Archonsod 说:
Flanged 说:
This is the guy who's now trying to tell us we can't run our own referendum. There is a difference between a **** like that and Alex Salmond.
Wait wut? The Scottish secretary is campaigning for the referendum. It's Salmon who's dithering.
The Scottish Secretary is campaigning for the referendum? Heh.
He campaigned, from the moment the SNP first took first office in 2007 until they won their historic majority in May 2011, to block the possibility of any referendum at all. As did all the other parties. As they re still doing now.
Then he admitted, shortly after the SNP victory in May 2011, that any referendum held by the Scottish Government would be both
legal and binding:
"I firmly believe the Scottish Parliament, if it so decides, can proceed with a referendum," Mr Moore said, adding: "There will be the normal electoral rules that have to be followed and it will have to be discussed carefully with the relevant authorities."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13323587
Well, he must've had a word with those relevant authorities, because a few weeks later he was back saying that the SNP government would have to hold
TWO referendums.
Michael Moore: 'Independence needs two referendums'
A second vote would need to be held if the SNP won its referendum on Scottish independence, according to Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Michael Moore.
Mr Moore said he thought the Scottish government would hold an "advisory referendum".
This would be followed by a second referendum on what had been sorted out between the governments, Mr Moore said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13671907
And now he is telling us that any referendum held by Holyrood alone would be
illegal without Westminster's permission and guidance?
He's already said (in fact, demanded) that we should hold TWO referendums of our own, with no suggestion at any point that either of these would be illegal. How many referendums does this guy actually want? Well, none, clearly. But it doesn't matter.
The simple fact is that the Scottish government can hold referenda, on any subject they choose, from now until doomsday if they want, and Westminster has (or should have) absolutely **** all to say about it. It is that simple.
To give some undue credit to Mr. ****, in his first statement shortly after the May victory he was at least trying (rightly) to recognise the sovereignty, and the Claim of Right, of the Scottish people. But then his boss must've phoned and corrected him.
Archonsod 说:
The only restriction the British government are requesting is that it be a simple yes/no question, rather than Salmon's rather pathetic attempt to divide the no votes by including two answers.
No. The only restriction the British government are requesting is that Scotland remains as a constituent country of the United Kingdom forever, governed by Westminster forever, and paying it's revenue into the United Kingdom's Treasury forever. Let's not fool ourselves.
Archonsod 说:
If there's that much support for secession, why precisely can't we have a simple yes/no referendum next month?
There isn't enough support for "secession" - not yet, anyway. When I say that we will win, I don't mean that we will win right now. But when it comes to it, in 2014, we'll win.
There is clearly still work to be done. Generations of "your country is too wee, too poor, too stupid to go it alone, ya toothless junkie subsidy eater" will have to be overcome through a kind of ... evangelism. But it won't be difficult, really. People prefer hearing good things about themselves, and their country, than bad things. They've heard plenty of bad things from the unionists so far, their entire lives - "the union is great, and it has benefitted you hugely, but you are still a worthless drunken **** who eats fried Mars Bars and your country is full of junkies, etc." They will be hearing much more of this, especially from the Englidh media, as the campaigns gear up. And they will start asking themselves why, if the union is so great, they are so poor. All we have to do is tell them the truth.
Archonsod 说:
Oh, and of course there's an objection to Salmon's request that 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to vote. Which is kinda understandable, given 18 is the lowest age we've ever utilised for voting.
Well, 16 is the preferred voting age of both the Lib Dem and Labour parties in Scotland. Both parties have long had the lowering of the voting age as manifesto policies (but of course, typically, they have done absolutely **** all to implement it) - so it falls to the SNP to realise their dreams of a widened enfranchisement.
Watch the ****ers argue against it. It will be a good laugh. Like seeing Lib Dems arguing against Home Rule. Or justifying tuition fees.
Like a typical SNP, I need to hold off on the money side of things till later.
But trust me, Scotland pays a great deal more than it's fair share into the UK moneypot.
I am drunk now, and should sleep.
