try and improve things. Like the nursery thing, they could do that just now. They don't need to be independent for that.

SirChenjin · 15/11/2014 13:27

How can she represent them all, when a small majority want one thing and a sizeable minority want another?

Because that's the way democracy works.

RudeBarbandCustard · 15/11/2014 13:28

A small majority vs a sizeable minority....

Interesting spin there cruikshank

But to answer your question - yes, it's tricky. That's why they have votes. It's democracy - you go with that the majority vote for, even if you don't like it yourself.

And, like we've said above, she could commit to ensuring the pre-ref promises are delivered upon, and make Scotland a better place for everyone..

OP posts:
LovleyRitaMeterMaid · 15/11/2014 13:29

They already are doing that Annunziata. They were doing it before the referendum.

The point being with full control of the finances they could do more.

Swipe left for the next trending thread