Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[pedro]

First topic message reminder :

Corbyn I guess.

[super_realist]

To be honest, I don't really see how politically the SNP have any choice but to campaign for a second referendum

This is what I tried to point out to Super earlier.  Their manifesto made it clear that a vote for the SNP in the Holyrood elections was a vote for holding indyref2 in the event of #Brexit.

No it wasn't Mac, read the manifesto. It says that IF IT IS CLEAR MORE THAN HALF WANT INDEPENDENCE. It's not even clear if half want another referendum.

That's not clear in the slightest Mac.

[Roller_Coaster]

If it was a "once in a generation" vote, then it's only fair that the next generation now has a say.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the next generation on from that which took part in the last vote will likely vote for "daddy" or possibly "waaaaahhhhhh, bitty".

It's not a different generation now though Roller, it was only 3 years ago, a generation is at least 20 years.

Hence the gag about baby speak, what with the next generation being in nappies and not perhaps in a position to rationally debate the future of their nation. Apologies if this wasn't clear.

[super_realist]

Ah sorry Roller, thought the baby talk was referring to the infantile SNP.
It's hard to gleam context on forums sometimes.

[navyblueshorts]

To be honest, I don't really see how politically the SNP have any choice but to campaign for a second referendum....

Think this is probably true, sadly. Still, I hope and trust that May et al will either tell the them to sod off entirely (preferable option) or tell them to sod off until the Brexit negotiations etc are concluded. I think the U.K. Government were nice about accepting the request for the first referendum, but I don't see why they should be so accommodating this time.

[super_realist]

To be honest, I don't really see how politically the SNP have any choice but to campaign for a second referendum....

Think this is probably true, sadly. Still, I hope and trust that May et al will either tell the them to sod off entirely (preferable option) or tell them to sod off until the Brexit negotiations etc are concluded. I think the U.K. Government were nice about accepting the request for the first referendum, but I don't see why they should be so accommodating this time.

Spot on Navy. I see the SNP as being as harmful as UKIP, but probably even more bitter and petty.

[beninho]

I am not up on Scottish politics. But if the choice is being part of an independent Britain outside the EU and an independent Scotland with chances to get in the EU and subsequent funding. Surely the vote will be for independence, especially in this time of nationalistic hysteria throughout the world (seemingly).

According to an old BBC article the SNP manifesto said
"It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will"

So it is covered. I do think the god awful Mrs May, will refuse it anyway.

[super_realist]

Depends who can make a financial case Beninho, of course you'll get the usual idiots who vote Yes because they hate the English, but most are voting on the basis of what is best for Scotland.
Scotland's economy is 4x more reliant on the UK than on the EU, so I imagine that will be the basis of the argument.

May, will probably grant it, but not at a time which suits the ghastly SNP, and should the SNP lose, I would hope that would shut them up forever.

[McLaren]

Depends who can make a financial case Beninho, of course you'll get the usual idiots who vote Yes because they hate the English, but most are voting on the basis of what is best for Scotland

What about people like me who will vote to maintain the dream of living in a properly federal EU.

[Roller_Coaster]

Well Mac, should there be enough of you yearning for that dream (rather than just hating the English) then I hope your SNP leaders can make a halfway decent proposal to the EU as to why they'd want to accept an independent Scotland that (and this is a guess, I admit) will do more taking from the EU than giving. Particularly just after having had a significant net contributor stepping away.

I agree it's not clear whether the SNP manifesto criteria is in any way met, but given it's the SNP's sole raison d'etre (to the detriment of their job in governing Scotland) I think any possibility of having one would need to be pursued and the political argument of the majority wanting to remain EU in that referendum is (or can be manipulated in such a way) that another UK independence referendum would be "right" and any refusal by the UK government not to would instantly swing many of the uncertain voters.

Obviously the answer is to have a referendum on whether to have a referendum...

And then one on when to have it...

[super_realist]

Depends who can make a financial case Beninho, of course you'll get the usual idiots who vote Yes because they hate the English, but most are voting on the basis of what is best for Scotland

What about people like me who will vote to maintain the dream of living in a properly federal EU.  

Considering you can't tell any of us why you think Scotland would be better off financially or otherwise in EU compared to out then it's really up to you to do the research, not anyone else. You don't even appear to know why you'd make that vote, and considering you're always seen as someone who "considers the evidence" it alarms me that what you are voting for appears to be your "gut feeling".

You haven't really said what you think the benefit is, you, as usual have just taken a myopic view that you want to stay in the EU, without saying why. You admit to knowing nothing about the economic reasons. So why do you think it would be such a great idea, and what makes you think that the EU will want another begging bowl and one of the crappest countries in Europe at their table? Don't you think it's under enough pressure?

[beninho]

Surely all of the MPs who have been banging the drum about proper democracy following the result of the referendum on Europe, and giving the public what they want, should all be banging the drum about allowing a referendum in scotland, so that they can give the public what they want.

[super_realist]

Beninho, that's the problem. The SNP haven't demonstrated that it is what the public want.

[McLaren]

Super

I am no fan of the SNP but they did win the Holyrood elections again based on policies designed to create an independent Scotland. What more demonstration do you need for the public wanting at least another say in whether or not Scotland becomes independent.


The first evidence I would use to support a country being better of inside the EU is the protection of rights it provides the citizens of a member state.

[super_realist]

That's not how it works Mac. Their exact wording is to seek a referendum if it is CLEAR that there is support for one. A vote for the SNP isn't a vote for Independence necessarily. Fewer than 50% of people actually voted for the SNP in the General Election than voted Yes in the last referendum.

The demand for a referendum is not clear, and it is NOT the sole reason why the SNP were elected. Scottish elections WERE NOT fought on the basis of having a referendum (again).

What evidence do you have that rights will be reduced post brexit or are you just guessing? What rights don't you think people will have?

[McLaren]

The "N" in SNP should be a bit of a give away for anyone thinking of voting for them, shouldn't it?


I know you don't seem to understand the importance of manifesto's but the Tories quite clearly won an election with the intention of repealing our human rights bill.

[super_realist]

Not necessarily at all Mac, like I said, fewer people voted for them in Scottish and General Elections than did for Yes, so it doesn't follow that a vote for them is a vote for Independence. Much of their vote is due to the failings of Labour in Scotland.

No Mac, I don't think you can demonstrate that the reason the Tories won was because of that. That would be an idiotic claim.
Even if it convinced some, Tories won because A) Labour are a mess and B) Tories were more trusted in regards to the economy.

[MontysMerkin]

Tories were more trusted in regards to the economy.

I refer you to my earlier moron comments.

[super_realist]

Tories were more trusted in regards to the economy.

I refer you to my earlier moron comments.

In comparison to Labour, I don't even think that's up for debate.

People don't cast votes on general elections on things like "human rights act" as they do about the economy. Every party campaigns on the basis of the economy for most of their campaigning and the Tories, like it or not won.

[McLaren]

Super

If a party puts forward a policy in a manifesto then anyone voting for them condones, supports or at least doesn't care if that policy is put into practice.

A vote for the SNP in holyrood (whether the voter realises it or not) is a vote for the continuing aim of Scottish independence.  When they also include specific claims about how they will do this (eg a referendum if brexit happens, which was explicit and pointed out to you several times already), you are also supporting those methods.

You really need to more specifically counter the argument that the SNP have a clear right to hold a referendum by addressing the following points.

- The SNP is the Scottish Nationalist Party. There very being is about Scottish independence and the Scottish electorate keep handing them massive wins.

- There manifesto contained the following in regards to holding indyref2 "if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will."

Anyone voting for them was ok with there being an indyref2 based on #Brexit.



Neither of us are SNP fans but it is just ludicrous to suggest they do not have the support of the people who bother to vote in Scotland, who in our current democratic system are the ones that get to say what happens.  Do surveys all day, but it is votes in elections that matter.

[super_realist]

No it isn't Mac. Independence wasn't brought up in the Scottish Elections much, there were far more important things in the election on which they campaigned.

Have you agreed 100% with the policies of the parties you have voted for every single time? I doubt it.



A vote for the SNP isn't always a vote for Independence.

The SNP do not have a right to hold a referendum. Firstly, it's not in their manifesto that they WILL hold a referendum, and Westminster are within their rights to tell them to get stuffed.

I have never said they don't have the support of people in Scotland, but I'm saying that a vote for them doesn't mean you favour Independence, especially as the Scottish elections came so soon after a strident NO for Independence.

[McLaren]

I agree that a vote for the SNP is not a clear vote for independence but it is a vote for enacting the policies contained in their manifesto. Which last time around outlined the conditions in which they would seek to hold indyref2. A vote for SNP in 2016 was a vote for indyref2 if #brexit happened.

And you do not have to agree exactly with a parties policies but if you vote for them you have to accept you are part of handing them a mandate to enact their manifesto should they win. If indyref2 wa a red line for you then you shouldn't be voting SNP.

Could you please specifically address the points I outlined a post or two back?

[super_realist]

I see what you're saying Mac, but the SNP do not have a right to hold a referendum at any time, because simply putting it in your manifesto, does not make it law and does not mean you can enact your manifesto.

Look at the manifesto's of parties that can never get into power like the Lib Dems and the Greens, they are littered with policy designed to be seen as desirable but which can never actually be realised, not to mention how many parties consistently fail to live up to their manifesto.

The decision on whether a referendum can be held is down to Westminster so it doesn't really matter if it's in the SNP manifesto, they can't force it.

You keep going on about policies, yet voting for something doesn't mean you agree with all their policies or views, for example, Henry Ford was an anti semite, a racist and a Nazi sympathiser, but I bet you have still travelled in his vehicles. It doesn't mean you endorse his views because you elect to travel in a Ford vehicle.

Perhaps people who voted for the SNP thought they might actually live up to their promise that the referendum would be a once in a generation opportunity and that they'd get on with making the best for Scotland in a united Britain as they promised?

[McLaren]

super

I just don't understand how you think our political system works if a vote for a party is not a vote for them to carry out their manifesto?

What are people voting for in your interpretation of how democracy works?

[super_realist]

Mac, you are being too simplistic by far.

You vote for a party on whether you think they have a better manifesto than the others, or because you don't want other parties in.

It doesn't mean you like all their policies, and your vote doesn't endorse all those policies.

Name any party who has ever carried out its entire manifesto or even close to it?

Anyone who has read the SNP manifesto would know that the SNP doesn't have a right to hold a referendum regardless of whether it's in their manifesto or not. It's not their decision, they do not have the power to enact that part of the manifesto. They can ONLY claim they will do what they can to ensure they get one.

That's like saying we will do what we can to reduce national debt. Doesn't mean it will happen.

[McLaren]

Super

What they do have a right to do is try and carry out the manifesto policy of holding indyref2 in the result of #Brexit.

They can hold a vote on it in Holyrood, ask the UK government and draw up any necessary legislation needed to hold the referendum.

[super_realist]

They can only ASK to be able to hold a referendum Mac, the government are within their rights to tell them to get lost.

[SmithersJones]

But they could hold a non-binding referendum and then, assuming they get even the tiniest majority of whatever proportion of the electorate (which they could perhaps gerrymander to exclude likely No voters) bothers to vote, they'd have a defacto mandate and must then take their country out of the Union even though it provides a huge proportion of its trade.

[super_realist]

But they could hold a non-binding referendum and then, assuming they get even the tiniest majority of whatever proportion of the electorate (which they could perhaps gerrymander to exclude likely No voters) bothers to vote, they'd have a defacto mandate and must then take their country out of the Union even though it provides a huge proportion of its trade.

Well, they could do, but they are walking a fine line, if a result is not clear cut, it could end the idea of Independence for an actual generation.
Based on what information I've seen, they'd still lose, albeit narrowly.

[Diggers]

I think Brexit shows that trying to predict the result of a referendum early doors is a mugs game. The amount of false news that flies around - plus a whole load of out and out lies - coupled with an increased amount of voters who often vote based on other issues. In short it's a complete lottery.

[super_realist]

Depends Diggers, one of the Yes campaigns Trump cards so to speak was Oil, at one point it was worth billions (even though it only accounts for 1-2k per person per year in Scotland), now it's worth -24m a year to the exchequer and Scotland has the highest national debt per capita in Europe, even worse than Greece.

[navyblueshorts]

But they could hold a non-binding referendum and then, assuming they get even the tiniest majority of whatever proportion of the electorate (which they could perhaps gerrymander to exclude likely No voters) bothers to vote, they'd have a defacto mandate and must then take their country out of the Union even though it provides a huge proportion of its trade.

They could if they wanted to. Pretty meaningless. What would it achieve? Are they going to then set up a paramilitary wing if they aren't allowed to flounce off into their Braveheart utopia?

[beninho]

I read something the other day which was something like that within the next 18month May will have to tell a group of people that voting to leave a union that is their major trading partner is not a good thing, while at the same time telling people that leaving a union which is their major trading partner is the best thing to do. Ok its a bit simplistic, but its something along those lines.

[Roller_Coaster]

I read something the other day which was something like that within the next 18month May will have to tell a group of people that voting to leave a union that is their major trading partner is not a good thing, while at the same time telling people that leaving a union which is their major trading partner is the best thing to do. Ok its a bit simplistic, but its something along those lines.

Whilst simplistic, that's an amusing angle.

[super_realist]

May doesn't have to convince anyone because the UK has unfortunately already voted for it. It  wasn't her fault the public voted to exit the EU, and she doesn't have to defend the decision because she didn't make it and she's not responsible for it. She just has to carry it out.

The thing I find funny about Scotland is they think the EU would want them.

[McLaren]

Super

May will have to take responsibility for triggering article 50. She didn't have to do that because the referendum was not legally binding.

Although I know it would have been very unlikely that she wouldn't pull the trigger. The more serious point is that she has to take responsibility for how #Brexit unfolds. For example she made no effort to consult the devolved parliaments or ensure single market status for the UK before pulling the plug.

[super_realist]

Mac, she's unfortunately forced to due to the public vote. Can you imagine what would happen if the referendum result had been turned down? It would have been an affront to democracy. Refusing the result would have been very SNP-like.

I still hope that we can get a decent agreement. She doesn't have to consult the devolved parliaments as they are concerned with domestic issues, not European ones.
There's still going to be a lot of discussion on the terms

[McLaren]

Maddow get a bit of stick for Trumps 2005 tax return not immediately sinking him, which I think shows complete lack of respect for decent fact based journalism.

The fact she got it is good enough given that he refused to let the public see it. It is not the journalists responsibility to ensure the evidence is sensationalist. If Trump is to be taken down it will be via many small discoveries like this.

[super_realist]

I dont' see the point in publishing it if you can't make a point of it Mac, simply getting hold of a story doesn't mean you have to publish.

[McLaren]

Really? You don't think the contents of Trumps tax returns are useful public knowledge?

[beninho]

Of course May has to take responsibility for it she is the Prime Minister involved in taking the country out of the EU. Her whole reputation will be based on what is agreed or not agreed. She kept quiet throughout the campaigning because she is for Brexit, since becoming PM she has not said that she is against the idea she has not said she will not go ahead with Brexit. She could quite easily have said the result was marginal and not enough support to trigger it. But she is ploughing on regardless.

I honestly cant stand this government, when Phillip Bloody Hammond seems half decent then you know there are issues.

[super_realist]

She's between a rock and a hard place. A majority, no matter how slim got an Out vote. She doesn't really have a choice as to taking Britain out.

I'm not defending her or the Tories, but if you want to blame someone for Brexit, blame the 51% who voted for it.

[beninho]

I blame the people that voted, but a lot of these people believed the lies that were being peddled. The 350m to the NHS and the immigration blame game. So I blame everyone that voted or told people to vote for Brexit, some less then others.

[super_realist]

Those were UKIP stories to be fair.
May is being made a scapegoat for this somewhat, it wasn't down to her, she's just charged with what happens next. Blame her for that if you like, but not for it happening in the first place.

[navyblueshorts]

Really?  You don't think the contents of Trumps tax returns are useful public knowledge?

Actually, no. Unless Trump's up to no good or being hypocritical re. his public statements vs. his private tax arrangements. Where's the actual public interest in publishing something that isn't actually dodgy or contradicting something that he's stating in public? Don't get me wrong, I think he's a turd.

[super_realist]

Really?  You don't think the contents of Trumps tax returns are useful public knowledge?

Trump in proper accounting shocker.

Hardly worth reporting is it Mac? As Navy said, someone acting lawfully is not news. If he'd fiddled his taxes of course that would be newsworthy as it would make him unfit for his role, having them in order does not, at least on that count.

[SmithersJones]

Mac, she's unfortunately forced to due to the public vote. Can you imagine what would happen if the referendum result had been turned down? It would have been an affront to democracy. Refusing the result would have been very SNP-like.

I still hope that we can get a decent agreement. She doesn't have to consult the devolved parliaments as they are concerned with domestic issues, not European ones.
There's still going to be a lot of discussion on the terms

This is such a common misconception. May rejected the advice of over 1000 leading lawyers that what should have happened after such a narrow margin of victory in an ADVISORY referendum was a comprehensive white paper analysis of the costs and implications of the various scenarios including remaining. Parliament should then have debated these and had a free vote on which to choose. Given the exposure of the various lies that led that marginal result in the first place and all the subsequent polls suggesting that very few people want to leave if it makes them worse off then the only outcry would have been from the lunatic right wingers that are holding May to ransom.

It seems also to be hugely underappreciated that our MPs are not meant to be our delegates but our representatives. If their job was just to do what even the slimmest majority of constituents express an opinion on they could just as well be replaced with the voting mechanism from the X Factor. Most regrettably they seem to have forgotten this themselves.

My suggestion about how Sturgeon could treat a glorified opinion poll as a mandate was a reference to exactly what May's done.

[McLaren]

Super

I suggest you take on board what smithers has pointed out above. It is spot on and explains what thinking errors you are making on this issue.

[super_realist]

I'm not making errors Mac, faced with the result of the referendum it would have been democratic suicide to not move on with the public opinion.

May is not personally responsible for how the referendum was set up. Blame those who didn't do their job properly in setting out the rules of it and the implications of a close result.

I don't like May, but she's inherited an awful situation. Could she handle it better? Yes, probably, but you'll never please everyone, especially us on the No side.

Ask a Yes voter if they are happy with Brexit and the current state, they'll probably disagree with you. Remember, we're the minority, of course we're not going to like the direction it's moving in.

Is May required to take advice from us, or anyone else? No.

[puligny]

The EU referendum was specifically designed to be advisory, and it is testament to the paucity of current politicians that the process has now been steamrollered. For there to be no checks and balances, a fundamentally flawed campaign and no clear idea of the consequences, is a disaster. As for May seeking at every turn to avoid scrutiny is quite pathetic. It is a sign of strength not weakness to open yourself and your plans to scrutiny. To find excuses such as "we don't want to show our hand" represents the precise opposite - weakness and fear. Not that I feel strongly about this you understand!

[Diggers]

The thing that I really dislike about May (and it's a part of a pretty long list) is her play it safe, non-commital stance during the referendum campaign. She was so obviously looking out for herself and playing the long game, which turned out to be a short game, to power.
That's the kind of politician I can't aside and they aren't all cut from the same cloth. I'm a big fan of Sturgeon, I like her bravado and drive, things May utterly lacks. Letting Trump hold her hand like that, she may as well have bent over in public while he shafted her. Pathetic.

[Sponsored content]