Donate SIGN UP

Nicola Threatning Another Referendum If Britain Leaves Europe

Avatar Image
gordiescotland1 | 11:44 Tue 21st Apr 2015 | News
69 Answers
The cheek of that woman she is threatening another referendum if UK leaves Europe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3047585/SNP-chief-Nicola-Sturgeon-threatens-new-independence-referendum-Britain-votes-leave-EU-2017.html

I only hope the voters see sense before that woman destroys this country
Gravatar

Answers

41 to 60 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by gordiescotland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Devo-max, the favoured option would have taken about 60% of the vote in the referendum..... Less than 50% of Scots want independance what so dificult for some of you southern shandy drinkers to understand about that???

Simple terms, what frightens most of you is the thought of Scotland having a REAL potent voice for the first time in 300 years plus. Be different and you might understand some of the garbage we've had to put up with dealing with pointless Tory and Labour governments we didn't vote for.... must be tough but keep the bias and vaguley labelled racism coming... we have broad shoulders ;0)
decent post slapshot , I do think it's a case of ' ' who DO they think they are '', devo-max would 'sit' very well with Scottish electorate.
The "hysterical howls" are from South of the border.
I think what scares the politicians most Anne is the fact that its not just a fight between labour and tory any more and for them its a massive issue.

If the SNP do get the seats they are forecast to get ( last poll I saw as many as 48), UKIP make a decent showing, Plaid Cymru in Wales it's going to force a multi party concensus which I firmly believe will benefit Britain... Isn't that what democracy is all about, people's voices??
Apparently not, Slapshot, given how vehemently people have stuck to the current way we elect our MPs.
It's another of those things that won't change unless we have a period of progressive politics in the UK first, break down the Labour/Tory hegemony and some form of Proportional Repreresentation may become more than a pipe dream... works pretty well up here doesn't it!
oops sorry for digressing at 19.54/19.55.
"> The chances are that the SNP will hold the balance of power after the next election

Neither Labour nor the Tories want to deal with the SNP.
-------------------------
They may have to. A potential 50 seats in a hung parliament is a big issue.
And although Labour will not deal with the SNP in government, in opposition they wouldn't need to. They could between them easily vote down anything another Con-LibDem coalition tried to get through without even speaking to each other.
That is why Cameron, like it or not, WOULD have to find some accommodation with them. At the moment the SNP have said they won't deal with him at all. So Cameron has an excuse to say nothing about it. For now
> That is why Cameron, like it or not, WOULD have to find some accommodation with them

No, he would not. In the scenario you suggest, with Labour and SNP voting down every proposal and the country basically at a standstill for 5 years, both those parties would have to consider very carefully what the outcome for them would be at the next election. This is why I suggested that a minority Government could be interesting.
Concensus politics and a minority government worked well in the SNP's first term up here, something like that might be refreshing and the best thing that could happen!!
History records the last tin pot ,crazy, megalomaniac National party leader with delusions of grandeur took his country to ruination not to mention rubble and he ended up as toast in a fire pit. :-)
Yeah we know, but Kim Jock Eck isn't in charge any more.... ;0)
If the adherents of a single party cannot agree amongst themselves what hope is there for any coalition?
Slapshot's 20.04 post (2nd Paragraph) applies to the North generally, regarding the neglect felt. We're fed-up etc. and, yes, there is a 'racist' - can't be that, same race - or perhaps 'cliquist' element, which tries to make us feel inferior in some way and, yes, we've finally become a bit bolshie, too.

We can't, however, have the country broken up into fratching tribes. Together we are stronger. We fought for the same country in WW2 and it is horrible that the London bias has become so strong as to disadvantage the rest of the country (ONE country). This can still be remedied and perhaps the SNP's power could bring this about by waking up the South.

I'm half Scottish/half Yorkshire and I'm feeling lost and upset at the moment - as if my person is being torn into 2 pieces, neither of which is viable on its own. I simply can't understand the nastiness and enmity shown by the SNP. We are one intermingled people with a common history and just grievances need to be sorted out, that's all when it comes down to it.

Well, I've had my little rant - it won't make any difference. ;(
> That is why Cameron, like it or not, WOULD have to find some accommodation with them

No, he would not. In the scenario you suggest, with Labour and SNP voting down every proposal and the country basically at a standstill for 5 years, both those parties would have to consider very carefully what the outcome for them would be at the next election.

The thing is they would not vote down "everything". Only the unpopular stuff.
Which might make them rather popular come another election :-)
Why, on earth, would a progressive opposition hold back from opposing?
By the same token why would the mythical "Blukips" (1 UKIP and 10 DUP MPS (!) + Tories) not do the same?

You can't have it both ways. Complain about a Labour/SNP "dirty deal" or whatever, but then assume that they would magically unite not to riock the boat in opposition? (And same applies the other way ...)
In discussions like this I find it helpful to bear this table in mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_countries_of_the_United_Kingdom#Rankings

i.e. in population terms, England's is more than 10x Scotland's. The whole of Scotland has a smaller population than England's South East, Greater London, North West, West Midlands OR East regions; and roughly the same population as England's South West OR Yorkshire and the Humber regions.

Now I understand it's a country in its own right ... but really, when you look at the political coverage and influence of Scotland versus, say, Yorkshire, Scotland seems to get represented more than fairly.

Nobody is suggesting that if Yorkshire and the Humber voted against leaving the EU, yet the UK as a whole voted for it, that we would not do it. So why should a Scottish vote count more than a Yorkshire vote on this issue?
"Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception."
(George Orwell).






> The thing is they would not vote down "everything". Only the unpopular stuff.

One man's unpopular is another woman's popular. Fact is that if they, as you wrote earlier which is what I was responding to, "between them easily vote down anything another Con-LibDem coalition tried to get through", then politics would grind to a halt ... similar to if the Tories (right of Labour) and SNP (left of Labour) voted down anything a Lab-LibDem coalition, or Lab minority, tried to get through.
Poor woman can't help herself.
Nicola S(ain)t Urge On

41 to 60 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Nicola Threatning Another Referendum If Britain Leaves Europe

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.