SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scottish nationals have two supra-national citizenships. One is UK citizenship, the second is EU citizenship. In democratic referenda over the past two years, Scots have voted clearly to retain both citizenships.
Unfortunately it is not possible to respect both democratic decisions of the Scottish people, due to a vote by other nationalities. So where you have democratic decisions which cannot both be implemented, which does democracy demand should take precedence?
It is not a simple question. The vote to retain EU citizenship was more recent and carried a much larger majority than the earlier vote. In addition it was made crystal clear during the campaign that it may require the overturning of the earlier vote. So on these grounds I believe the most recent vote must, as an exercise in democracy, have precedence.
In these circumstances the announcement by the First Minister that she is initiating the procedure on a new referendum for Scottish independence from the UK, in order to retain Scottish membership of the EU, is a sensible step.
Source: Craig Murray
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by theluggage on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:58PM
What I find rather pathetic, even if completely expected, is the whining by the people who lost the referendum. Calling for a re-vote, because they simply cannot comprehend that that other people may actually hold an opposed - and yet equally valid - opinion.
Its the "equally valid" bit that's the sticking point: is it equally valid if it was based on a very clever, but manipulative campaign based on lies and whipping up anti-immigrant feeling? What if the people voting "leave" didn't think they were going to win, but just wanted to stick it to the government? Heck, I nearly gave in and wrote "piss off Osbourne" on my ballot paper after his juvenile threat to hold a snap austerity budget immediately after a Leave vote.
If you listen to the whining, it is mainly anger about the nature of the campaigns, on both sides. They remain campaign couldn't find anything positive to say about the EU at all - just their dubious extrapolations of doom from the (genuine but unquantified) risk to the economy. Now we're hearing about all the manufacturing industry that moved here to access the single market, now we're hearing about all the EU-funded development projects (often in the post-industrial areas with the biggest "out" votes). Worst of all, the Tories on either side of the debate spent the whole campaign insulting each other - which is far more interesting to the sensationalist press than any actual substantial arguments.
We certainly didn't hear any counters to the "Leave" argument that might be critical of the Tory government - even if the £350m/week "saving" had been true (it wasn't) there is no fucking chance in hell that a Tory would spend it on the health service when it could go to cutting higher rate taxes (...and yes, those leaflets explicitly, in large friendly letters on the front, that we send 350m a week to the EU which we could spend on the Health Service). The Leave campaigners are already back-pedaling on that one [bbc.co.uk]. Oh, and apparently Leave weren't saying that leaving would significantly reduce immigration [bbc.co.uk], either.
This is the problem - the decision is probably irreversible. It's not like electing a government which we can undo after 5 years. It should never have been put to a simple majority vote. 48% voted against. Several regions were strongly against.
Also, its becoming increasingly clear that even the Leave movement didn't expect to win and don't have a clue what to do next, certainly not how they're going to persuade Brussels to let us have our cake and eat it in terms of the single market (which their campaign relied on).
Trouble is - its not a straightforward decision. There are risks and problems with EU membership (the Euro has one foot in the grave and another on a banana skin, there are a raft of problems with free movement, border control and fair handling of genuine refugees that need EU-wide action) so, like all important decisions, its about risk management rather than some binary right/wrong judgement. The problem with a referendum is that it turns everything into an adversarial circus, where the winner is the side with the best speechwriters, not the best argument.
Its not as if even an independent UK is going to be immune if the EU goes titsup (heck, even the US markets took a dive yesterday) - and Brexit has just thrown a huge banana skin (and a bendy one at that) under the EU's feet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:43PM
B...bbbbut... can haz a Independence Day?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:28PM
I wrote: "...calling for a re-vote, because they simply cannot comprehend that that other people may actually hold an opposed - and yet equally valid - opinion."
theluggage replied: "What if the people voting "leave" didn't think they were going to win, but just wanted to stick it to the government?"
You're just making my point for me: You apparently cannot accept that the people voting to leave actually meant what they said. You're looking for some way - any way - to invalidate their opinion, to treat their votes as invalid.
- - -
theluggage also writes: "...manipulative campaign based on lies"
Which pretty much describes every political campaign ever, from the opponent's point of view.
- - -
Your objections mostly center on the idea that some (many? most?) voters on the Leave side did not take the vote seriously. On the other hand, as you point out, this is an important decision, much more irreversable than an ordinary election. Do you really think people didn't know that? Anyway, why do you think that the non-serious voters are only on one side of the issue?
There is just as much reason to suppose that some people voted Remain, not because it's the right choice, but because they are frightened of change. Certainly, that could be attributed to many young voters whose entire adult lives have been spent with the EU for company. Only older voters really know what life was like before the EU. Notably, older voters choose overwhelmingly to jettison the EU.
The one point I will agree with: A 50% threshold for such a serious decision is probably too low. On the other hand, this is a non-binding referendum, stating only a goal (but not how to achieve it), with no set time frame. What the government does, and how, and on what time-scale: this is where the professionals need to earn their pay.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday June 25 2016, @11:14PM
Your objections mostly center on the idea that some (many? most?) voters on the Leave side did not take the vote seriously.
No, some voters on the Leave side voted because they were (rightly or wrongly) concerned about immigration. The remain side told them not to be silly racists. The Leave side told them that leaving EU would lower immigration (something they are now back-pedalling on).
Some voters voted Leave for warm fuzzy buzzwords like "regain sovereignty", "take back control", "make Britain great again".
Some voters voted "Leave" because they wanted to the Government and (stupidly) PM Cameron and his sidekick Osbourne made themselves the face of the Remain campaign, rather than keeping the government neutral - before the vote, most people assumed that "remain" was going to win comfortably.
Some voters have never voted in a yes/no referendum before (we've only ever had 2 others, one was 40 years ago on the same subject, the other was about a change to the electoral system that nobody gave a shit about and they both went for the status quo by a much bigger margin) and are used to parliamentary elections in which, unless you are in a marginal constituency, individual votes don't count for much.
...and when the margin was only a couple of percent, you don't need "most" or "many" to swing the result - a few "somes" will do the job nicely.
There have been plenty of interviews on TV showing Leave voters who were surprised and, sometimes, a bit taken aback. Not least the leaders of the "Leave" campaign who now actually have to try to deliver what they rather carelessly promised.
There is just as much reason to suppose that some people voted Remain, not because it's the right choice, but because they are frightened of change.
...with good reason. Its one thing to be frightened about change and never take calculated risks, it's another thing to be frightened about a leap in the dark with no coherent plan hoping, fingers crossed, the EU will let us have our cake and eat it by staying in the single market without the obligations of EU membership... and no, I don't think some of the Leave voters understand why that is such an implausible, one-sided deal which would cause all the other EU members with strong industry to ask for the same terms.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:48PM
The thing is, I found out this week that half of the british people are idiots. It's still better than the US, but I was actually shocked. Even you, who seem to have a very good grasp of the bigger picture, say you considered voting in order to send a message to some politician rather than voting in order to choose the best long term status of your country.
It's very scary, because you guys have the BBC and the BBC seems, to me at least, as the most sane thing on TV in the world right now (well, I actually just read their website, and I can't say I have any idea about any news outlet that doesn't use english or romanian). If the UK people, with the BBC present, and with world class scientists and universities spread throughout the island, can be brainwashed into this state, what chance do the rest of us have?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:51PM
The thing is, I found out this week that half of the british people are idiots.
No, not idiots. Just people who were asked to make a difficult decision without the necessary information. The Leave campaign cynically addressed their fears and blamed them all on the EU, the Remain campaign bombarded them with patronising FUD and told them that immigrants pay lots of tax (but neglected to explain why the government hadn't used some of that tax to build the extra schools and hospitals etc. that the immigrants needed).
I've travelled to the continental EU (and the USA, for a glimpse of one alternative) - as part of my job, working with colleagues from those countries, not just to visit the local tourist spots. Strolled into countries that were enemy war zones when my parents were young, firmly behind the Iron Curtain (if they existed) and part of the Evil Empire when I was young. Now you don't even need to show a passport when you cross the borders by land - its wonderful. Even with Britain being outside the Shengen open-borders zone its just a wave of a passport when you first land (maybe you need to have stood for 2 hours in US immigration waiting to be fingerprinted and quizzed to really appreciate that). That's a privilege that many people haven't enjoyed or - if they have - its just been as a tourist (which isn't quite the same - it never feels quite real, and you're a customer to most people you meet).
... and, yeah, even I didn't find the decision a complete no-brainer. There are many, many things about the EU that need fixing - but we're not the only country that realises that now, and on reflection the one thing Leaving guarantees is that we won't now be able to play a part in fixing them - yet Europe is still reachable in a rowing boat.
But when I was much, much younger and I hadn't really set foot in another country, I'd have voted Leave, too. Funnily enough, the age profile seems to have reversed now - but then the young people are all having borderless conversations on social media.
It's very scary, because you guys have the BBC and the BBC seems, to me at least, as the most sane thing on TV in the world right now
Unfortunately, we also have a lot of right-wing newspapers who print endless sensational nonsense about the EU (and the EU does/says just enough genuinely stupid things to provide the necessary grain of truth).
...and the BBC are great, but BBC journalists are still journalists and will always let a headline about squabbling tories trading insults push any actual analysis down to the bottom of a page. They're also prone to "bias by balance" (making a minority opinion sound as if its a widely-held position) and "Headline Bias" (broadly balanced article, but with a one-sided headline).