Or just build a new Hadrian’s wall and make Scotland pay for it?
/s
Padme: You’ll retrospectively apply that to the Brexit referendum, right?
Englishman here, Scotland don’t be bullied your better off out of it
One cannot bind a future parliament, and it will be that parliament that sets out whatever terms & conditions need to be met.
Given that Truss has already said she will deny a ref. So this is just blustering, grandstanding, and ultimately meaningless.
Must be feart.
And this is *before* we get into all the problems of figuring out who can vote; recently deceased, moved, holidaying etc could all count in the electorate but *not* be capable of voting.
Also strange all this rather sudden concern over the will of the people when Brexit was executed on a simple majority. Where was her concern back on 2016?
Finally, remind me what percentage of the constituency vote Truss got^(*)? Maybe she should practice what she preaches.
^* 26k from an electorate of 78k, so only 33%.
>The newspaper said the plan would require evidence for more than a year that at least 60 per cent of voters want a new referendum on independence before the UK Government would even consider it.
So that’s 60% of voters – not of those who would vote, of *all voters* – for more than a year?
I ask this with all sincerity: Do these people want to force a bloody separation to technically ‘solve the problem’ in perpetuo without taking responsibility for it, or are they just mad?
(Not to mention that this criterion can dismiss literally any move for a referendum – no polling frequency could ever be enough, because theoretically it could have dipped below 60% in between any two polls.)
this is such a great idea that it must be applied to every election in the uk.
Referendum’s are imo frankly idiotic in all cases. All cases except one and that is independence.
This is something that be applied to all referendums.
Prevents such divisive and consequential decisions from being made on like a 2% margin.
8 comments
Or just build a new Hadrian’s wall and make Scotland pay for it?
/s
Padme: You’ll retrospectively apply that to the Brexit referendum, right?
Englishman here, Scotland don’t be bullied your better off out of it
One cannot bind a future parliament, and it will be that parliament that sets out whatever terms & conditions need to be met.
Given that Truss has already said she will deny a ref. So this is just blustering, grandstanding, and ultimately meaningless.
Must be feart.
And this is *before* we get into all the problems of figuring out who can vote; recently deceased, moved, holidaying etc could all count in the electorate but *not* be capable of voting.
Also strange all this rather sudden concern over the will of the people when Brexit was executed on a simple majority. Where was her concern back on 2016?
Finally, remind me what percentage of the constituency vote Truss got^(*)? Maybe she should practice what she preaches.
^* 26k from an electorate of 78k, so only 33%.
>The newspaper said the plan would require evidence for more than a year that at least 60 per cent of voters want a new referendum on independence before the UK Government would even consider it.
So that’s 60% of voters – not of those who would vote, of *all voters* – for more than a year?
I ask this with all sincerity: Do these people want to force a bloody separation to technically ‘solve the problem’ in perpetuo without taking responsibility for it, or are they just mad?
(Not to mention that this criterion can dismiss literally any move for a referendum – no polling frequency could ever be enough, because theoretically it could have dipped below 60% in between any two polls.)
this is such a great idea that it must be applied to every election in the uk.
Referendum’s are imo frankly idiotic in all cases. All cases except one and that is independence.
This is something that be applied to all referendums.
Prevents such divisive and consequential decisions from being made on like a 2% margin.