If the SNP go into the next election pledging to seek independence without a referendum and win a majority in that election then they can claim a mandate. I still think they should have a referendum but, for as long as we are without a written constitution, there is no requirement. The UK parliament could try to introduce a requirement. However, presumably the Tories would stick to their principles and only allow their Scottish MP to vote for it.

That's shite. Plenty of people vote SNP for reasons other than independence and they're not a single issue party. And your vote for an election of one parliamentary term shouldn't decide something like that.

they've just had a referendum, that was firmly answered so having an election (with presumably a much-lower turnout) would hardly be a convincing case for going against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people. They would purely be relying on voter apathy to get the result they didn't get in a fair democratic way. The UK (and Scotland) would no doubt see that for what it is: sour grapes, stroppy sore-losers and manipulating politics to suit their own agenda regardless of all the other important issues people will be voting on. looks like even promises of major changes in favour of Scotland aren't even being considered an option for the Scottish public to have an opinion on.

 

If turnout is 45% and they get 60% of the vote that's still not in anyway a mandate to over-rule the democratic will of the people where 55% of the country have already shown they don't see a convincing case for it. Why bother having a referendum in the first place if you have no intention of accepting the result if it goes against you?

 

(I'm pretty sure the rest of the UK would have accepted the democratic will of the people had it gone the other way, not refused to acknowledge it and say, Nah we'll wait till the next general election results are through before we decide whether you can go independent or not.)

Edited September 22, 201410 yr by popchartfreak

It's utterly fucking disgraceful that only three days have passed since the result, which they said they would honour, and they're already speculating how to get independence through without the people of Scotland telling them they don't want independence. Shameless.

That's shite. Plenty of people vote SNP for reasons other than independence and they're not a single issue party. And your vote for an election of one parliamentary term shouldn't decide something like that.

Under our system any party that wins a majority are able to claim a mandate for everything in their manifesto, particularly anything that formed a major part of their campaign. It's a nonsense but that's the way it works.

It's utterly fucking disgraceful that only three days have passed since the result, which they said they would honour, and they're already speculating how to get independence through without the people of Scotland telling them they don't want independence. Shameless.

 

 

It's also shameless how the PM reacted to the referendum result with his party political response when he was supposed to be being prime ministerial and speaking for the whole nation. And a quote by Jim Sillars in that article was like me quoting someone like Ian Lavery or John McDonnell saying that they think the railways should be forced back into nationalisation and sayings it's official policy of the Mlibandites in the Labour leadership.

 

I did thoroughly enjoy his answer to him becoming a member of the Lords though ;)

Edited September 22, 201410 yr by steve201

It's also shameless how the PM reacted to the referendum result with his party political response when he was supposed to be being prime ministerial and speaking for the whole nation. And a quote by Jim Sillars in that article was like me quoting someone like Ian Lavery or John McDonnell saying that they think the railways should be forced back into nationalisation and sayings it's official policy of the Mlibandites in the Labour leadership.

 

I did thoroughly enjoy his answer to him becoming a member of the Lords though ;)

Precisely. It was also clear in an interview with The Observer on Sunday that Cameron did not brief Ed Miliband on what he was going to say. That is a breach of the usual protocol.

Cameron is runnin' scared, he can see the electoral writing on the wall....

You can all calm your tits. Nicola has confirmed that we would only seek freedom through a majority yes vote at a second referendum in her speech declaring intention to run. Given that she's gonna be unopposed we can take that with more weight than what Salmond was bullshitting about

You can all calm your tits. Nicola has confirmed that we would only seek freedom through a majority yes vote at a second referendum in her speech declaring intention to run. Given that she's gonna be unopposed we can take that with more weight than what Salmond was bullshitting about

 

There was an article in the Guardian at the weekend which suggested she was going to pretty much give up on independence and just push for full devo-max (rather than the feeble version currently offered by the Westminster parties).

I've just watched her intention to run speech (worth a watch) and she is not giving up on freedom but is respecting that the country said No at this moment in time and will then push for as much as she can get.

 

Really like that her first move, today, is writing to Cameron to demand control over our elections so 16 and 17 year olds will keep the vote up here. In return she fully commits the SNP to their little devolution timetable and commission.

I can see why Sturgeon is trying to keep votes for 16- and 17-year-olds. After all, it would appear that they voted in the same sort of huge numbers as everybody else so it would be a shame to tell most of them that they cannot vote next May. However, I don't like the idea of different rules for different parts of the country in the same election.

 

There have been calls for the vote to be extended to all 16-and 17-year-olds in time for May but I'm not sure how practical that is. If schools play a major part in the registration process then it might be achievable.

I agree, doubt it's practical by the time of the next election, but we'll see.

 

Previous, Not sure how I feel about the notion that independence is "freedom". Not as if the rest of the UK is shackling the poor hard-done by Scots to hard Labour, they've chosen (for now) to agree to continue to form part of the same country in a partnership that has produced far more Scottish leaders pro rata for all political parties over the last 30 years (and therefore had that bit more pull pro rata). The Labour party has had 10 out of 22 Scottish-born leaders, 3 of the last 4 elected leaders. 2 of 5 leaders of the Lib Dems, or 4 of 7 if you count the 2 leaders joint pre-merger. Only the Tories average one Scottish-leader a century or 2 Scottish-born out of the last, call it 20, or about 10%. That's pretty influential for 10% population.....

 

 

Freedom is easier to spell on my phone than independence given that I can't actually spell that word without spell check (Hai Dyslexia) and my phone likes to auto-correct it into something entirely different. :) So lets not read more into it than a word of convenience.

 

 

 

 

I think Nicola wants to give the vote to 16-17 year olds at our elections so for May 2016 and not May 2015. She mentioned it as she was talking about the Scottish Parliament gaining control over it's own elections, which to me referred to the Holyrood election exclusively. The referendum showed that we can actually pull off the administration of a vote, one that broke the Scottish record for turn out, so there is no real reason (now that we've proven we can do it, not that there was much of a reason before hand) why we can't administer the election to the Scottish Parliament.

 

Same goes for Wales and Northern Ireland. Each devolved government should have the right to organise and stage it's own elections instead of relying on westminster for everything.

On the wider issue of 16 & 17 year olds. There appears to me to be rumblings from down south that some parties would support lowering the age to 16 from 18 after the success of the Referendum.

 

Personally, I believe that it's a wonderful idea provided it goes hand in hand with a neutral, well structured education around 14/15 yrs old on our Parliament, why voting is important, who the parties in the current House of Commons are (including the likes of DUP/SNP/PC) along with where to find their most recent manifesto and the basics of devolution (for England) or for Cym/NI/Sco how their parliaments work and how votes are cast differently. Along with any info on parties not in Westminster.

Reducing the voting age to 16 has been Lib Dem policy for as long as I can remember. Ed Miliband said in his speech yesterday that a Labour government would introduce it so there is a good chance that it will happen.

Good to see other parties adopting Lib-dem policies :lol:

You can all calm your tits. Nicola has confirmed that we would only seek freedom through a majority yes vote at a second referendum in her speech declaring intention to run. Given that she's gonna be unopposed we can take that with more weight than what Salmond was bullshitting about

 

Freedom?

 

Scotland already has it.

 

Too much Braveheart? :lol:

 

Also not sure why 16 year olds couldn't vote sooner to be honest, despite the fact they are, scientifically, easier to persuade due to their reasoning centres still developing and, of course, a shallower knowledge base of elections, etc, due to not being alive as long. However, I still think it's a great idea.

I still think votes for 16 year olds is an utterly dreadful idea. If it were starting again from scratch I'd even probably argue voting age should be set at 21, though obviously that's a non-starter given 18's now established.

I (despite what I said about the referendum and its quite cynical move to include 16+17 year-old voters) am actually for lowering the voting age to 16. If we want more young people to become motivated to want to make the world a better place, and become active and engaged with politics, then surely giving them a voice will help in a big way.

 

I don't think I was educated, or probably mature enough to make an informed choice at 16, but others undoubtably are - and I don't think we should deny them that right.