Scotland Indyref 2

Sorry yes, you're right. My point still stands though, you do not need a majority of the votes in order to have overall control, 2011 proved that.

I've been waiting for you!

If you have to have permission to have a referendum its not democratic

So if a council decided it wanted to vote on regional independence (or greater powers from central government, or whatever), but had to ask Holyrood then that isn't democratic?

There are many version of democracy. Not just the one that gives you what you want.

GERS, pensions, currency, jobs etc that's the battle lines.

Not if the SNP can help it, those are exactly the areas where they are weak. Sturgeon's plan is all based around a project fear exercise before there is any real clarity on the impact of Brexit (not the terms, the actual impact).

Moving a long way past GERS isn't actually that complicated if we just create a functioning budget for the first year of Scottish independence.

Exactly what I would like to see. I expect it would look a lot like GERS. 10 years hence, it would look a lot different but I expect year 1 would look much the same.

The 2014 referendum was fought with the nats relying on GERS for much of their economic case (albeit ignoring updates as they came). But now they are useless and not representative apparently?

grumpysculler - Member
So if a council decided it wanted to vote on regional independence (or greater powers from central government, or whatever), but had to ask Holyrood then that isn't democratic?..

A council is not a country.

The 2014 referendum was fought with the nats relying on GERS for much of their economic case (albeit ignoring updates as they came). But now they are useless and not representative apparently?

I think the realisation has sunk in that they are based on estimates made by those who have a vested interest in making sure independent seeking Scots do not have the whole story.

There does not appear to be hard data available publicly of the true picture.

I think the realisation has sunk in that they are based on estimates made by those who have a vested interest in making sure independent seeking Scots do not have the whole story

Or alternatively there is a sodding great hole in them now so we will shoot the messenger.

mefty - Member
I think the realisation has sunk in that they are based on estimates made by those who have a vested interest in making sure independent seeking Scots do not have the whole story
Or alternatively there is a sodding great hole in them now so we will shoot the messenger.

grumpysculler - Member
I expect it would look a lot like GERS. 10 years hence, it would look a lot different but I expect year 1 would look much the same.

could well do, personally I don't really doubt the GERS figures, within the context of the UK, but as indepedently they would look different. Whether that's for the better, the worse or the same is really anyones guess.

A first budget is the the way to go to clear it up, they I don't think i could be a complete budget, there would still be a lot of stuff open to interpretation and, in particular, negotitation. But still it's a good starting point going forward.

Anybody see the kicking Ruthie has been getting on twitter? She tweeted the pic of NS on a sofa with one of her Auntie Margaret in similar pose...Possibly a mistake for somebody with the same taste in hats as Hitler and same taste in tanks as dear leader Kim iL Jong 😀

I think the realisation has sunk in that they are based on estimates made by those who have a vested interest in making sure independent seeking Scots do not have the whole story.

The SNP government in Holyrood? Because it is them that prepare them and, as National Statistics, they are held to a high level of accuracy.

GERS is as close as it is possible to get to understanding the finances and economics of Scotland at the moment.

Brexit innit?

A council is not a country.

And Scotland is not a sovereign state, nor an entity that has any sort of special status in international law.

If it is about democracy and the sovereignty of democratically elected bodies, why does it matter which particular set of lines within an internationally recognised sovereign state we are talking about?

Why choose the current borders of Scotland? Why should we not go back to Sodor, Noror, Strathclyde, Bernicia, etc? Why does "democracy" only apply as an argument to one particular set of boundaries?

That isn't an argument against Scottish independence, but I do take issue with the "waaaagggghhhh it isn't democratic" argument.

Scotland is a country. The UK is a union of countries with pooled sovereignty

this is the actual facts of the matter Recognised internationally as such hence Scottish waters managed under scottish law, separate legal and education systems etc etc.

The refusal of some to recognise this is what stokes resentment.

tjagain - Member
The refusal of some to recognise this is what stokes resentment.

grumpysculler - Member
And Scotland is not a sovereign state...

And you'll find many Scots would agree with that because we believe sovereignty resides in the people of Scotland, not the state.

We never surrendered sovereignty to our monarchs. Hence while you have a Queen of England, she is Queen of Scots, not Scotland. And our legal system is guaranteed by the Treaty of Union.

Anyhow, in this modern age, that is irrelevant, and England's medieval laws of sovereignty are over ruled by things like the UN or EU law.

What the UN has to say:
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

I can see a refusal to allow a referendum getting very interesting. The SNP will follow process, so this could well end up in the EU courts.

Perhaps you'd be happy with them in your back garden?

No problem for me. If there is a nuclear war it won't matter where you live or where the weapons are stored.

I can see a refusal to allow a referendum getting very interesting. The SNP will follow process, so this could well end up in the EU courts.

Scotland has a Parliament with defined devolved powers. Calling an Indy Ref is NOT one of them. Hard to see on what basis they could go to the ECJ. I wonder if AS has got any of his special "legal advice" on this one 😉

AS?
Andy Stewart, no
Alan Sugar, no he's been fired
Must be Adam Smith. I think Jamby likes him.

jambalaya - Member
...Scotland has a Parliament with defined devolved powers. Calling an Indy Ref is NOT one of them. Hard to see on what basis they could go to the ECJ. I wonder if AS has got any of his special "legal advice" on this one

Indeed, but they are representative of the Scottish people, and you are working on the basis of England's laws, not the EUs.

The point about getting the OK of Westminster to a Scottish referendum is that then there is obviously an implicit agreement to observe its result.

A referendum could be run without Westminster approval, and if it was favourable to Scottish independence, then pursued through the EU courts if Westminster refused to acknowledge the result. This could well be why the Scottish govt wants to run a referendum before an exit from the EU, and why May wants it run after exit.

epicyclo - Member
jambalaya - Member
...Scotland has a Parliament with defined devolved powers. Calling an Indy Ref is NOT one of them. Hard to see on what basis they could go to the ECJ. I wonder if AS has got any of his special "legal advice" on this one
Indeed, but they are representative of the Scottish people, and you are working on the basis of England's laws, not the EUs.

The point about getting the OK of Westminster to a Scottish referendum is that then there is obviously an implicit agreement to observe its result.

Simple fact is Scotland is a nation that legally signed over control of it's affairs to another nation, it willingly allowed it's self to become part of a wider grouping. Scotland was not colonised.

seosamh77 - Member
Tbh the EU court would tell scotland to bolt. Just look at their refusal to even talk to scotland. Whether you like it or not, the UK has supremacy, the game is in politicing the way out of the UK. Scottish nationalists don't have a leg to stand on legally(nor morally, imo) for unilateral independence....

It is right that the EU does not talk to Scotland on political matters. But this would be a legal matter, one of human rights, and for the courts, not the politicians. Getting a court to dissolve the Treaty of Union is different from a UDI - although I'm seeing growing support for that.

Failing that, then the only option is direct action, but we've discussed that already.

What do you think would happen?

I think the EU courts would see scotland as no different to any of the English regions.

On what basis would anyone dissolve the act of union? On a slim 50/60% majority? I think they would take one look at the act of union and see the terms forever in it and look to 300+ year of union and say, sort it out between yourselves, the union of scotland and england is more than well established, it's an internal matter. And even if upheld, how could the EU courts enforce such a ruling? Particularly in the context of the uk leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Tbh, I'm way out of my depth on any legal intricacies here, but I just can't see it.

I can only see 1, very slim, route to independence, and that's through cunning politics to gain a referendum(far from certain) and then presenting a valid case directly to floating voters and trying to change a few unionists minds.(lets leave the utopian echo chamber behind this time.)

You also have to ask, if the ECJ is sympathetic to separatists, then why isn't there a queue of the various separatist groups in Europe lining up looking to have their causes validated and up held?

seosamh77

given what the view of many influential folk in the EU is on Scotland and given that Scotland is recognised as a separate entity I don't see the parallel with english regions

However I also think it unlikely that the ECJ would give any help to the independence movement unless there is an obvious breach on the human rights and I can't see one.

given what the view of many influential folk in the EU is on Scotland and given that Scotland is recognised as a separate entity I don't see the parallel with english regions

you don't see because you are myopic

independence for Elmet!!! independence for Dalriada!!!

big and daft - I am not an ideological independence supporter. My preferred option is a federal UK

seosamh77 - Member
You also have to ask, if the ECJ is sympathetic to separatists, then why isn't there a queue of the various separatist groups in Europe lining up looking to have their causes validated and up held?

What I do know is Scotland is a country, not a region, not a group, and it is in a union with another country, and is not a conquest, possession, or a colony.

We're going round in circles here though so I'll butt out for a while. The next few weeks will give us a clearer picture of what is really going to happen.

big and daft - I am not an ideological independence supporter. My preferred option is a federal UK

Whether they be of Norman French or Irish origin our current political and national construction isn't any more valid than the post Romano kingdom's within these isles

So it's vote Yes for Yr Hen Ogledd

😉

What really frustrates me about this is there is a simple solution that would put support for independence back down to its core of around 25 - 30%. a proper federal settlement.

this would need a cross party constitutional convention rather like the one that established the rules for holyrood but I would see 4 parliaments for each of the constituent parts of the UK with the same powers covering everything but defense, international relations and macro economics with a UK "senate" that is delegates from the devolved parliaments not superior to it that deals with UK wide issues and disputes.

It would need some mechanism to prevent England population dominance dominating the whole thing and obviously and end to the house of lords and I would like to see PR.

Bingo - the union is preserved, the smaller parts of the UK no longer get thir wishes trampled on, we build a modern society.

simples!

At a stroke this stops the democratic deficit, modernises the political systems of the UK

I would see 4 parliaments for each of the constituent parts of the UK with the same powers covering everything but defense

It would need some mechanism to prevent England population dominance dominating the whole thing and obviously and end to the house of lords and I would like to see PR.

So how would this work?

One city in England has a bigger population,GDP and economy than the second biggest country.

Why is an English vote going to be worth less ?

Personally scotroutes no - and the way I would see this none of those things would be possible anyway as a minority government in one part of the UK could not bind the majority.

PR remember. Blair would not have had a stonking majority and anyway his majority would only have been in England so he would not have been able to take us into Iraq

could also be different rules for different things - so to take us to war needs all 4 parliaments approval but to negotiate a trade agreement simple majority

Scotroutes - I'll look at Iraq in a bit more detail. ( or infact a hypothetical similar future situation)

English parliament has a 40% vote for a warmonger like blair. He doesn't have a majority in England so would need another party to vote for it - assume the tories would but instantly the case for going to war has to be made much stronger to get it thru the english parliament

English parliament passes a resolution to go to war.

this then goes to the UK senate for ratification. No war possible without senate approval the other 3 parliaments resolve against it. No war..

Interesting idea TJ

So what do you do when one regional government, campaigning on a narrow, single interest issue, decides to blackmail the rest of the nation by demanding concessions in order to get what it wants.

Let's say, for example, the Northern Irish parties turn round and say that they will only agree to give their support to a new international treaty on oil exploration (or whatever) if they get VAT in their region reduced to 6% in return

Those are the sorts of issues that make it tricky hence needs a constitutional convention to set it up to iron out these sorts of things.
3 out of 4 parliaments delegates to senate to give decisions? England has 49% of the seats in the senate scotland 25, wales 15, NI 11 and then only a simple majority in senate needed? Or a super majority to change things? ie all 3 smaller countries can go against england but england needs only one other country to get a decision thru?

Senate members from national parliaments on a proportional basis so cross border alliances with people of similar mindset can trump single country issues?

I think some for of proper federal system with PR would take a huge amount of the tensions out of our current system but as you point out working out the balance of who can make / block decisions is not easy

It would need to be able to stop a stalemate type situation but also stop minorities being ignored.

wouldit need some equivalent of the EU council of ministers?

I think ninfan in your example NI would / should not be able to block - the other three together provide enough of a majority to get it thru

3 against 1 the three always wins

2 against 2 the side with england always wins?

With the huge population imbalance its hard to see a solution that does not seem unfair in some way

It would need some mechanism to prevent England population dominance dominating the whole thing and obviously and end to the house of lords and I would like to see PR.

England has 49% of the seats in the senate scotland 25, wales 15, NI 11

So you don't want any sort of PR, you want over representation for Scotland, Wales and NI.

big_n_daft - Member

One city in England has a bigger population,GDP and economy than the second biggest country.

Why is an English vote going to be worth less ?

As long as you stick with the 4 countries, something's always going to be imbalanced. TBH it seems obvious to me that treating England as a single entity in this is the problem.

There'll be a swiss governmental model that makes perfect sense for us, probably, there always is.

irelanst - Member

It would need some mechanism to prevent England population dominance dominating the whole thing and obviously and end to the house of lords and I would like to see PR.

England has 49% of the seats in the senate scotland 25, wales 15, NI 11

So you don't want any sort of PR, you want over representation for Scotland, Wales and NI.

PR for the national parliaments. the UK senate would need some sort of mechanism to prevent England having an absolute majority allthe time - this wasone of a couple of possibilities

Outline of the structure I propose is
1) each of the 4 countries have a single national parliament elected by some PR system
2) these national parliaments have equal and wide ranging powers everything bar defense, macro economics and international relations
3)a UK "senate" to decide those three things and to adjudicate on disputes between the parliaments

There is a structural issue in that england being so much bigger than the rest put together then there needs to be some way of stopping England having overall control of the senate. I suggested uneven representation like the US has. Thats only one solution. others are UK wide elections to the senate based on PR but without any local affiliation / attachement. Or it could be split england up into regions of 10 million or so each

Must say just don't see how limiting Englands democracy and making them beholden to the other nations would work at all. England doesn't want to regionalise, fair enough their choice.

If you are going to have a federal solution, only real way it would work, imo is for each nation to start as a separate entity, then they can pick and choose what they collaborate on going forward. Which, in fairness isn't a federal solution, but some sort of collaborative forum. Participating members could be, scotland & england, definitely, wales, i guess needs to decide if it's a region of england or not, and well you need to be flexible with Ireland, I'd allow the republic access to it too as well as NI.

this is assuming all the nations actually wanted to separate, a distant reality at the moment.

The alternative is the end of the UK - if not now some time inthe future

The US manages it in that in their senante montana with 3 people has the same representation as California with 3 billion

How doies my suggestions limit Englands democracy?

anyway - its simply a dicussion piece amined at finding a solution to the current mess where numerous democratic deficits lead to tensions which are blowing the UK apart. From Holyrood not being able to decide its own energy policy to EVEL

All systems need a system of checks and balances

so unionists. If you don't like a federal system and I believe it has both merit and weaknesses then find another answer that reduces the pressures driving the UK apart.

Well limiting 80+% of uks population to 49% isn't going to fly. I agree with premise, it's just never going to be accepted.

I once thought I'd be happy with a federal solution, just don't really see how it works in practice. It's an interesting discussion all the same.

So you don't want any sort of PR, you want over representation for Scotland, Wales and NI.

Worth remembering that this is exactly what they have at the moment

I think ninfan in your example NI would / should not be able to block - the other three together provide enough of a majority to get it thru

3 against 1 the three always wins

2 against 2 the side with england always wins?

With the huge population imbalance its hard to see a solution that does not seem unfair in some way

Thing is, that's still potentially 19% of the population (S,W,NI) overruling the wishes of the other 81% (E)

While even the other way, 2 against 2 is exactly what we have at the moment with Brexit...

The chances of a court like the ECJ siding with a nation/region seeking independence without the approval of the national Government are less than zero. Catalonia, Basque Region etc etc. As noted before the EU don't even recognise Kosovo.

It's a flaky argument to say Holyrood represents the Scottish people on the Indy issue as they lost the Referendum in 2014 and had a bigger Holyrood majority then than now.

As for the EU Referendum every Leave vote counted the same and our votes from North of the Border where just as vital as any other in securing the win

give us another way then ninfan.

I know the american system is somewhat odd but IIRC all states get a senator ( or two?) no matter their size.

How about my second option then - senate is elected list pr ie no regional affiliation. Would those elected be partisan to their parties or their country?

I think without some form of federalism the UK is dead long term but I agree its hard to find a way that would prevent England having its way all the time without seeming unfair on england. - dictatorship of majorities!

jambalaya - Member
It's a flaky argument to say Holyrood represents the Scottish people on the Indy issue as they lost the Referendum in 2014 and had a bigger Holyrood majority then than now.

Not really true in absolute numbers
2016
SNP
Constituency vote 1,059,897
Regional vote 953,587

2011
Constituency vote 902,915
Regional vote 876,421

The SNP increased both constituency and regional vote, in percentage terms they increased their constituency vote, but their regional vote dropped a little. I'd put that down the greens getting the some the SNPs regional vote (A tactic I absolutely promote.)

The mandate hasn't really changed much at all from 2011(well it has, the ref happened which killed indy, but then brexit happened which legitimately put it back on the table).

interesting survation survey yesterday saying that 61% believe the scottish parliament should have the right to decide on a ref too.

Federal UK would never work because it's too asymmetric. Either way you cut it, either English representation always wins the day or you're devaluing the English voter by reducing their representation.

The US manages it in that in their senante montana with 3 people has the same representation as California with 3 billion

Good point

split England into 6-10 regions? Mercia, northumbria etc? or a senate elected PR on a UK wide list so no / less national influence?

give us another way then ninfan.

One member, one vote? - arguably the truest form of democracy there is.

Everything else is merely a way of introducing artificial bias into the system whereby one persons vote is worth more than another, how can that be fair?

I know the american system is somewhat odd but IIRC all states get a senator ( or two?) no matter their size.

How about my second option then - senate is elected list pr ie no regional affiliation. Would those elected be partisan to their parties or their country?

who selects the list?

Do we really want a party list stacked with political apparatchiks and flunkies - look at Sturgeon as the perfect example, rejected by the people of Govan in '99 and '03 but still ended up as an MSP both times because she was on the list.

I'm somewhat conflicted by the list. I can see positives and negatives, yes it allows people to be parachuted in with out being directly voted in, but it does even up the representation. Likes of greens would never see the inside of holyrood if not for it. Converse to that is a whole raft of tories get parachuted in too, which while not my personal desired outcome, I can live with it, as well... it's right that they are represented in parliament.

the alternative is a FPTP system, with 90% SNP. **** that.

There's polarisation in Scottish politics right now, but least the system we have is more conducive to coalition government, something which i've came round to these days as viewing as my preferred outcome for any parliament. I'd rather all sides were forced to work together and compromise. (obviously has it's drawbacks too, depending on the make up of that coalition.)

Personally, I'd like to see an end to party politics and all MPs being made independent and the parliament run on an issue by issue basis, and make it easier for constituents to hold their MP to account and get rid of them if they aren't performing.

I think party politics and the like of the whip are essentially anti democratic, how can an MP represent their constituents if they are told how to vote be a leadership?

Agreed Ninfan - both objections are valid but find me another system that removes the stresses and inconstancies of our current system? 'cos without something to remove the democratic deficits then the UK will inevitably fall apart.

split England into 6-10 regions? Mercia, northumbria etc? or a senate elected PR on a UK wide list so no / less national influence?

Or you could split the UK into 650 regions and have a representative from each of those regions have a single vote in a form of parliament. Maybe we need to look at the regions, a situation where 15000 votes elects a representative from the Western Isles whereas 70000 votes are needed on the Isle of Wight does seem to skew things in the favour of certain areas of the UK

Why should England get 6-10 regions, 83% of the votes cast in the last election were in England.

find me another system that removes the stresses and inconstancies of our current system? 'cos without something to remove the democratic deficits then the UK will inevitably fall apart.

There is no democratic deficit - its one entirely within your own head because you have introduced artificial barriers, a line on a map, that make you think one lot of people aren't getting their own way.

Its the worst sort of identity politics

if it wasn't a line on a map, you could just as easily magic up an equally 'unfair' democratic deficit in your head over how black peoples votes should be treated differently from white peoples, same with religion, sex, age, wealth, disability.

Where does it stop? Extra male MP's because we there are less men than women in the population?

everyones vote should be worth the same, its the only fair way.

6-10 regions for england puts them in the 5-10 million population range which is a good size for goverance and also allows for sensible boundaries. thats the reason for that number

So tell me folks - you have shot my proposals down with a range of objections with a range of validity

Try something positive. Find another way to remove the tensions in the current system that are fracturing the UK. the UK simply will not survive without something to take away the tensions.

PR for westminster would help ( not all PR systems are closed list) but its not enough. When the UK is fractured politically so radically then something has to change. Its not just Scotland. cities / rural vote in differnt ways. North / south do as well.

If this link works the map shows it well

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-uk-election/

Its not just Scotland. cities / rural vote in differnt ways. North / south do as well.

more identity politics

Protestants and Catholics vote differently too - should we give them separate representation in parliament as well?

Ninfan - thats simple rubbish and you know it. Its not just scotland - the democratic deficit is huge

We have a majority tory government on a minority of the vote and the tories have very little representation in the cities of the UK

UK elections under FPTP are actually decided by a few hundred thousand voters in around a hundred constituencies under normal circumstances.

We have unelected lawmakers, we have church of england clergy in our legislature but none for other religions. we have descendants of french invaders.

How is this democracy?

I thought you were engaging in sensible debate but not.

Its obvious that our democracy is no longer fit for purpose in any form. So how to improve it?

ninfan - Member
more identity politics

As you said, who draws the lines? The people do.

A call for a referendum is not de-facto independent Scotland, it's a call to find out if the people have changed their mind due to Brexit. It's a valid call.

Its not just scotland - the democratic deficit is huge

The democratic deficit between blacks and whites is huge too.

Are you suggesting separate representation to overcome that too?

Why is 'nationality' (on the basis of nothing more than lines drawn on a map) of any greater relevance in decision making than any of these other issues?

Its all nothing more than childish and destructive identity politics.

Protestants and Catholics vote differently too - should we give them separate representation in parliament as well?

Church of england have but no other religion. Poor point 🙂

go on - make a positive suggestiuon because without change the UK is soon going to be no more.

I do find it amazing that Brits never seem to realise that they too are Nationalists! 😆

go on - make a positive suggestiuon because without change the UK is soon going to be no more.

I've made one - end identity politics, make everyone equal, and everyones vote count for the same

equal size constituencies would be the first step towards this, Swiss style direct democracy whereby citizens themselves can propose referenda at all levels would be another.

PR or FPTP? cos in FPTP not all votes are equal. I used to live in an area that voted overwhelmingly Labour. vote for other parties there count for nothing.

ninfan - Member
I've made one - end identity politics

but TJ, that's the very nub of the point, what special bearing does the place you live have on how you are governed? Why does someone in Glasgow need to be governed differently from someone in Liverpool, it's an entirely arbitrary distinction, it bears no more relevance on the laws that effect you or the provision of services your family might need than your religion does.

So you are happy that a couple of hundred thousand people in around a hundred constituencies decide the next government we get? You are happy that the SNP got ten times the seats of the lib dems on a similar share of the vote? You are happy that the SNP got 95% of the Scottish seats on 50% of the vote? that the there is only a tiny scottish tory voice despite them getting 1/4 of the vote?

No, however none of those things are solved by PR, or any other system, because they all produce equally big disparities and democratic deficits in other criteria - sex, race, religion, sexuality. Etc.

You haven't demonstrated why a person who lives in Scotland (for that is what we are talking about not nationality) needs different provision or governance from anyone else.

You've still to explain why British is the superior nationalism...

PR does solve all of those issues Ninfan.

The UK isn't fractured, no more so than any other Country. All these so called divisions are whipped up by those that want to create seperations. Scotland had a vote and elected to stay as part of the UK. The SNP have no other purpose than Independence, it's their sole reason for existence. Hence the continual attempts to create and exacerbate division.

jambalaya - Member
The SNP have no other purpose than Independence existence. Hence the continual attempts to create and exacerbate division.

Talk of UDI/going to the ECJ etc is internet nonsense, with no real basis in reality.

I'm no great fan of the SNP, but what they are doing is perfectly legitimate, they are playing within democratic boundaries. People might not like that, but ho hum, would be dull if we all agreed! 🙂

Jamba -0 utter nonsense. the rise of the snp is a symptom of the fractures in the UK not the cause.

Look at the voting records. Scotland has not voted tory for 50 years and we have had tory governments in westminster with less than 15% support in scotland. Lokk at the map I linked to of how the UK voted in the last gernarl election. the fractures are obvious. North south. city . country.

Scotland has not voted tory for 50 years and we have had tory governments in westminster with less than 15% support in scotland

How is this different from Liverpool or Birmingham? How is it different from Surrey ending up with a Labour goverment Propped up with Scottish MP's - or for that matter Dumfriesshire ending up with an SNP in charge?

"Scotland" is nothing more than a line on a map, there's no reason that the voters there, or anywhere else, deserve special treatment,

Tbh, I've actually got to agree with ninfan that there is no democratic deficit purely in relation to scotland, if there are deficits(which there are) they are common across the uk. That's just the nature of a system that believes in winner takes all.

Which isn't a good reason for the primacy, forever more, of British nationalism. It's actually an argument against it, if the UK won't solve these issues, then well, we'll just need to take them into our own hands..

No ninfan - Scotland does not deserve special treatment. we all deserve a fair electoral system fit for the 21st century. the democratic deficits scotland has occurs across many parts of the UK

I seem to remember you being very hot on self determination for the falkland islanders tho

democratic deficits scotland has occurs across many parts of the UK

But you miss what I am saying

It's false

It's not a 'deficit' - it's democracy

Your reliance on geography is an enigma - it's just another fake identity that seeks to differentiate between people.

What I am saying is that if, for example, Scotland became independent, you wouldn't magically transfer into some utopia whereby everyone was equal and the 'democratic deficit' would disappear, if you were all Scottish, there would be new and alternative democratic deficits created by the very nature of identity politics - how long before the Orkadians are whinging about their democratic deficit, being ruled by the central belt? How long before the Scottish Asian community feel they are being treated unfairly, that it can only be corrected by giving them a veto, or perhaps their own legislation and court system?

Once you accept identity politics, you head off down a slippery slope that encourages and can only be resolved by the fracturing of society to its lowest level, because there will always be someone who's imagined grievance makes them cry out for special tretat,ent.

Once you accept identity politics, you head off down a slippery slope that encourages and can only be resolved by the fracturing of society to its lowest level, because there will always be someone who's imagined grievance makes them cry out for special tretat,ent.

thats brilliant, you are describing Brexshit and its effect on Scotland perfectly 😆

Yeah but what has this go to do with brexshit,

Well, we maybe shouldn't forget what happened last time the Scots relied on Europe to help them out by pandering towards grievance based identity politics

ffs orkney independence is back on the agenda, love it! 😆 The identity politics was an interesting new take, if you ignore the irony meter blowing up, but i guess it's never long till the same old bullshit rises to the fore! 😆

In some respects I agree with Ninfan (starts crying) in that there nothing wrong with the Scottish Electorate not getting what they want in a U.K. context. It's just simple numbers.

But in a UK context you can't really use identity politics against the independence movement because, as noted above, the cost of replacing irony meters would bankrupt the country.

If you want Scotland to get it own choices enacted then Scotland needs to leave the union. Creating a system where the overwhelming majority can be over ruled by a minority is not a democratic solution. The balance of votes by country is too far out.

But in a UK context you can't really use identity politics against the independence movement because, as noted above, the cost of replacing irony meters would bankrupt the country.

Its almost as if project fear, was actually telling the truth after all

even ninfan is now arguing that brexshit has made Scottish independence inevitable

All these so called divisions are whipped up by those that want to create seperations.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/01/asylum-seeker-fights-for-life-after-hate-attack-in-london

DrJ those sort of incidents occurr all over Europe. They are sadly a reflection of today's society.