Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017

by freddo 167 Replies latest social current

• 

  hothabanero

  @Slimboyfat: The Scotts had their say. They had a free an open once-in-a-lifetime election and made a decision. Why don't you just accept that?

  That there are now some who won't accept the outcome shows emotional immaturity just like how liberals can't accept that Trump won in the US.

  Personally I find this anti-democratic streak very worrying and reminiscent of fascism... the same people calling for an election would never accept an election to join the UK again. I don't get why they are even taken serious.
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  @slimboyfat
  In fact it turned out that Scotland was dragged out of the EU despite a majority of Scots voting for the EU.

  So did London, they voted to remain...

  The EU vote was not a country vote, it was a UK wide vote...irrelevant that Scotland, as part of the UK, voted to stay same with London.

  The fact is we voted in 2014 to stay in the UK, and the SNP lost 21 seats in the GE because Scots are fed up of poor services from the SNP whilst they bleater on about indyref2.

  Scots have spoken, we don't want another indyref.

  The fact people want to be independent when we have a 15 billion deficit and is the worst in the western world and want to cut off subsidy funding from the UK is utterly baffling.
  
  
• 

  hothabanero

  @notsurewheretogo:

  Very true. I too have seen the numbers. Scotland would be a failed state similar to Greece within a year if it went independent. The numbers don't lie: Scotland simply can't make it on their own except for a HUGE England subsidy and they thank England by ungratefully calling for election after election. I am lost for words, some people just don't know what is best for them.
• 

  slimboyfat

  London is not a country. The analogy only works if you start from the position that Scotland is not a country with no right to self-determination any more than a city within a state. Even staunch unionists such as Blair and Cameron acknowledged that Scotland is a country and could decide to leave the United Kingdom if it wishes. Comparing Scotland to London should be just as insulting to self-respecting unionists as it is to those who support independence. Because don't unionists claim that we are a family of nations that come together voluntarily?

  In Australia all the regions need to agree to a change in the constitution for it to pass. (For example one state could prevent the abolition of the monarchy even if a majority of people voted in favour across the country) Why is Scotland regarded as less than a region of Australia? If all the regions of Australia need to agree a change in the constitution, why not all countries in the UK need to agree before we do anything as drastic as leave the EU?

  When Scotland voted in 2014 it was promised we would be equal partners in a more federal system. If that were true our vote to remain in the EU would count.
• 

  hothabanero

  @Slimboyfat: The distinction between country/city is meaningless lawyering. London could make it on it's own as opposed to Scotland so that's a reason for Scotland to stay and London to leave. See I too can make up these silly arguments!

  You sound like a spoiled brat who want things his way or else you throw a fit and demand a reelection until it comes out your preferred way.

  England saves you from financial ruin every year and England saved you from going under with the rest of the EU. You are welcome and God bless the Queen!
• 

  Simon

  The Scottish argument makes no sense.

  "We don't want to be ruled by London as they set policy that isn't best for us".

  Do they really believe that things would be better as an minor dependent of the EU? They would end up like Greece with their asset, fabulous countryside, being taken as payment for not meeting some unrealistic political target.

  Scottish Independent types are simply living in the past, like they're awaiting the 2nd coming of Bonnie Prince Charlie, another Scott-abroad with no real interest in the best future of the Scottish people but was willing to use them politically.
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  @slimboyfat...our point aside about London/Scotland...how do you cope with Scotland leaving the UK removing billions from Scotlands income via UK funding and the fact that even with that funding we are overspending by £1,000 per person to cause massive deficit?

  The only way Nicola or the SNP can counter this if we went independent is to have massive austerity measures...no free prescriptions, no free eye tests, no free child care, no free uni fees and massive rises to taxes and massive cuts to public spending.

  Ironic given SNP claim the austerity measures via Tories are bad, it would have to be worse under the SNP.

  Not one SNP supporter or MP has countered this logically, all they say is "the government figures are lies".

  I would love an independent Scotland...but damn if I am going to break Scotland for the sake of my children's future by voting for independence and SNP when the math doesn't stack up.

  It seems 55% of us realized this in 2014 and now many more do.

  SNP went from 56 seats to 32...they will get far less in the next GE because they simply do not benefit Scotland because they are more interested in independence, which damages Scotland at the moment.
• 

  Simon

  Large house prices happens bc of the free market. If you don't like the rent prices you should move.

  Even worse, they happen because of misguided subsidy policies that prevent market forces applying.

  What should happen is that house prices go up but then the lack of affordable housing means that Teachers and Nurses etc... needed in the area need to be paid a whole lot more. So the people "enjoying" the affluent areas have much higher service costs OR face schools with no one to teach their kids.

  When governments hand out subsidies to "help", what they do is effectively subsidize the affluent areas using tax-payers money (not just those from the area). They add fuel to the fire that enables further rises which then require more subsidies ...

  Socialism is great at spending other people's money until it runs out but rarely has much to show for it.
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  I don't think the distinction between country and city is meaningless. It's how the international system has operated at least since Woodrow Wilson and the doctrine of self-determination for nations. Arguably it has its roots much further back in the Delaration of Arbroath and other documents asserting national sovereignty dating back to the Middle Ages.

  Even unionists who have opposed Scottish independence have not disputed that Scotland is a country and has the right to self-determination if it chooses. This is different than the situation in Spain for example where the Spanish state does not recognise the regions as having the right to choose self-determination.

  You could argue back and forward whether it makes sense to construe Catalonia or Quebec or such places a countries or ever having been countries. However no one seriously disputes that Scotland is a country, not even the British state. Scotland was an independent country before it joined the union. Now it is a country within the union because it chooses to be. British prime ministers accept that Scotland could choose independence again if it wishes. They argue Scotland should not choose indepdence, not that it cannot choose independence. This is an extremely important distinction that Theresa May threatened to undermine by implying Scotland may not have a referendum even if it wishes. She didn't quite say that when she said "now is not the time", but it comes perilously close.

  London is not a country. Comparing Scotland to London isn't just insulting, it's historically and politically ignorant.
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  Ok, as I say let us forget the London Scotland thing, I was merely pointing out that London voted to remain too.

  What about Scotland's finances as I mention? It woulds be suicide to go it alone at this moment purely from a monetary point of view