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: 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.