May's "ordinary working people"?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Just out of interest, Lats - who are the "we" that "gave them devolved powers" - and who the "them"?

[french frank]

If people don't like it, tough. The resistance to democracy is becoming unattractive.

That's a dramatic over simplification. The majority of people entitled to vote did not vote to leave the EU. Those 12m who didn't vote were showing no dissatisfaction with the status quo, while 16.1m preferred the status quo. And that's before considering the unquantified millions who for a variety of reasons were denied a vote altogether, even though they had a strong interest in the UK's future: people working abroad who might have every intention of returning to the UK to retire; people from the EU who had settled in the UK and had every intention of remaining; even 16-17 year olds, who were granted the vote for the Scottish referendum.

In the end, the number who indicated they wanted the UK to leave was a moderate sized minority. Not only do they get their way - it's called 'democracy'.

[Lat-Literal]

Just out of interest, Lats - who are the "we" that "gave them devolved powers" - and who the "them"?

Elected British Governments - fine - towards a Scottish Assembly.

I have no problems with that at all. A bit of thanks might be nice.

It was, after all, achieved mainly with English New Labour votes.

[Lat-Literal]

That's a dramatic over simplification. The majority of people entitled to vote did not vote to leave the EU. Those 12m who didn't vote were showing no dissatisfaction with the status quo, while 16.1m preferred the status quo. And that's before considering the unquantified millions who for a variety of reasons were denied a vote altogether, even though they had a strong interest in the UK's future: people working abroad who might have every intention of returning to the UK to retire; people from the EU who had settled in the UK and had every intention of remaining; even 16-17 year olds, who were granted the vote for the Scottish referendum.

In the end, the number who indicated they wanted the UK to leave was a moderate sized minority. Not only do they get their way - it's called 'democracy'.

There is a clear read-across.

You are about to redefine on your own the system of general elections.

Sorry - but elections and other democratic votes are won by those who turn out to vote.

That is how we do things here.

Don't believe for one second that those originally sympathetic to the EEC weren't let down mostly by those who favour the EU.

The campaign was dire beyond belief.

[Lat-Literal]

What I set out in post 180 is the perspective from one who supported the position in 1975. One matters little except that the one concerned is representing what was the democratic will of the majority who voted. All the rest is the grotesque overlayering that has followed. Every bit of it waging war on that democratic outcome. For better or worse, that position shifted in summer last year. I am not going to be drawn into the faddish perspectives of 2017, however long they have been twisted and distorted inside some people who hold them. That's just to accommodate changes that merely approximate what they originally believed. I am only interested in the key factual pivotal points of direct decision making in the democratic processes - 1975/2016. As for any Scottish referendum, the truth is that the majority of Scots (and Irish and Welsh) are more socially conservative than me. 58% of Scots wanted immigration in 2014 decreased. 23% wanted no change. The SNP's liberalism is a veneer supported only by genuinely liberal Scottish people. There will need to be a Faragist aspect in the campaign for ongoing cohesion. I bitterly resent that - the way race relations across Britain will be damaged by it - and I will place the blame on Sturgeon.

Thank you. :smiley:

[ahinton]

I might therefore be the perfect Forum antidote to your very good-self, ahinton ... :winkeye:

No.

[ardcarp]

The majority of people entitled to vote did not vote to leave the EU. Those 12m who didn't vote were showing no dissatisfaction with the status quo, while 16.1m preferred the status quo. And that's before considering the unquantified millions who for a variety of reasons were denied a vote altogether, even though they had a strong interest in the UK's future: people working abroad who might have every intention of returning to the UK to retire; people from the EU who had settled in the UK and had every intention of remaining; even 16-17 year olds, who were granted the vote for the Scottish referendum.

In the end, the number who indicated they wanted the UK to leave was a moderate sized minority. Not only do they get their way - it's called 'democracy'.

It either is or was mandatory for the enfranchised electorate to vote in Australia. That's 'more democratic' arguably but could result in such things as the return of the death penalty, abolition of gay rights, deportation of [those perceived as] immigrants, etc, etc. Our established system of 'democracy', that is, voluntary voting for parliamentary representatives by a fully enfranchised adult population has its advantages. A cynic might say it rather suits the educated liberal [small 'l'] classes since they are more likely to bother to turn out on a wet and windy Thursday. Referendums seem to be an awful blight on our electoral landscape, but if we must persist in having them, then surely we can only say "the people have spoken" if voting is made compulsory by law?

Sorry if someone's already made this point. So much to read on this thread!

[ahinton]

It either is or was mandatory for the enfranchised electorate to vote in Australia. That's 'more democratic' arguably but could result in such things as the return of the death penalty, abolition of gay rights, deportation of [those perceived as] immigrants, etc, etc. Our established system of 'democracy', that is, voluntary voting for parliamentary representatives by a fully enfranchised adult population has its advantages. A cynic might say it rather suits the educated liberal [small 'l'] classes since they are more likely to bother to turn out on a wet and windy Thursday. Referendums seem to be an awful blight on our electoral landscape, but if we must persist in having them, then surely we can only say "the people have spoken" if voting is made compulsory by law?

And not even then unless everyone entitled to vote actually votes, whatever the maw might demand. That said, this "the people have spoken" stuff in another rather well known context omits to mention that some of them don't know what they're talking about and as, in said context, so little has happened since "the people have spoken", it might reasonably be argued that most of those elected to serve those people don't know either...

[MrGongGong]

Well, it makes a change from boasting about strangling his mother's dog.

The democratic vote was for leaving the EU and for Scotland remaining in Britain.

We can't afford to kowtow to people who only accept what they want.

Time to bring back a sense of giving and respect for the majority will.

If people don't like it, tough. The resistance to democracy is becoming unattractive.

The problem with this is that it takes no account of knowledge, expertise or experience
We (the UK) tend not to use 'democracy' as a way of deciding really important things (surgery, the law, vibrato in Bach etc) and seem to have fallen into a state where phrases such as "will of the people" or "it's democracy" are used as some kind of magic spell that makes things acceptable.

There's nothing wrong with asking lots of people about what to do in any given situation BUT it's not always the best way of making decisions nor does it make the decisions any more valid or ethically sound.

Saying this is probably against the PREVENT strategy so as i'm waiting for a visit from the plod.

[P. G. Tipps]

I am not a member of the SNP (though I once was many years ago) and have long since seen the benefits of unity over division. I am firmly in favour of the countries on these islands being in some form of political union. The alternative which we have learned from history, most recently In Ireland, but also on the mainland for centuries between England and Scotland, is division and wars.

The same applies to Europe though, of course, on a much larger scale. Mrs May's absurd reference to Ms Sturgeon ignoring the views of the minority of Scots who wanted to leave the EU, whilst she herself has treated with utter disdain the much larger minority in the UK who voted to Remain, has surely smashed the highest Richter Scale levels of blatant political hypocrisy.

Furthermore, if those who voted Leave really knew what they were voting for they must have known it might well create a constitutional crisis in both Scotland and N.Ireland. They only had to check pre-Referendum opinion polls or even read some of the more informed opinion on comparatively intelligent online forums such as this ...

As previously stated Ms Sturgeon (or more accurately the SNP) has grabbed its opportunity, handed to it on a golden plate by our new, unelected hard-line Brexit Government. If I were still in the SNP I'd have supported doing exactly the same, it is a completely logical stance to adopt from a nationalist point-of-view.

Gordon Brown has now made another intervention urging major powers being devolved to Scotland, and it'll need something like this to save the UK now, I suspect. Of course I don't for a moment believe that most people who voted Leave did so in the full knowledge that the very future of the UK itself could be at stake if they did so.

I am therefore left with the inescapable conclusion that many who did vote in such a manner were largely ignorant of some of the possible, maybe even probable, consequences of such an action. Of course I am far from being alone in strongly suspecting that right from the start! However, the damage has been done and as Lat-Literal says 'we are where we are'.

Whatever the actual levels of voter ignorance at the EU Referendum, it ill-behoves Mrs May to further patronise and lecture the Scots with meaningless tosh and also to finger-wag at Ms Sturgeon and the Scot Nats.

What did she really expect to happen North of the Border for goodness sake given her own hard-line, and almost "English Nationalist" approach?!! :erm:

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Elected British Governments - fine - towards a Scottish Assembly.

But in what way do "Elected British Governments" ("fine" or otherwise) = "We", and "a Scottish Assembly" = "them"? Aren't you creating a synthetic "community" here, in which your "we" = "the good guys", and your "them" = "the childish, selfish others"? These artificial structures seem to be based on the presumption that "we" (on the Forum) are a community of English New Labour supporters who gave "them" what they (all of "them") wanted, and that "we" are outraged that "they" can't even be bothered to show "a bit of thanks" to "us" for "our" "generosity".

I find such Victorian paternalism breath-taking, Lats, in its simplistic ignorance both of the kaleidoscope of present-day political opinions (within the Forum itself, let alone England, let alone Britain) and of historical grievances which led some of the communities within the "them" that you lump together to seek political independence from the current system in which they find themselves - a system from which many of the "us" (that you also lump together) also wouldn't mind removing themselves.

A political ideal is - or should be - something worth pursuing, something worth devoting much of one's life energies towards (or, correspondingly, "against"); not something you give up after falling at the first few hurdles. Irish and Indian independence from British rule was achieved by generations of childish, ungrateful people (= "them") who didn't give up after a continuous series if setbacks (from a contemporaneous "us") - if enough of the people of Scotland (who were all told that if they stayed part of the United Kingdom, they were guaranteed membership of the EU) do not wish to be part of a United Kingdom outside the EU, then what kind of democracy is it that insists that they do not pursue their goals and ambitions? What kind of democracy is it that follows the line "This is what I believe, but I won't press for my beliefs because I don't want to be thought of as 'childish' or 'ungrateful'"?!

[ahinton]

Sorry - but elections and other democratic votes are won by those who turn out to vote.

...but not by those who ought to be but are not entitled to do so (as FF points out). Also, whilst your statement is otherwise obviously true insofar as it goes, the expression used by Brexiteers ought instead to read "some of the people have spoken".

[ahinton]

But in what way do "Elected British Governments" ("fine" or otherwise) = "We", and "a Scottish Assembly" = "them"? Aren't you creating a synthetic "community" here, in which your "we" = "the good guys", and your "them" = "the childish, selfish others"? These artificial structures seem to be based on the presumption that "we" (on the Forum) are a community of English New Labour supporters who gave "them" what they (all of "them") wanted, and that "we" are outraged that "they" can't even be bothered to show "a bit of thanks" to "us" for "our" "generosity".

I find such Victorian paternalism breath-taking, Lats, in its simplistic ignorance both of the kaleidoscope of present-day political opinions (within the Forum itself, let alone England, let alone Britain) and of historical grievances which led some of the communities within the "them" that you lump together to seek political independence from the current system in which they find themselves - a system from which many of the "us" (that you also lump together) also wouldn't mind removing themselves.

A political ideal is - or should be - something worth pursuing, something worth devoting much of one's life energies towards (or, correspondingly, "against"); not something you give up after falling at the first few hurdles. Irish and Indian independence from British rule was achieved by generations of childish, ungrateful people (= "them") who didn't give up after a continuous series if setbacks (from a contemporaneous "us") - if enough of the people of Scotland (who were all told that if they stayed part of the United Kingdom, they were guaranteed membership of the EU) do not wish to be part of a United Kingdom outside the EU, then what kind of democracy is it that insists that they do not pursue their goals and ambitions? What kind of democracy is it that follows the line "This is what I believe, but I won't press for my beliefs because I don't want to be thought of as 'childish' or 'ungrateful'"?!

Hear! hear! (as they say in another place when they're not saying more dangerous things)...

[Cockney Sparrow]

I admire the stamina of the posters here - I read with interest but participation isn't a good idea for me for various reasons. Perhaps I can just express a few thoughts as the conversation here continues.....

Perhaps the people of Scotland should have a referendum on when they next want a referendum on independence.

• Before the Brexiteers have unveiled this fantastic settlement expected with Europe,
• After its ratified by the EU side,
• "Don't ask again before ......2022".... and "2027"...."2037" or some such. And case put by leaflets to all households and widely disseminated, but no campaigning otherwise.

Discussion on This Week (BBC 2 Thursday) - David Davis before select committee stating that the Government had done no work on the implications of a no deal / World Trade terms outcome to Brexit. Seen as negligent and disrespectful to the many industries and other parties in the economy who need to plan for production and investment (or more likely no new investment).

On Newsnight BBC2 last night Rachel Johnson discussing Osborne & editorship of Evening Standard - pointing out the the stifling of all debate by the hard Brexiteers - no-one is allowed to put forward any questions comments or argument for anything other than hard Brexit or they are labelled "enemies of the people". Rachel looks forward to Osborne and the Standard being a base for alternative views not controlled by the right wing press.

And finally Heseltine on Any Questions Radio 4 last night - he believes that in the end Europe will accommodate the UK with changes and we will continue to have some status within Europe. I know, I know, he is so much part of a past political scenario, a dyed in the wool Europhile - but its an alluring and comforting thought - that alternative views may gains some traction......

Some causes for hope. (And Federal UK surely bears serious consideration - could resolve the outrage of the Lothian question, with side benefits - reform the numbers of peers / and or a 2nd house (or no 2nd house) and the number of MPs in Westminster).

[Lat-Literal]

But in what way do "Elected British Governments" ("fine" or otherwise) = "We", and "a Scottish Assembly" = "them"? Aren't you creating a synthetic "community" here, in which your "we" = "the good guys", and your "them" = "the childish, selfish others"? These artificial structures seem to be based on the presumption that "we" (on the Forum) are a community of English New Labour supporters who gave "them" what they (all of "them") wanted, and that "we" are outraged that "they" can't even be bothered to show "a bit of thanks" to "us" for "our" "generosity".

I find such Victorian paternalism breath-taking, Lats, in its simplistic ignorance both of the kaleidoscope of present-day political opinions (within the Forum itself, let alone England, let alone Britain) and of historical grievances which led some of the communities within the "them" that you lump together to seek political independence from the current system in which they find themselves - a system from which many of the "us" (that you also lump together) also wouldn't mind removing themselves.

A political ideal is - or should be - something worth pursuing, something worth devoting much of one's life energies towards (or, correspondingly, "against"); not something you give up after falling at the first few hurdles. Irish and Indian independence from British rule was achieved by generations of childish, ungrateful people (= "them") who didn't give up after a continuous series if setbacks (from a contemporaneous "us") - if enough of the people of Scotland (who were all told that if they stayed part of the United Kingdom, they were guaranteed membership of the EU) do not wish to be part of a United Kingdom outside the EU, then what kind of democracy is it that insists that they do not pursue their goals and ambitions? What kind of democracy is it that follows the line "This is what I believe, but I won't press for my beliefs because I don't want to be thought of as 'childish' or 'ungrateful'"?!

As many know I didn't ever vote for New Labour although I did vote Lib Dem who also favoured devolution. The thanks would be to English voters (who put Governments in that favoured devolution) - not to me personally. I don't in the main believe in historical grievance for the sake of gaining political advantage. The SNP politicians were no more aggrieved in their original junior school playgrounds about a relationship between England and Scotland umpteen generations earlier than I was about my own grandparents growing up much more recently (1900) in London's most notorious slum (I was not aggrieved by that at all but rather grateful that they and we were in a different position). The attitude that these people develop is highly manipulative and based on getting ahead even if it turns everywhere ultimately into division. One wonders about the cohesion in their family backgrounds as it is there where their grievance is often originally formed. Better parenting - or suitable relationships - would help in many instances to minimise their issues.

If you recall, the SNP leadership had clear views ahead of the Brexit referendum as to what they felt would be best for the English too. It wasn't just about Scotland apparently. Now that is top down arrogance. The British Governments they have so many problems with aren't terrible daddies who don't listen. They were voted in by Mr and Mrs Joe Public. The point I am making does not apply to SNP voters any more than I tend to criticise UKIP voters beyond what appears necessary. All voters of whatever persuasion have all sorts of reasons for their behaviour. They are more vulnerable in that sense than politicians - especially political leaders. Does anyone remember Bernadette Devlin? She's still alive.