Second Scottish Independence Referendum

[AlterEgo]

Anyway, how about Scottish independence then? Changing the subject.

 

[meridian2]

Anyway, how about Scottish independence then? Changing the subject.

Dunno, has anything come from the SNP today?

 

[me123]

I didn't say Christianity has a monopoly on democracy, I'm well aware of its classical roots. I'm arguing that Christian democracies offer exemplary freedom of thought and action through uniquely Christian principles, which are unappreciated, ignored or scorned.

You did actually say that Christianity is required for pluralistic democracy. If that's not what you intended, I suggest proof reading your posts.

And what Christian principles do you think are essential to offer "exemplary freedom of thought and action" in parliamentary democracy? I'd also like you to explain why the principles you choose are uniquely Christian.

The House of Lords contains expert opinion in a number of areas, one of which is theology and ethics. That does not make parliament a theocracy, but it offers checks against the self interest of here today, gone tomorrow politicians and the political secularists offering materialist metaphysics as panacea. The balance of forces is imperfect but works to protect the rights of the individual, something the alternatives do not.

I, and many others, disagree strongly with many of the doctrines of the Church of England. They do not protect the rights of the individual, they are in place solely to serve the interests of their church. At a tenuous push, one could argue that they represent the interests of the 20%[1] of people who identify as members of the Church of England, but that still does not represent the interests of the 80% of us who are not. As an example, take their rejection of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill of 2013. This does not protect the rights of the individual - it restricts the rights of the individual in accordance with religious doctrine. The bill passed anyway, but the Lords Spiritual stood in its way.

[1]British Social Attitudes Survey

 

[meridian2]

You did actually say that Christianity is required for pluralistic democracy. If that's not what you intended, I suggest proof reading your posts.

And what Christian principles do you think are essential to offer "exemplary freedom of thought and action" in parliamentary democracy? I'd also like you to explain why the principles you choose are uniquely Christian.



I, and many others, disagree strongly with many of the doctrines of the Church of England. They do not protect the rights of the individual, they are in place solely to serve the interests of their church. At a tenuous push, one could argue that they represent the interests of the 20%[1] of people who identify as members of the Church of England, but that still does not represent the interests of the 80% of us who are not. As an example, take their rejection of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill of 2013. This does not protect the rights of the individual - it restricts the rights of the individual in accordance with religious doctrine. The bill passed anyway, but the Lords Spiritual stood in its way.

[1]British Social Attitudes Survey

To avoid derailing the thread further I offered my views in the marriage thread, a moderator split from the EU referendum thread. I'm not a member of the CofE but I consider religious representation an essential part of the political mix, and not only to protect the rights of practicing Christians.

 

[me123]

If you're not going to answer a perfectly reasonable question, then let's agree to end it here. But my question still stands - which uniquely Christian principles offer "exemplary freedom of thought and action" in a parliamentary democracy?

 

[Barn]

If you're not going to answer a perfectly reasonable question, then let's agree to end it here. But my question still stands - which uniquely Christian principles offer "exemplary freedom of thought and action" in a parliamentary democracy?

What proportion of countries offering those things have a broadly Christian heritage?

 

[meridian2]

If you're not going to answer a perfectly reasonable question, then let's agree to end it here. But my question still stands - which uniquely Christian principles offer "exemplary freedom of thought and action" in a parliamentary democracy?

The Sermon on the Mount covers most of it. Enshrine those principles in law and you have justice.

 

[najaB]

What proportion of countries offering those things have a broadly Christian heritage?

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[najaB]

The Sermon on the Mount covers most of it. Enshrine those principles in law and you have justice.

What was that you were saying a while back about Islamists wanting to impose Sharia law? I've a pot here, what colour is your kettle?

 

[Barn]

Correlation does not imply causation.

That's true, najaB, but strong correlation does support further inquiry. My suspicion is that it's just easier to post that and not think about it further.

 

[meridian2]

What was that you were saying a while back about Islamists wanting to impose Sharia law? I've a pot here, what colour is your kettle?

I would argue the principles espoused in the SoM, and Sharia Law (or indeed the metaphysics of sceptical materialism) are of an entirely different order.
edit: I'm pretty sure someone else brought up Sharia Law, but whatever.

 

[Barn]

The trouble with believing that all cultures are equal as a matter of immutable dogma is that one discounts the possibility of human development unless it coincidentally takes place everywhere in the world simultaneously.

 

[najaB]

That's true, najaB, but strong correlation does support further inquiry. My suspicion is that it's just easier to post that and not think about it further.

My suspicion is that the same factors that lead to the development of democracy also lead to the development of what we term 'Christian' principles. One is not necessary for the other - for a *very* long time the Christian world was anything but democratic (unless being put to death for expressing dissent with the opinion of the ruling class is considered democratic).

 

[me123]

The Sermon on the Mount covers most of it. Enshrine those principles in law and you have justice.

There's a lot in the Sermon on the Mount. Which principles would you like to enshrine in law? All of it? (I was quite tempted to pick some specific examples, but then you'd claim that I was putting words into your mouth again, so I'll let you pick which parts you like, or if you want to go for the whole lot then feel free).

I would argue the principles espoused in the SoM, and Sharia Law (or indeed the metaphysics of sceptical materialism) are of an entirely different order.
edit: I'm pretty sure someone else brought up Sharia Law, but whatever.

The principles may differ, but the imposition of religious law into the lives of everyone is wrong, regardless of where it comes from. Most people on here would disagree with the imposition of Sharia (and I'd agree with them), but it's equally wrong to impose laws from Christianity. Or, for that matter, any other religious belief.

 

[Barn]

My suspicion is that the same factors that lead to the development of democracy also lead to the development of what we term 'Christian' principles. One is not necessary for the other - for a *very* long time the Christian world was anything but democratic (unless being put to death for expressing dissent with the opinion of the ruling class is considered democratic).

The question isn't really whether every Christian regime is or has been democratic. The better question is whether, when designing our current Western society, our forebears thought they were expressing their Christian faith.

 

[meridian2]

There's a lot in the Sermon on the Mount. Which principles would you like to enshrine in law? All of it? (I was quite tempted to pick some specific examples, but then you'd claim that I was putting words into your mouth again, so I'll let you pick which parts you like, or if you want to go for the whole lot then feel free).



The principles may differ, but the imposition of religious law into the lives of everyone is wrong, regardless of where it comes from. Most people on here would disagree with the imposition of Sharia (and I'd agree with them), but it's equally wrong to impose laws from Christianity. Or, for that matter, any other religious belief.

Happy to discuss these issues on another thread if you'd care to start one. We may both believe they are directly applicable to aspects of Scottish independence, but based on precedent I don't think the moderators or many other participants agree, so your offer to close the exchange here is one I'll accept.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've started a new thread about it.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=144080

 

[chris11256]

Interesting poll on Sky News this morning puts May several points above Sturgeon.

This was based on whether people thought they were doing a good job. 2000 Scottish addresses were asked in the week after Strurgeons announcement.

 

[PaulLothian]

Interesting poll on Sky News this morning puts May several points above Sturgeon.

This was based on whether people thought they were doing a good job. 2000 Scottish addresses were asked in the week after Strurgeons announcement.

I thinks we might want to see more information before deciding how much credibility (if any) it has. I gather that this was an online poll, conducted by sky, and using its own paying customers as respondents. (Source for this - 'Scot Goes Pop' (21st March 2017), which appears to have heard more from the person who organised the 'poll' - http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/).

Does appear counter-intuitive by any measure used - at last year's Scottish parliamentary election, over 47% of constituency votes went to pro-Independence candidates, and the Party list vote was just over 48%. While there may be some SNP voters who do not actually want independence, there are also some members of the pro-Union parties who do support independence. I find it hard to imagine that too many of these people feel Sturgeon is doing a particularly bad job.

Conversely, a number of my pro-Union friends and relatives in both England and Scotland consider that May is leading the UK to financial ruin. I have not so far met anyone in Scotland who considers she is doing a good job.

 

[chris11256]

Haven't read much into the poll personally. Quickly read it on my phone this morning and thought it was interesting. Although completely unsurprising that a pro independence blog disagrees with it.

Just to add that personally I hope Scotland stays. I believe that it's the best chance of getting a better deal leaving the EU(sorry for any thread crossover but its relevant). I fear that without Scotland's voice we're going to crash & burn out of the EU.

Either way the Holyrood debate is today & tomorrow with the result is expected tomorrow.

 

[me123]

Interesting poll on Sky News this morning puts May several points above Sturgeon.

I struggle to believe that. Is this another one of Sky's polls that uses a selective demographic? They've previously used samples of their own subscribers, which is not exactly a representative population. It would be interesting to see who they've asked and how they've asked it. Do you have a link anywhere?

 

[Railops]

http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-doing-better-job-than-nicola-sturgeon-scottish-poll-10809174

More Scots think Theresa May is doing a better job than Nicola Sturgeon, an online poll for Sky News has found.

The Sky Data survey of more than 2,000 people with registered addresses in Scotland put the Prime Minister's approval rating at six percentage points higher than Scotland's First Minister.

 

[me123]

They haven't published their raw data as far as I can see, but I remain skeptical. As I've said, we've already seen Sky use polling of their own subscribers rather than of a truly representative sample.

If I'm going to nitpick - the sample weren't asked to compare who was doing a better job, they were asked why they thought about the individuals. (I suppose this is true of all the voting companies who use this kind of data, in all fairness, but it's not a great comparison).

 

[kermit]

Was it a coincidence that on the day Theresa May went to Scotland to tell Nicola Sturgeon; "Now is Not the Time for a Second Referendum" (NB - "telling" Scottish people what they can and cannot do is a famously effective approach if you want to bolster your popularity in Scotland), a discovery was announced of 1 Billion Barrels of oil off Shetland?

The oil industry is not noted for its sentimentality or lack of willingness to engage in politics. Given the way this announcement is likely to play out (bolstering the independence case), could it be that they have seen the writing on the wall, and want to be ahead of the game in the medium term with a new, independent Scottish government?

 

[HSTEd]

a discovery was announced of 1 Billion Barrels of oil off Shetland?

The oil industry is not noted for its sentimentality or lack of willingness to engage in politics. Given the way this announcement is likely to play out (bolstering the independence case), could it be that they have seen the writing on the wall, and want to be ahead of the game in the medium term with a new, independent Scottish government?

This announcement is largely irrelevant as it is highly unlikely that this resource will be significantly economic at $50/bbl.
Certainly considering many North Sea fields have operating costs approaching that level to start with [estimate of $42/bbl].
And this field is in the open Atlantic with little or nothing to shelter it.
The possible royalties from this field are tiny.

 

[KN1]

.....

 

[317 forever]

Obviously the SNP want independence but want to maximise the chance of a successful referendum. The chance of them winning a referendum is reduced if the electorate don't have to worry about a hard Brexit. If Sturgeon appears to have secured a soft Brexit for Scotland (and the rest of us), whilst that won't help the independence cause in the short term, that may well get brownie points for her and the SNP will look good as it will seem as if they have put the country above their political ambition. That may help a referendum bid in the future.

If indeed a hard Brexit is on the cards, then the independence cause is made much stronger and therefore the SNP would be silly not to have a referendum.

Taking this further, Nicola doesn't really want IndyRef2 just yet. Polls do not conclusively point to the public wanting the referendum and voting Independence yet. Nicola just wants Westminster to be seen to be blocking the referendum so that she can use this to further the SNP independence cause.

 

[317 forever]

As things stand the British government has one of its kingdoms working for independence, and against centralised rule. That's a valid political tool, but let's recognise it for what it is and not frame in general altruism. What's "good" for Britain is "bad" for an independent Scottish nation by definition, and the SNP will seek leverage in every political fault line. It's an untenable situation for the status quo and cannot continue.

The SNP see the Brexit vote as an opportunity to achieve its goals, and the European issue is secondary in my opinion. Had the UK voted to Remain and the Scots voted overwhelmingly Out, the SNP would be making the same arguments that its voters were out of step and should therefor determine their own future. The problem Scotland faces is in it's reasonable aspiration for independent nationhood it risks isolation, and an uncertain economic future, perils it is clearly prepared to accept for the wider goal. Curious then that it criticises the Westminster government for wanting independence with similar potential hazards. Both are essentially populist movements based on sentiment. Until separation is implemented there will be no way of knowing the reality for either, but separate they will.

What if Scotland had voted heavily Remain and swung a minor Leave vote in England & Wales into a minor Remain vote across the UK? Would Nicola still have called for IndyRef2 without an argument about Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will? Yes she would! She would have argued that Scotland needs independence so that they do not hold England & Wales back from a future outside the EU!

 

[317 forever]

Teresa May needs to tell the SNP where to get off. The referendum in 2014 settled the matter for "a generation". We cannot keep raising grievances to try to justify continual referendums till we get the result we want. To do so is in itself anti-democratic. Sturgeon should get on with the job of governing Scotland which they appear to be making a complete mess of. How about renationalising the railways in Scotland for a start!

The railways in Scotland have already been nationalised. Network Rail is government-owned and the trains are run by the government, albeit the Dutch government!

 

[317 forever]

If the Scottish results in the EU referendum had been closer I might agree with you. However, every voting area in Scotland voted to Remain, most of them by quite a large margin. This isn't a made-up issue.

I had been so dismayed by so much of Scotland voting SNP at the General Election that I lost interest in coming to Scotland much during this Parliament. However, I am so curious about how Scotland will feel now that 100% of Scottish Boroughs voted Remain that I am planning to spend a weekend in Aberdeen soon!