Political Crossfire Forums

[SPOTTEDGREENDUCK]

thundertaker wrote: It doesn't take as long as someone from say, argentina. And you do realise that being australian resident in Britain means that you are qualified to vote in elections, stand for office, join the UK armed forces etc without having to become a citizen? Sadly, this is not reciprocated in Australia (unless you've been there since before 1984), but even so, being a commonwealth citizen gives you more rights and privileges in Britain than say, a Brazillian living in the UK....

Can I become an english bobbie?

[SPOTTEDGREENDUCK]

cassandrabandra wrote: thundertaker wrote:

Why? Do you realise how much it would cost to make the changeover to a republic, the arguments that would ensue as to what form the republic should take? What is the point? The Queen does not excercise any power of the Australian people, and I'm sure there are better things for the government to be thinking of than how to replace a purely symbolic head of state....

we can afford to do it now - our economy is looking very good. In the long run it would make very little difference ... the difference in cost between a governor general and a president is probably minimal to non existent. the debate over the form has been going on for a long time, and there seems to be a fairly good model, that would probably be acceptable.

In the past thundertaker, the majority of Australians were descended from your part of the world, but over the last few decades things are changing, those ties are weakening. I do not at all identify with England, my children less so. Our sense of humour is closer to the brits than the yanks, but it is also uniquely ours. We are ourselves.

Thats only because our immigration policy sux and we are letting the wrong people in. One in three aussies still has ties to the UK, I guarentee that Australia will not be a republic within 100 years. In the last referendum, it was the vast majority against the republic and those who do support a republic cannot agree on a model.

[Lucky Luke]

SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote:

Thats only because our immigration policy sux and we are letting the wrong people in. One in three aussies still has ties to the UK, I guarentee that Australia will not be a republic within 100 years. In the last referendum, it was the vast majority against the republic and those who do support a republic cannot agree on a model.

We have the same kind of problem in Scotland, it is not that Scottish people don't want independence but it is more that they can't agree on how to become independent.

I believe a referendum should be straight forward and not made a political issue attached to political parties, a free vote for all.

:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: We have the same kind of problem in Scotland, it is not that Scottish people don't want independence but it is more that they can't agree on how to become independent.
I'm sorry but that is BS. Support for independence has been hovering aound the 30-40% mark for years. Not that you should read too much into polls, but they do give a general indication of the public consensus.

I think most people would support more devolved power to Scotland, but for a fully independent Scotland you would need at the very least 60-65% in a referendum and, barring a huge swing in opinion, that just won't happen anytime soon.

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote:
I'm sorry but that is BS. Support for independence has been hovering aound the 30-40% mark for years. Not that you should read too much into polls, but they do give a general indication of the public consensus.

I think most people would support more devolved power to Scotland, but for a fully independent Scotland you would need at the very least 60-65% in a referendum and, barring a huge swing in opinion, that just won't happen anytime soon.

Your links proved my point Snow Patrol, both were taken after devolution which is widely regarded as half baked independence, look more precisely to this one and understand that Scotland without a choice of devolution would have gone for full independence:

Quote: Q8 If there were a referendum, would you vote for a devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom, as at present, or for a fully independent Scotland? %
Devolved Scotland (as at present) 49
Fully independent Scotland 38
Don't know 4
Would not vote 9


I believe a lot of Scots have moved from wishing the old status quo to now devolution just like some have moved from full independence to devolution for the time being.

87% of Scots are saying that Scotland is better off deciding for its own future on most issues, some people would have made you think that devolution would never work just like they are trying to tell us today that independence is not a good choice.

It won't take a long time before some Lib Dems and Labour MSP break ranks to ask for full independence. The Greens and the SSP have already moved to support the case for independence.

If the SNP had been allowed to make the case in the 70s that the discovery of oil in Scotland would make the country independence a great success devolution would have never been considered an option.
:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote:
I'm sorry but that is BS. Support for independence has been hovering aound the 30-40% mark for years. Not that you should read too much into polls, but they do give a general indication of the public consensus.

I think most people would support more devolved power to Scotland, but for a fully independent Scotland you would need at the very least 60-65% in a referendum and, barring a huge swing in opinion, that just won't happen anytime soon.

Your links proved my point Snow Patrol, both were taken after devolution which is widely regarded as half baked independence, look more precisely to this one and understand that Scotland without a choice of devolution would have gone for full independence:

Quote: Q8 If there were a referendum, would you vote for a devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom, as at present, or for a fully independent Scotland? %
Devolved Scotland (as at present) 49
Fully independent Scotland 38
Don't know 4
Would not vote 9
How did they prove your point in the slightest? Mmh?

In the example you quoted 38% of those said they would support full independence, that's not even a plurality nevermind the overwhelming majority that would be needed to win a referendum on independence. You seem to be assuming that the vast majority of people who voted for devolution, if given the straight choice between remaining devolved and independence, would vote for independence. Not only is that a very large assumption based on nothing but wild speculation on your part, but it is also highly unrealistic and no choice at all. Look at that example you quoted again: Devolution: 49%, Independence: 38%, people were given the choice between the two and they did not choose independence.

I also gave 2 links from after devolution because they are more indicative of current opinion, and that's what matters.

Lucky Luke wrote: I believe a lot of Scots have moved from wishing the old status quo to now devolution just like some have moved from full independence to devolution for the time being.

87% of Scots are saying that Scotland is better off deciding for its own future on most issues, some people would have made you think that devolution would never work just like they are trying to tell us today that independence is not a good choice.
Ignoring the fact you pulled this 87% figure out of your ass for a second. There is a huge difference between thinking Scotland is better off making it's own decisions on most issues and supporting full independence. For example i and most people i know would say that Scotland is better deciding on most issues by itself (after all 74.3% voted for it in 1997), but are against independence.

Lucky Luke wrote: It won't take a long time before some Lib Dems and Labour MSP break ranks to ask for full independence. The Greens and the SSP have already moved to support the case for independence.
Irrelevent, it would be decided via referendum, not by the Scottish Parliament. Also the Greens and SSP are relatively new parties who are cashing in on dwindling support for SNP, independence is only one of many parts of their manifesto and to be honest it is pretty much a prerequisite for their other policies anyway.

Lucky Luke wrote: If the SNP had been allowed to make the case in the 70s that the discovery of oil in Scotland would make the country independence a great success devolution would have never been considered an option.
The SNP did make the case for independence in the 70's, they achieved 30.4% (11 seats) of the Scottish vote in the general election of October 1974 and achieved nothing while never again winning such a high share of the vote. There was also a referendum in 1979 about the creation of a Scottish assembly and the "yes" vote barely scraped 51.6%, which combined with low turnout meant that under 40% of the electorate supported devolution and the whole thing was scrapped.

SNP has since been in decline both in number of seats at the Scottish parliament and in share of the popular vote, replaced by the Lib Dems as the second largest party in Scotland at the last general election.

Now look, I believe that at some point in the future Scotland will become independent, but that is not what you said. You alluded to the people of Scotland almost unquestionably being in favour of independence and at the moment that just is not true.

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote:
How did they prove your point in the slightest? Mmh?

In the example you quoted 38% of those said they would support full independence, that's not even a plurality nevermind the overwhelming majority that would be needed to win a referendum on independence. You seem to be assuming that the vast majority of people who voted for devolution, if given the straight choice between remaining devolved and independence, would vote for independence. Not only is that a very large assumption based on nothing but wild speculation on your part, but it is also highly unrealistic and no choice at all. Look at that example you quoted again: Devolution: 49%, Independence: 38%, people were given the choice between the two and they did not choose independence.

I also gave 2 links from after devolution because they are more indicative of current opinion, and that's what matters.

Lucky Luke wrote: I believe a lot of Scots have moved from wishing the old status quo to now devolution just like some have moved from full independence to devolution for the time being.

87% of Scots are saying that Scotland is better off deciding for its own future on most issues, some people would have made you think that devolution would never work just like they are trying to tell us today that independence is not a good choice.
Ignoring the fact you pulled this 87% figure out of your ass for a second. There is a huge difference between thinking Scotland is better off making it's own decisions on most issues and supporting full independence. For example i and most people i know would say that Scotland is better deciding on most issues by itself (after all 74.3% voted for it in 1997), but are against independence.

Lucky Luke wrote: It won't take a long time before some Lib Dems and Labour MSP break ranks to ask for full independence. The Greens and the SSP have already moved to support the case for independence.
Irrelevent, it would be decided via referendum, not by the Scottish Parliament. Also the Greens and SSP are relatively new parties who are cashing in on dwindling support for SNP, independence is only of many parts of their manifesto and to be honest it is pretty much a prerequisite for their other policies anyway.

Lucky Luke wrote: If the SNP had been allowed to make the case in the 70s that the discovery of oil in Scotland would make the country independence a great success devolution would have never been considered an option.
The SNP did make the case for independence in the 70's, they achieved 30.4% (11 seats) of the Scottish vote in the general election of October 1974 and achieved nothing while never again winning such a high share of the vote. There was also a referendum in 1979 about the creation of a Scottish assembly and the "yes" vote barely scraped 51.6%, which combined with low turnout meant that under 40% of the electorate supported devolution and the whole thing was scrapped.

SNP has since been in decline both in number of seats at the Scottish parliament and in share of the popular vote, replaced by the Lib Dems as the second largest party in Scotland at the last general election.

Now look, I believe that at some point in the future Scotland will become independent, but that is not what you said. You alluded to the people of Scotland almost unquestionably being in favour of independence and at the moment that just is not true.

87% is the total of people in Scotland who choose devolution to stay in Scotland with the ones who want full independence from your own link not my ass Snow Patrol.

My point was very clear like in Australia the choice of full independence has never been given from the outset, when Labour discovered that Scotland will become independent they quickly opted for devolution to deny independence to Scotland just like they did in the referendum in 1979 when they lied about the profit that oil could bring to an independent Scotland. Without the lie the 51.6% would have become 70 to 80%. Anyway Snow Patrol one would have thought that anything over 50% is a majority in any democratic society.

Expect the next move of the Unionists to give Scotland more devolution but to make sure that the pound and the Queen remains. You seem to think that London should be allowed to change the rules each time Scotland comes closer to full independence, I strongly disagree the 74.3% of Scots who voted for devolution with me in 1997 are certainly not all against full independence Snow Patrol. I claim that without devolution most would have voted for full independence just like I would have.

:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: 87% is the total of people in Scotland who choose devolution to stay in Scotland with the ones who want full independence from your own link not my ass Snow Patrol.
Ok sorry, didn't connect that there. Although that still proves my point, people were given the choice between independence and devolution and they chose devolution by a wide margin. Even though this is only a poll and is in know way an accurate reflection of public opinion as a whole, none of them show the kind of margins required in a referendum to gain independence.

Lucky Luke wrote: My point was very clear like in Australia the choice of full independence has never been given from the outset,
Australia is already a fully independent country with it's own monarchy, just so happens their monarch is the same as ours. They had a referendum to become a republic in 1999 and they voted against it. Scotland is not an independent state, there is no real comparison to make.

Lucky Luke wrote: when Labour discovered that Scotland will become independent they quickly opted for devolution to deny independence to Scotland just like they did in the referendum in 1979 when they lied about the profit that oil could bring to an independent Scotland. Without the lie the 51.6% would have become 70 to 80%. Anyway Snow Patrol one would have thought that anything over 50% is a majority in any democratic society.
Well the SNP campaigned almost solely on Scottish independence in the '70's and never achieved more than that 30.4% of the Scottish vote. There was no straight vote on independence because there was not enough support for it. There had been no real significant interest in Scottish independence since the last Jacobite rising in 1745 and even then there was not enough. As was evidenced from the fact the SNP did bugger all after that one off in October 1974 and the failure of the referendum in 1979.

As for the referendum in 79, well turn out was only 63 odd percent and barely half of that voted in favour of devolution, so that would be less than 40% of the electorate deciding on a major lasting political and historical change that would effect the whole of the country. So no, it was right for it to be denied. If the majority of people really wanted devolution at the time they should've got off their arses and voted for it.

Growth and majority support for devolution happened because of Thatcher, Scotland is generally a centre-left country and we did not vote for the Tory's but were forced to suffer their rule. So more people wanted us to have more power to manage our own affairs, but this has never reached a widespread support for full independence and we haven't been denied it. Even Thatcher said she would not stand in the way of it if it was the will of the people.

Lucky Luke wrote: Expect the next move of the Unionists to give Scotland more devolution but to make sure that the pound and the Queen remains.
The majority of Scottish people favour further devolution, not full independence. Whether you like it or not.

Edit in previous post was for dodgy spelling.

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: 87% is the total of people in Scotland who choose devolution to stay in Scotland with the ones who want full independence from your own link not my ass Snow Patrol.
Ok sorry, didn't connect that there. Although that still proves my point, people were given the choice between independence and devolution and they chose devolution by a wide margin. Even though this is only a poll and is in know way an accurate reflection of public opinion as a whole, none of them show the kind of margins required in a referendum to gain independence.

Lucky Luke wrote: My point was very clear like in Australia the choice of full independence has never been given from the outset,
Australia is already a fully independent country with it's own monarchy, just so happens their monarch is the same as ours. They had a referendum to become a republic in 1999 and they voted against it. Scotland is not an independent state, there is no real comparison to make.

Lucky Luke wrote: when Labour discovered that Scotland will become independent they quickly opted for devolution to deny independence to Scotland just like they did in the referendum in 1979 when they lied about the profit that oil could bring to an independent Scotland. Without the lie the 51.6% would have become 70 to 80%. Anyway Snow Patrol one would have thought that anything over 50% is a majority in any democratic society.
Well the SNP campaigned almost solely on Scottish independence in the '70's and never achieved more than that 30.4% of the Scottish vote. There was no straight vote on independence because there was not enough support for it. There had been no real significant interest in Scottish independence since the last Jacobite rising in 1745 and even then there was not enough. As was evidenced from the fact the SNP did bugger all after that one off in October 1974 and the failure of the referendum in 1979.

As for the referendum in 79, well turn out was only 63 odd percent and barely half of that voted in favour of devolution, so that would be less than 40% of the electorate deciding on a major lasting political and historical change that would effect the whole of the country. So no, it was right for it to be denied. If the majority of people really wanted devolution at the time they should've got off their arses and voted for it.

Growth and majority support for devolution happened because of Thatcher, Scotland is generally a centre-left country and we did not vote for the Tory's but were forced to suffer their rule. So more people wanted us to have more power to manage our own affairs, but this has never reached a widespread support for full independence and we haven't been denied it. Even Thatcher said she would not stand in the way of it if it was the will of the people.

Lucky Luke wrote: Expect the next move of the Unionists to give Scotland more devolution but to make sure that the pound and the Queen remains.
The majority of Scottish people favour further devolution, not full independence. Whether you like it or not.

Edit in previous post was for dodgy spelling.

I think you are missing my point still Snow Patrol even if we have the same taste in music.

Devolution was never an option before the SNP was gaining votes on wanting Scotland to become fully independent. I am afraid that we are victims of the same people in the 70's who changed the rules and the goals on what or how we should vote.

Had devolution never been proposed and the findings of a research made in the 70's about the benefit of the oil revenue to an independent Scotland released Scotland would be independent today, no doubt.

As for democratic elections I never heard of any where a minimum of people have to participate before a majority of voters can have their way, this is indeed very undemocratic. 63% of voters turning out is considered very good nowadays Snow Patrol and more than 50% is a majority in any polls.

We were robbed.

Australians should not be given a choice of several types of Republic but a clear choice on keeping the Queen the head of state or not, then they can decide what Republic they should have.

Introducing a multiple of choices can result in denying the voters a real choice when voting on a single issue.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: ............
The majority of Scottish people favour further devolution, not full independence. Whether you like it or not.

Edit in previous post was for dodgy spelling.

BTW I wasn't given the choice of voting between full independence and devolution last time round but to choose between the status quo and two forms of devolution when it was full independence that I wanted. I was robbed.

:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: Devolution was never an option before the SNP was gaining votes on wanting Scotland to become fully independent. I am afraid that we are victims of the same people in the 70's who changed the rules and the goals on what or how we should vote.

Had devolution never been proposed and the findings of a research made in the 70's about the benefit of the oil revenue to an independent Scotland released Scotland would be independent today, no doubt.
Read what i said above, devolution was not an option before the '70s because there was no real significant demand for it. There were some home rule bills proposed in the House of Commons prior to the first world war, but they didn't receive much backing and got nowhere.

I see your point, i saw your point in the first place and as i said it's BS. You think that in the '70's, if people were given a straight vote on independence or remaining governed from Westminister they would've voted in favour of independence. This assumption is based on nothing but wild speculation on your part. SNP reached a peak of 30.4% of the vote in 1974 and the referendum on a Scottish assembly was a failure. Support for devolution in itself did not grow to majority levels until the '80's at the earliest and there is still no plurality, let alone majority support for independence to this day.

I've heard a number of SNP supporters try this line of reasoning before. That given the full disclosure of the extent of the discovery of oil and gas in the North sea, that Scotland would've desired to claim it all and public opinion would've swung dramatically in favour of independence. However this is backed up by no evidence whatsoever, it's all fanciful notion and hopeful speculation.

I'm sorry but you're whole premise is BS.

Lucky Luke wrote: As for democratic elections I never heard of any where a minimum of people have to participate before a majority of voters can have their way, this is indeed very undemocratic. 63% of voters turning out is considered very good nowadays Snow Patrol and more than 50% is a majority in any polls.

We were robbed.
On elections yes, on referendums for issues of this magnitude it is not.

This is not an election, this is a referendum, there is a difference. There are restrictions on minimum turnout and winning margin placed on referendums all the time.

It's too make sure a majority of electorate actually supports it, not just a slight majority of those who voted. As i said if they people really desired it at the time they would've got their arses and voted. It doesn't matter what way you spin it, the people at the time did not want devolution let alone independence.

Lucky Luke wrote: Australians should not be given a choice of several types of Republic but a clear choice on keeping the Queen the head of state or not, then they can decide what Republic they should have.

Introducing a multiple of choices can result in denying the voters a real choice when voting on a single issue.
The Australians decided of their own volition at a conference beforehand of what exactly would constitute the referendum question, if they voted against it for the wrong reasons that's their problem. No offence Australians, but personally i couldn't care. :wink:

If there really was widespread public support for becoming a republic they could force another referendum and vote for it, same as in Scotland.

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: ............
The majority of Scottish people favour further devolution, not full independence. Whether you like it or not.

Edit in previous post was for dodgy spelling.
BTW I wasn't given the choice of voting between full independence and devolution last time round but to choose between the status quo and two forms of devolution when it was full independence that I wanted. I was robbed.

:-D
:-D
Exactly, because there was nowhere near enough public demand for full indepedence in 1997 and there still isn't. Why bother including a useless and devisive option that has no chance of passing, just to assuade a minority of people like your good self.

There is not enough support for indepedence at the moment and barring a major shift in the public opinion then the SNP is going nowhere fast as well. If you have actual evidence to refute this please provide it.

[thundertaker]

SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: thundertaker wrote: It doesn't take as long as someone from say, argentina. And you do realise that being australian resident in Britain means that you are qualified to vote in elections, stand for office, join the UK armed forces etc without having to become a citizen? Sadly, this is not reciprocated in Australia (unless you've been there since before 1984), but even so, being a commonwealth citizen gives you more rights and privileges in Britain than say, a Brazillian living in the UK....

Can I become an english bobbie?

Sure, I think Joel from neighbours did... :lol:

You can apply to join the police if you have no criminal record, are physically fit and are a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen, so yes, you could.

It's often the other way around though, Australia and New Zealand have a policy of advertising over here to recruit British Police Officers, amongst other key workers......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,12070,1550342,00.html

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Devolution was never an option before the SNP was gaining votes on wanting Scotland to become fully independent. I am afraid that we are victims of the same people in the 70's who changed the rules and the goals on what or how we should vote.

Had devolution never been proposed and the findings of a research made in the 70's about the benefit of the oil revenue to an independent Scotland released Scotland would be independent today, no doubt.
Read what i said above, devolution was not an option before the '70s because there was no real significant demand for it. There were some home rule bills proposed in the House of Commons prior to the first world war, but they didn't receive much backing and got nowhere.

I see your point, i saw your point in the first place and as i said it's BS. You think that in the '70's, if people were given a straight vote on independence or remaining governed from Westminister they would've voted in favour of independence. This assumption is based on nothing but wild speculation on your part. SNP reached a peak of 30.4% of the vote in 1974 and the referendum on a Scottish assembly was a failure. Support for devolution in itself did not grow to majority levels until the '80's at the earliest and there is still no plurality, let alone majority support for independence to this day.

I've heard a number of SNP supporters try this line of reasoning before. That given the full disclosure of the extent of the discovery of oil and gas in the North sea, that Scotland would've desired to claim it all and public opinion would've swung dramatically in favour of independence. However this is backed up by no evidence whatsoever, it's all fanciful notion and hopeful speculation.

I'm sorry but you're whole premise is BS.

Lucky Luke wrote: As for democratic elections I never heard of any where a minimum of people have to participate before a majority of voters can have their way, this is indeed very undemocratic. 63% of voters turning out is considered very good nowadays Snow Patrol and more than 50% is a majority in any polls.

We were robbed.
On elections yes, on referendums for issues of this magnitude it is not.

This is not an election, this is a referendum, there is a difference. There are restrictions on minimum turnout and winning margin placed on referendums all the time.

It's too make sure a majority of electorate actually supports it, not just a slight majority of those who voted. As i said if they people really desired it at the time they would've got their arses and voted. It doesn't matter what way you spin it, the people at the time did not want devolution let alone independence.

Lucky Luke wrote: Australians should not be given a choice of several types of Republic but a clear choice on keeping the Queen the head of state or not, then they can decide what Republic they should have.

Introducing a multiple of choices can result in denying the voters a real choice when voting on a single issue.
The Australians decided of their own volition at a conference beforehand of what exactly would constitute the referendum question, if they voted against it for the wrong reasons that's their problem. No offence Australians, but personally i couldn't care. :wink:

If there really was widespread public support for becoming a republic they could force another referendum and vote for it, same as in Scotland.

They were no support for devolution but for independence and yet it wasn't put out to the voters, instead they were lied to by the government in London, that you cannot deny Snow Patrol and yet you feel Scotland was not robbed?!?!?

The people at the time voted democratically for an assembly, more than 50% of the voters did and yet they were denied. Again this is not BS but facts. Scotland was democratically robbed. A majority of voters is a majority of voters in any elections it is good enough but not in this one and yet you think it was ok, I don't.

Devolution and the mode of electing the MSPs has considerably weaken the two main parties, again Labour has fought back the main threat of Scotland becoming fully independent this way for obvious reasons, without Scotland Labour would struggle to keep power in London.

There is a widespread support in Scotland and in Australia for change but the people have been denied by all kinds of ways, the crazy thing about it is that we all agree that it is inevitable that it will happen one day, what are we waiting for?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: ............
The majority of Scottish people favour further devolution, not full independence. Whether you like it or not.

Edit in previous post was for dodgy spelling.
BTW I wasn't given the choice of voting between full independence and devolution last time round but to choose between the status quo and two forms of devolution when it was full independence that I wanted. I was robbed.

:-D
:-D
Exactly, because there was nowhere near enough public demand for full indepedence in 1997 and there still isn't. Why bother including a useless and devisive option that has no chance of passing, just to assuade a minority of people like your good self.

There is not enough support for indepedence at the moment and barring a major shift in the public opinion then the SNP is going nowhere fast as well. If you have actual evidence to refute this please provide it.

The main opposition in Scotland is the SNP, the party for independence how can you claim that there is no support for an independent Scotland Snow Patrol?
Do we have to wait for Labour to decide if we are allowed a referendum on independence? They will never accept it unless they break away from the English Labour movement.

I very much disagree with you that only people voting for the SNP want independence, a lot of Scottish people are voting Labour but still would love the opportunity to vote for an independent Scotland in a referendum.

:-D
:-D

[cassandrabandra]

SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: Thats only because our immigration policy sux and we are letting the wrong people in. One in three aussies still has ties to the UK, I guarentee that Australia will not be a republic within 100 years. In the last referendum, it was the vast majority against the republic and those who do support a republic cannot agree on a model.

in the referendum a lot of people didn't vote. Unlike our elections it was not compulsory. The wording of the referendum was problematic also, and this was pointed out and discussed ad infinitum. The referendum was NOT about whether we should be a republic or not, but what model of republic we should have.

we won't be tied to the british crown in 100 years - britain may well be a republic by then.

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: They were no support for devolution but for independence and yet it wasn't put out to the voters, instead they were lied to by the government in London, that you cannot deny Snow Patrol and yet you feel Scotland was not robbed?!?!?
How was there no support for devolution, yet support for independence? Keep your conspiracy theory crap to yourself, it's just a vehicle for your denial of the fact that the majority of Scottish people do not support independence.

Lucky Luke wrote: The people at the time voted democratically for an assembly, more than 50% of the voters did and yet they were denied. Again this is not BS but facts. Scotland was democratically robbed. A majority of voters is a majority of voters in any elections it is good enough but not in this one and yet you think it was ok, I don't.
So you ignore the fact that elections and referenda are different. By your reckoning if 3 people voted and 2 of them for independence then the entire country is stuck with independence based on the decisions of 2 people, an extreme example i know but it is a simple and effective way of highlighting my point.

A lasting decision of this magnitude that will effect everyone can not be made by a majority of those who bother to vote, it requires a majority of the electorate or at least a reasonable plurality. Hence the 40% margin in the 1979 referendum on devolution. Again if there had been support for it they should've got up and voted for it.

Lucky Luke wrote: Devolution and the mode of electing the MSPs has considerably weaken the two main parties, again Labour has fought back the main threat of Scotland becoming fully independent this way for obvious reasons, without Scotland Labour would struggle to keep power in London.
Labour support devolution, not independence, the majority of Scottish people consistently vote for Labour over the SNP. Their relative positions on the issue have been well known for years.

Lucky Luke wrote: There is a widespread support in Scotland and in Australia for change but the people have been denied by all kinds of ways, the crazy thing about it is that we all agree that it is inevitable that it will happen one day, what are we waiting for?
There is no widespread support for independence in Scotland, you've failed to prove it at any juncture. I've shown you that at no point in modern history has there been this widespread support for Scottish independence you consistently claim but can't prove.

Not everyone see's it as inevitable and just because i think it will happen at some point in the future means i need to agree with it. It's inevitable that we will all die, why not just die right now, what are we waiting for? :roll:

I couldn't give a s**t about Australia, that's their problem, not mine.

Now please refrain from replying with the same unsubstantiated repetitive crap over and over again. Repeating stuff you wish was true doesn't necessarily make it so. If you bring repeat the same stuff again you will be ignored.

[Lucky Luke]

cassandrabandra wrote: SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: Thats only because our immigration policy sux and we are letting the wrong people in. One in three aussies still has ties to the UK, I guarentee that Australia will not be a republic within 100 years. In the last referendum, it was the vast majority against the republic and those who do support a republic cannot agree on a model.

in the referendum a lot of people didn't vote. Unlike our elections it was not compulsory. The wording of the referendum was problematic also, and this was pointed out and discussed ad infinitum. The referendum was NOT about whether we should be a republic or not, but what model of republic we should have.

we won't be tied to the british crown in 100 years - britain may well be a republic by then.

My point exactly why trying to prevent the inevitable by changing the rules to suit a status quo?

I really believe that a more simply worded referendum in Australia would have ended the reign of the English Queen over Australia.
:-D
:-D

[thundertaker]

The Queen is actually more scottish than English, her mum was scottish, and her father's side had the usual mix of every royal house of europe. And, like her great-grandmother queen victoria, she prefers being at balmoral to Buckingham palace.
Then there is the matter of the Scottish King taking over the Kingdom of England back in 1603, not the other way around.

And it would take a major MAJOR scandal to destroy the monarchy in Britian. Something along the lines of the monarch being personally involved in murder or sexual deviance.

Only a die-hard minority here would have Britain a republic. Most either broadly support the monarchy or couldn't give a toss either way. Sorry citizens...... :twisted:

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: The main opposition in Scotland is the SNP, the party for independence how can you claim that there is no support for an independent Scotland Snow Patrol?
Yes, 26 seats in a 129 seat Parliament, some opposition. Down 9 seats on their previous Scottish parliamentry election showing. Pushed into second place in terms of both popular vote and number of seats in Scotland by the Lib Dems at the last general election, pushed into 3rd or even 4th place in many constituancies.

Lucky Luke wrote: Do we have to wait for Labour to decide if we are allowed a referendum on independence? They will never accept it unless they break away from the English Labour movement.
If there was a big enough desire for it there would be a referendum, there isn't so there is not. I don't see people voting for the parties that support indepedence either

Lucky Luke wrote: I very much disagree with you that only people voting for the SNP want independence, a lot of Scottish people are voting Labour but still would love the opportunity to vote for an independent Scotland in a referendum.
Would you please show me where i said only poeple who support the SNP want indepedence? The rest is the same as most of your posts on this subject wild hopeful speculation on your part.