Topic: Labour Thread

[Sangria]

..... how do I explain this clearer? I'm running out of ideas here. I am not talking about Brexit at all, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

There was a referendum, Labour/Tories/Lib Dems got the result they wanted, so then started cnhaing the rules and moving goalposts to avoid having to have another one, because they got the result they wanted.

You are talking about referendums though. Of which there have been 2 in my lifetime. Both of which resulted in the parties sticking by the results, whether they like it or not. In neither case did the parties keep holding referendums until they got the result they wanted. Which, in its language, was the argument put to dismiss Ireland's multiple EU referendums during the 1990s. Where did the argument that the UK government keeps holding referendums until they got the result they want come from? It certainly doesn't come from reality, as the extremely rare examples of referendums indicate that they do not keep holding referendums, whether they like the result or not.

[Elmo!]

You are talking about referendums though. Of which there have been 2 in my lifetime. Both of which resulted in the parties sticking by the results, whether they like it or not. In neither case did the parties keep holding referendums until they got the result they wanted. Which, in its language, was the argument put to dismiss Ireland's multiple EU referendums during the 1990s. Where did the argument that the UK government keeps holding referendums until they got the result they want come from? It certainly doesn't come from reality, as the extremely rare examples of referendums indicate that they do not keep holding referendums, whether they like the result or not.

They held referedums until they got the result they wanted - after 1 referendum.

The point I am making is that it is the SNP that have been consistent here on when referedums should be held, and it is Labour/Tories/Lib Dems that are twisting and squirming to avoid having to have another one.

There's 2 parts to this concept of "having referendums until you get the result you want".

1) having another referendum if you don't get the result you want
2) stopping once you get it and preventing another one

The UK parties didn't need to do 1) and are now doing 2).

The SNP are trying to do one 1) but whether they do 2) is just hypothetical at this point - but in my experience people on the indy side are consistent on this. If we go indy and then a party with having a ref to re-join the union wins a majority, they should be allowed to have a referendum.

[TepidT2O]

They held referedums until they got the result they wanted - after 1 referendum.

The point I am making is that it is the SNP that have been consistent here on when referedums should be held, and it is Labour/Tories/Lib Dems that are twisting and squirming to avoid having to have another one.

There's 2 parts to this concept of "having referendums until you get the result you want".

1) having another referendum if you don't get the result you want
2) stopping once you get it and preventing another one

The UK parties didn't need to do 1) and are now doing 2).

The SNP are trying to do one 1) but whether they do 2) is just hypothetical at this point - but in my experience people on the indy side are consistent on this. If we go indy and then a party with having a ref to re-join the union wins a majority, they should be allowed to have a referendum.

But there is a problem here though…

Imagine you hold 5 referenda in 5 years on some issue.

Year 1: yes 53 no 47 turnout 84%
Year 2 yes 56 no 44 turnout 78%
Year 3 yes 59 no 41 turnout 69%
Year 4 yes 57 no 43 turnout 64%
Year 5 yes 49.8 no 50.2  turnout 58%

Which position has legitimacy? Yes or no?

Now for me, it’s clear that yes have legitimacy and no doesn’t. But no would win the day in year 5

So on one level, I can see why repeated referenda are a problem.

In reliant, on issues of any great importance, (such as leaving the EU) the only real way to solve this issue is for a super majority (say 60/40) to be required.

Because if you can’t even get 60% to back an issue, I don’t think it’s a good way to settle an issue that will last for eternity

[Elmo!]

But there is a problem here though…

Imagine you hold 5 referenda in 5 years on some issue.

Year 1: yes 53 no 47 turnout 84%
Year 2 yes 56 no 44 turnout 78%
Year 3 yes 59 no 41 turnout 69%
Year 4 yes 57 no 43 turnout 64%
Year 5 yes 49.8 no 50.2  turnout 58%

Which position has legitimacy? Yes or no?

Now for me, it’s clear that yes have legitimacy and no doesn’t.

So on one level, I can see why repeated referenda are a problem.

In reliant, on issues of any great importance, (such as leaving the EU) the only real way to solve this issue is for a super majority (say 60/40) to be required.

Because if you can’t even get 60% to back an issue, I don’t think it’s a good way to settle an issue that will last for eternity

This is where you have to rely on the electorate electing a government that wants to hold a referendum every year for 5 years.

I personally have faith we wouldn't do that in Scotland.

[reddebs]

..... how do I explain this clearer? I'm running out of ideas here. I am not talking about Brexit at all, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

There was a referendum, Labour/Tories/Lib Dems got the result they wanted, so then started cnhaing the rules and moving goalposts to avoid having to have another one, because they got the result they wanted.

I get ya mate.

Scotland had a referendum on independence and the result went the way the British government wanted but then changed the rules to stop you having another one 👍

[Elmo!]

I get ya mate.

Scotland had a referendum on independence and the result went the way the British government wanted but then changed the rules to stop you having another one 👍

Thank you Debs, I thought I was going mad. 

[TepidT2O]

This is where you have to rely on the electorate electing a government that wants to hold a referendum every year for 5 years.

I personally have faith we wouldn't do that in Scotland.

That doesn’t answer the question though.  You’ve just swerved it!

[PaulF]

Didn't sturgeon say it was a once in a generation referendum though.
I know a week is a long time in politics, but a minimum of a 20 year gap on something like this seems sensible.

[Elmo!]

That doesn’t answer the question though.  You’ve just swerved it!

It's a ridiculous question based on a wild hypothetical that would never happen.

[Elmo!]

Didn't sturgeon say it was a once in a generation referendum though.
I know a week is a long time in politics, but a minimum of a 20 year gap on something like this seems sensible.

It was described as a once in a generation opportunity. The word opportunity is always missed out though when making this argument because it ruinbs the argument.

It's a turn of phrase, used constantly in all walks of life that does mean any sort of commitment at all to future intentions.

[TepidT2O]

It's a ridiculous question based on a wild hypothetical that would never happen.

Is it? I can see it happening, maybe not here, maybe on some issue…

But you didn’t answer again!..

[Elmo!]

Is it? I can see it happening, maybe not here, maybe on some issue…

But you didn’t answer again!..

I wuldn't consider any of those subsequent referendums within the same parliament legitimate.

[reddebs]

Thank you Debs, I thought I was going mad. 

It took me a while though 😂

[Kenny's Jacket]

It's a ridiculous question based on a wild hypothetical that would never happen.

Well she wants 2 of them in 9 years. 

Are you convinced you would win a referendum?  There doesnt seem to be much protest and civil unrest about staying

[Elmo!]

Well she wants 2 of them in 9 years. 

Are you convinced you would win a referendum?  There doesnt seem to be much protest and civil unrest about staying

The point is there is legitimacy for having another one based on their electoral mandate.

Repeating referedums within the same parliament without a new mandate is a different matter.

I'm not convinced at all - as I said earlier I'd much rather be going into one with solid 60% support.

[Kenny's Jacket]

The point is there is legitimacy for having another one based on their electoral mandate.

Repeating referedums within the same parliament without a new mandate is a different matter.

I'm not convinced at all - as I said earlier I'd much rather be going into one with solid 60% support.

but do the SNP run on a single issue manifesto, Im sure there are reasons to vote SNP outside of Independence

[Elmo!]

but do the SNP run on a single manifesto, Im sure there are reasons to vote SNP outside of Independence

For some reason it is only the SNP that ever have this logic applied to them. It's another example of goalpost shifting.

[Kenny's Jacket]

For some reason it is only the SNP that ever have this logic applied to them. It's another example of goalpost shifting.

Thats gone over my head

[Byrnee]

This is where you have to rely on the electorate electing a government that wants to hold a referendum every year for 5 years.

I personally have faith we wouldn't do that in Scotland.

All evidence to the contrary no? Anyway, I'm thinking this should all be split off into an SNP thread at this point, aand we can get back to discussing Labour - I understand this started with Starmer saying he's against another referendum. Good, so am I. I don't want the union to break up, I don't want the Tories to have even more of a stranglehold on UK Politics and finally the last thing we need after the insanity of Brexit is more years of confusion, negotations, border disputes and other legislation.

Alex Salmond said it would last perhaps for a lifetime. Which is what this thread is beginning to feel like.

[Elmo!]

Thats gone over my head

Every party has lots of different things in their manifesto. If they win, they are generally considered to have won a mandate to implement everything in their manifesto.

When it comes to the SNP though, suddenly everyeone is arguing that people weren't necessarily voting for THAT part of the manifesto, just other parts.

[kopite77]

Didn't sturgeon say it was a once in a generation referendum though.
I know a week is a long time in politics, but a minimum of a 20 year gap on something like this seems sensible.

It was also said by the Tories, Labour and Lib Dem’s that voting to remain in the Union was the only way to stay in the EU and two years later they were torn out of the EU, despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly to stay in, that’s one Shit Union to be in!

[Kenny's Jacket]

Every party has lots of different things in their manifesto. If they win, they are generally considered to have won a mandate to implement everything in their manifesto.

When it comes to the SNP though, suddenly everyeone is arguing that people weren't necessarily voting for THAT part of the manifesto, just other parts.

and is that unfair?  It seems to be your basis for another referendum.

[Elmo!]

and is that unfair?  It seems to be your basis for another referendum.

It's setting different standards than they apply to themselves in Westminster.

It also ignores that a lot of people vote Labour but support independence.

[Sangria]

Every party has lots of different things in their manifesto. If they win, they are generally considered to have won a mandate to implement everything in their manifesto.

When it comes to the SNP though, suddenly everyeone is arguing that people weren't necessarily voting for THAT part of the manifesto, just other parts.

Which is another kind of argument altogether. That's an argument based on manifesto, which is the traditional form of interpreting electoral mandate in the UK. The argument that you'd posted earlier, which I disagreed with, was that the UK government keeps holding referendums until it gets the result it wants, which isn't remotely rooted in reality and what evidence there is. Which begs the question, where did this argument come from? Where did the idea come from that the UK keeps holding referendums until the establishment gets the result it wants?

[Elmo!]

Which is another kind of argument altogether. That's an argument based on manifesto, which is the traditional form of interpreting electoral mandate in the UK. The argument that you'd posted earlier, which I disagreed with, was that the UK government keeps holding referendums until it gets the result it wants, which isn't remotely rooted in reality and what evidence there is. Which begs the question, where did this argument come from? Where did the idea come from that the UK keeps holding referendums until the establishment gets the result it wants?

Yes it's a different argument altogether, because it was in response to a different argument which had moved the conversation on.

[Dr. Beaker]

Thats gone over my head

Has the crossbar moved though.

[oldfordie]

Been a while since ive checked out the SNPs arguments for another referendum but I think they do have a legitimate argument to justify holding another referendum if voters voted believing better together meant Scotland remaining in the EU. didn't Strugeon make this point many times in the past.
The Independence referendum was 2014, the EU referendum 2016. what would the result have been if the EU referendum was 2014 and the Scottish Independence referendum 2016, I think a Yes for independence would have been a cert.

[Machae]

Call it referendums or elections, it's natural that choices will be different as society changes. We have regular elections (some shorter or longer depending on political machinations).

If given a choice, we would all want a 2nd referendum on Brexit, which I'm certain would win this time around. Whilst I'd want Scotland to remain, it's only natural they would call for one given how they want to be aligned with the EU and the turmoil that the Tories have created

[rob1966]

Question for anyone who knows. What are the legal grounds that stops Scotland just holding a referendum anyway and declaring independence if its Yes? Its not like its a city trying to leave England, its a whole country that wants to go back to being an independant country, so what is it about the union that prevents this?

[Yorkykopite]

The UK wide parties had referendums until they got the result they wanted - it just happened to be just 1 referendum. Then they shift goalposts to avoid having another one wbecause they got what they wanted.

Admit it Elmo, there's no way "the UK wide parties" can win this one using your logic. Behave impeccably and accept the results of the referenda, as they did, and they're still doing the wrong thing.

Your mind is absolutely creaking with bad faith. On this issue, at least, you are so fundamentalist that 1 plus 1 does indeed equal 3.

 

[Elmo!]

Admit it Elmo, there's no way "the UK wide parties" can win this one using your logic. Behave impeccably and accept the results of the referenda, as they did, and they're still doing the wrong thing.

Your mind is absolutely creaking with bad faith. On this issue, at least, you are so fundamentalist that 1 plus 1 does indeed equal 3.

What is bad faith? You haven't actually showen anything incorrect about what I have said.

They can win it by being consistent and not changing their tune whenever their previous conditions are met.

[Elmo!]

Question for anyone who knows. What are the legal grounds that stops Scotland just holding a referendum anyway and declaring independence if its Yes? Its not like its a city trying to leave England, its a whole country that wants to go back to being an independant country, so what is it about the union that prevents this?

That is sort of what the court case was about, though no one really thought that Scotland legally has the right to declare independence - the point about the case was whether the Scottish government could hold an advisory referenum without approval from Westminster. Even if the SG had won the case, and held a referendum and won, it would still have required approval from Westminster.

Of course there is the option of UDI but that is madness and basically the nuclear option that would likely end very badly without getting recognition internationally.

[Sangria]

What is bad faith? You haven't actually showen anything incorrect about what I have said.

They can win it by being consistent and not changing their tune whenever their previous conditions are met.

"The UK wide parties had referendums until they got the result they wanted".

The evidence is against the above claim. Then you said that the argument had moved on, without addressing your above claim.

[Elmo!]

"The UK wide parties had referendums until they got the result they wanted".

The evidence is against the above claim. Then you said that the argument had moved on, without addressing your above claim.

You keep banging on about evidence, and Brexit. Honestly I have no idea what you are going on about.

They had the 2014 referendum, got the result they wanted, and now keep moving the goalposts to avoid anbother one. That is the evidence.

[Yorkykopite]

What is bad faith? You haven't actually showen anything incorrect about what I have said.

They can win it by being consistent and not changing their tune whenever their previous conditions are met.

Jesus Elmo, now you're coming over as a bit simple.

This thing started with you claiming that the UK government has a record of running referendums until it gets the result it wanted. When asked "when?" you retreated to just one referendum - the Scottish one. When it was pointed out that there was no need to keep on running the Scottish referendum because the UK government got the result they wanted first time you replied "But they would have if they'd lost!"

That reply is not as impressive as you seem to think it is. In fact it's ridiculous.

It's even more ridiculous when you consider that there is a political party that wants to keep on running the referendum until it gets the result it wants. And that is the SNP. The party you are in love with.

Love, they say, is blind. So I'm not going to push this one any further.

[Elmo!]

Jesus Elmo, now you're coming over as a bit simple.

This thing started with you claiming that the UK government has a record of running referendums until it gets the result it wanted. When asked "when?" you retreated to just one referendum - the Scottish one. When it was pointed out that there was no need to keep on running the Scottish referendum because the UK government got the result they wanted first time you replied "But they would have if they'd lost!"

That reply is not as impressive as you seem to think it is. In fact it's ridiculous.

It's even more ridiculous when you consider that there is a political party that wants to keep on running the referendum until it gets the result it wants. And that is the SNP. The party you are in love with.

Love, they say, is blind. So I'm not going to push this one any further.

I never said anything about a record of doing it again. That's twice you've made up things that I've said.

I have also not made a single claim about what Westminster would have done if they'd lost - again you are making things up.

Maybe my mistake here was using referendums rather than the singular in my original claim. I've made it clear all along I was talking about the 2014 referendum despite everyone else trying to make it about Brexit.

[Yorkykopite]

I never said anything about a record of doing it again. That's twice you've made up things that I've said.

I have also not made a single claim about what Westminster would have done if they'd lost - again you are making things up.

Maybe my mistake here was using referendums rather than the singular in my original claim. I've made it clear all along I was talking about the 2014 referendum despite everyone else trying to make it about Brexit.

Hmmm.

But let's talk about the 2014 Scottish referendum without any further reference to what UK governments generally do and don't do when faced with referendums.

What did the UK government do wrong when it accepted the verdict of the 2014 referendum?

[Elmo!]

Hmmm.

But let's talk about the 2014 Scottish referendum without any further reference to what UK governments generally do and don't do when faced with referendums.

What did the UK government do wrong when it accepted the verdict of the 2014 referendum?

It did nothing wrong in accepting the verdict.

[Yorkykopite]

It did nothing wrong in accepting the verdict.

So  they (and Labour) are no longer "twisting and squirming to avoid having another one"? They simply accepted the verdict of the first one, and that's cool?

[Elmo!]

So  they (and Labour) are no longer "twisting and squirming to avoid having another one"? They simply accepted the verdict of the first one, and that's cool?

No, they accepted the result of the referendum, as did the SNP. No one contested the legitimacy of the result.

That is a separate thing from later behaviour in regards to holding another one.