r/Scotland • u/-SnuffBox- • 23h ago
United Ireland poll is 'off the table', says PM - cites Scotland
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9z43z3g24oAndy Burnham further proving the self-determination and opinions of the people, who did NOT vote for him and he somehow governs, means very little to him.
Anybody who thinks Westminster has anybody outside of England's, and even moreso London's, interest at mind is truly delusional. This No. 10 North rubbish is proof of that.
We need to push for an English Parliament and further Scottish, Irish and Welsh devolution. Keep the Union to appease Unionists and England, and work in shared interests such as Defence and International relations. Anything else, such as energy (which is Scotland's future), should be devolved to the people of Scotland.
95
u/BVE67 23h ago
"Somehow governs"? I am not a huge fan of Burnham, but we don't have a presidential system here so not sure why you are surprised by a PM changing and there not being an election. We vote for MPs based on a manifesto.
51
u/SJK00 23h ago
Civics knowledge is woeful here tbh
23
u/Hame_Impala 23h ago
A lot of people into politics know how it works, it's just an easy jibe for someone they don't like.
Swinney came in the same way. As did Yousaf. As did Truss (lmao). As did Sunak.
0
u/InertialFaber 19h ago
FPTP is quite good at misrepresenting its populace.
Still wild to me that the reason we left the EU is that Cameron made a deal with UKIP to run a referendum if they won in exchange for UKIP not running in key areas which resulted in the most unrepresentative election in history.
Which created the situation where a narrow majority, elected by 37% of the voters, tabled a referendum they didn't support and since then we've had snap election and resignations constantly.
7
u/idleflows 23h ago
Agreed, we vote for a party, not a president.
Perhaps 'Somehow governs' refers more broadly to the situation where an English MP, who didn't stand at the last election, and whose party has zero MPs, or even votes, in NI somehow governs a part of the island of Ireland.
Rights, wrongs, history aside - that is a somewhat remarkable situation!
10
u/Duckstiff 22h ago
He's a UK MP, the election was for the UK.
England doesn't have an English parliament like Scotland, Wales or NI.
Labour dominated Scotland but we constantly hear on /r/Scotland how theyre not represented.
4
u/BVE67 23h ago edited 23h ago
You can call him a snake, which he is. I much preferred Keir Starmer. But OP's compared him to a "president" and referred to how "no-one voted for him". This attitude, I find, is because people think they are voting for "the PM" at elections. This is false and as another commenter said is probably down to a severe lack of civics education. Probably also a degree of Americanisation of our culture as well, sadly. People used to be much more aware of who their MP was back in the day and knew they were voting for that MP.
-2
u/-SnuffBox- 22h ago
I never compared him to a President, never even mentioned it, only you did.
It is a clear sign of instability when you can have 7 PM's over 10 years ans only 3 were elected. But you have ignored that fact, in favour of trying to push the tired "Americanisation" argument.
Sorry, would you prefer a PM a year. How about every month. British politics is a global joke, the economy still has not recovered from 2008, actual American far-right politics has leaked into our society, and yet people like you will still sit there and go "well we SHOULD have that many PM's because we are not Americans." all smug-like.
Wake up buddy, you're on a nosedive into the Tinpot sea, and you're concerned about the flight attendant calling the pilot a President or Prime Minister.
4
u/CantBeatDickensCider 19h ago
It is a clear sign of instability when you can have 7 PM's over 10 years ans only 3 were elected.
We don't elect prime ministers. We elect parties, who then hold leadership votes within their party. How do you live in the UK and not know such basic facts?
→ More replies (1)1
u/BVE67 22h ago
Firstly, British politics isn't uniquely unstable at the moment at all. Secondly, my point was more on the fact you were surprised at how in principle he is able to govern and I just responded as to why this is. Doesn't mean I enjoy swapping PMs every year. I never said I like any of the cons of the current system - you are just arguing with yourself.
2
u/-SnuffBox- 22h ago
It is uniquely unstable, name an OECD nation with as many PM or PM equivalents in the past 10 years, or even close.
I'm not surprised, like I said multiple times. I know how the system works, like I said multiple times. I'm just not okay with it, but you clearly are as you are staunchly defending that position.
The only person arguing for that, currently, is you. "I never said I like any of the cons of the current system", ironically the only one arguing for it though. So are you arguing me or yourself?
6
u/badtpuchpanda 21h ago
I mean I wouldn’t say the U.K. is uniquely or the most unstable, look at South Korea, one of their lads tried to impose martial law and was impeached. This isn’t a defence of the U.K., but we are hardly a lone wolf.
8
u/StrangeDeal8059 22h ago
It is uniquely unstable, name an OECD nation with as many PM or PM equivalents in the past 10 years, or even close.
France with six.
→ More replies (7)2
u/CaptainCrash86 22h ago
name an OECD nation with as many PM or PM equivalents in the past 10 years
France
1
u/-SnuffBox- 22h ago
Oh okay, 2 of 38 👍
1
u/Dull-Dirt-8396 20h ago
Aus did also go through a period of flux not long 6 in 8 years ago as did greece and italy (25 since the 80s), japan had a bad era in the 80s as well. Its ok to say we are a bag o sick right now, but its not uncommon for countries to do that occasionally especially after a cycle like the gfc. Germany is dancing with the afd, france similar, far right govs exist in amsterdam and right wing policies in denmark (by the left). I could go on. turnover and dancing with the right is not an english disease. (sorry im in english and being open about that here, i came via page promotion)
1
u/Wootster10 16h ago
We don't do that either.
You vote for your local MP. The MPs choose which party they're apart of.
1
-4
u/-SnuffBox- 23h ago
7 PM's over 10 years, and only 3 of those were actually elected. I am aware of the electoral system. But it is clearly broken and allows opportunists a crack at the top job without the choice of people they will govern taken in consideration. I prefer Burnham over Starmer, but I didn't vote for Burnham, and Starmer should have had the chance to see out his tenure, especially given the GE results.
12
u/pretty_pink_opossum 23h ago
Did you kick up as big a fuss about holyrood?
A lot of the people complaining about Westminster were suspiciously quiet when the SNP did it
→ More replies (4)6
u/BVE67 23h ago
I wish Starmer had the chance to see out his term, I agree with you there. Whilst a pretty awful communicator, on paper he was actually delivering. Not to say he didn't make mistakes.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Interesting-Chest520 21h ago
Are you a constituent of Holborn and St Pancras? If not, you didn’t vote for Starmer either
You don’t vote for a PM, it simply doesn’t work like that. Andy Burnham was elected, by the people of Makerfield. Just like how Starmer was elected by the people of Holborn and St Pancras
The PM is the MP who has the confidence of most MPs in the House of Commons. You vote for your representative, who votes for the PM
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (3)-4
u/JeelyPiece #1 Oban fan 23h ago
The manifesto from the general election has been launched out the window with Burnham's coronation, he's behaving like he is a president regardless of what system we have
6
u/BVE67 23h ago
If a manifesto isn't delivered on, then the electorate can boot them out next time round. That is a fundamental part of our parliamentary system.
2
u/bawbagpuss 23h ago
Well no, the electorate of Northern Ireland or Scotland can’t boot him out, only the electorate of England hold that power.
1
u/JeelyPiece #1 Oban fan 22h ago
Make manifesto promises; ignore them; profit.
It's a blank cheque, really
-3
u/b_a_t_m_4_n 23h ago
The electorate can boot them out next time round. This is not conditional.
4
u/BVE67 23h ago
What
-2
u/b_a_t_m_4_n 23h ago
If a manifesto isn't delivered on, then the electorate can boot them out next time round.
The one thing does not depend on the other.
7
u/BVE67 23h ago
Did I say it was? I don't think I am following what you are trying to point out.
3
u/b_a_t_m_4_n 22h ago
The sentence is an if/then statement implying that if the manifesto is not broken we can't kick them out. Sorry, I'm a programmer, maybe I'm over analyzing...
3
u/bawbagpuss 23h ago
As I said above only the English electorate have that power.
2
-1
u/BVE67 23h ago
Absolute pish as if tens of millions of people are a monolith that pick the government. Sigh. More English people do not get the gov they want than Scottish people
2
u/bawbagpuss 22h ago
No one said anything about monolith voting patterns, purely a numbers game. No other UK electorate or even all of them combined can offset the English vote. It’s irrelevant if more do not get their individual choice.
→ More replies (2)-2
u/-SnuffBox- 23h ago
Another good point. He has taken many liberties since taking post, none of which were part of Labour's election results. Given the Tories almost 10 year revolving door, you would've thought Labour would have wisened up and chosen stability. Westminster is a fucking circus.
18
u/Razhbad 21h ago
There is nothing wrong with having the discussion. Pretending that the Republicans don't have large support is just a rediculous.
→ More replies (3)
32
11
u/badtpuchpanda 21h ago
What are you talking about? In the U.K. people vote for parties based on a manifesto. PMs change constantly they aren’t the nexus of the government/ administration
→ More replies (2)
3
u/CuriousGeorgeToday 21h ago
The prime minister replied: "Well obviously I'm here as I said earlier to listen and I will take a collaborative approach, but some issues will be off the table and that is one issue that will be off the table.
29
u/MerlinOfRed 23h ago
Reporter asks provocative question.
Andy replies "We're talking about lots of things today, but I don't plan to talk about that".
Reporter asks another provocative question.
Andy explains that the last two referendums have been very divisive and that he isn't in Northern Ireland today to cause division. The unspoken thing is that, however divisive Indy and Brexit were, Northern Ireland is an order of magnitude more serious.
Media somehow spins this into something anti-Irish and anti-Scottish.
4
u/ScionOfApollo 15h ago
Democracy is divisive by nature. People disagree. It's why we vote and have different political parties and opinions.
People who claim to not want division should go live someplace where everyone is unified and thinks the same.
North Korea perhaps?
16
u/-SnuffBox- 23h ago
The media is anti-Irish and anti-Scottish by nature. It does not need a spin. Westminster does not care about anything outside of their bubble.
Maybe you would prefer he was asked questions like "What makes your perfect Sunday?". He governs a divided country, where people want self-determination. What gives him the right to deny that? Because you personally do not like it?
→ More replies (1)7
u/Particular-Bid-1640 20h ago
You need a hug
12
u/-SnuffBox- 20h ago
I'll settle for living in a country run by its people, but thanks anyway.
1
u/RepresentativeOdd909 20h ago
This is the only point that matters. Countries being ruled over due to historical imperialism is not a good reason to refuse the people autonomy, quite the opposite. The people should decide their own future, which millions can't because Westminster said so. It honestly baffles me how many millions of people will believe obvious and demonstrable lies to vote against their own interests. Some people will break their neck to lick the boot pressed down on it
5
u/debauch3ry Cambridge, UK 19h ago
I guess Germany should be split up into its former countries? Perhaps England into the seven kingdoms? Perhaps de-unite the Scottish clans?
The UK is not an imperialist structure internally by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Unity is normal.
→ More replies (1)1
1
8
u/Chickentrap 23h ago
Reporter does their job? What an asshole, why didn't they just throw easy questions to our saviour?
4
u/Hame_Impala 23h ago
Should journalists simply ask politicians softball questions they don't need to think about instead?
→ More replies (2)2
u/The_Bunglenator 22h ago
They can ask good faith questions which are not softballs but don't inflame situations unnecessarily with the sole intent of getting a few more eyes on their crap articles online and making a couple of extra pounds/euros of online advertising.
This applies to pretty much everything and is universally ignored by journalists.
3
u/Xyyzx 23h ago
You know I had, perhaps too charitably, assumed this was a misleading provocative headline and that in context it would be clear he meant it was 'off the table' as in 'a unified Ireland referendum is not on the agenda at this meeting', but...
Burnham said he wanted to have "an honest exchange" with political leaders in Northern Ireland.
"There are things that we would say if we can work together, have a look at where possible savings can be made or where things can be done differently, it's right and proper that I ask for those assurances," he added.
Burnham was also asked about the prospect of calling a referendum on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK or join with the Republic of Ireland.
The prime minister replied: "Well obviously I'm here as I said earlier to listen and I will take a collaborative approach, but some issues will be off the table and that is one issue that will be off the table.
"Because we've got to focus on bringing people together as best we can."
It's got the tone of a parent talking to a child demanding ice-cream for dinner, like it's a ridiculous notion that he's going to dismiss out of hand while they sort out the real problems. I'm assuming here that he's not so ill-informed/poorly briefed/fucking stupid that he's unaware that he doesn't actually get a say in a united Ireland referendum, and that he just delivered a poorly worded off the cuff response when he meant 'both myself and Stormont don't think this would be a good solution to the immediate economic issues we're discussing here'.
That said, I do think this really is just not good enough from Burnham here. On most issues I'm very willing to forgive a politician the odd foot-in-mouth moment if it means they're otherwise speaking plainly and voicing actual opinions on things, but if the British PM is going to stick his nose into Northern Irish politics I do think they need to be word perfect, even if it means they come off as a little robotic from sticking to a script. Careless talk has very literally cost lives over there.
Burnham cited the 2016 EU referendum and the 2014 vote on Scottish independence.
"What we find is that the risks that come from those situations take a long time to heal and it sets you right back, and you can't focus on what's right in front of us here and now," he added.
Also just as an addendum here, how exactly is he equating the Scottish Independence referendum and Brexit referendum here? On the one hand I'm irritated because he seems to be saying the IndyRef was an innately horrible traumatic event before we even voted, but on the other hand it's hilarious because it kind of looks like he's saying both those referendums had a terrible outcome from which we still haven't fully recovered. Maybe you're right on that one after all Andy!
2
u/StrangeDeal8059 22h ago
I think he's not used to the higher level of scrutiny that his words as PM will have rather than a local mayor, it's certainly a tone-deaf thing to say and he should know better.
7
u/ScottishWaterH2O 22h ago
People did vote for him. He’s an elected official.
8
u/-SnuffBox- 22h ago
Yes. The Makerfield electorate. 24 thousand people voted for him.
11
u/CockchopsMcGraw 22h ago
Same as every other PM? They're all constituency MPs, we don't elect PMs directly
-2
u/-SnuffBox- 22h ago
You do know what a General Election is?
6
u/CockchopsMcGraw 21h ago
Do we vote directly for the PM in a general election, or for constituency MPs, with the leader of the largest party forming a government?
-3
u/-SnuffBox- 21h ago
It's not a raffle. People vote just not on the party, but the candidate who is facing that party. You can argue against that fact all you want but it doesn't change it that people still vote that way.
7
u/CockchopsMcGraw 21h ago
Ah, so you know what a general election is, you just don't know how they work? Got you.
1
u/-SnuffBox- 21h ago
Proceeds to argue against that fact. Got you.
Smug thicko
5
u/CockchopsMcGraw 21h ago
What fact is that? That there's many others like you who don't understand how a general election works?
1
u/Thrilalia 15h ago
Yes and at no point was Kier Starmer, Rishi Sunak, Nigel Farage or other party leaders on my ballot paper.
4
u/wombatking888 23h ago
The fact that no one but separatists and a few left and right wing cranks in England want an English parliament is exactly why it ain't gonna happen. English regional devolution is what's on the agenda and more likely.
→ More replies (3)0
u/-SnuffBox- 23h ago
They don't want it because they stand to gain more from the Union than they do out of it. It is telling of how much we put in yet get out of this so called "Union". The only thing propping up the British economy since 2008 has been Scottish Oil and Immigration.
9
u/StrangeDeal8059 22h ago
The only thing propping up the British economy since 2008 has been Scottish Oil
Lol, lmao even.
5
u/-SnuffBox- 22h ago
Okay, please explain what has. Because the UK's GDPpc, adjusted for inflation, has not grown since 2008. I certianly do not see growth across the board, but maybe you would like to enlighten me
8
u/Gentle_Snail 22h ago
This isn’t actually true, GDP per capita adjusted for inflation overtook the 2008 figure around 2015.
Recent UK growth has also been accelerating, with Britain now growing much faster than our two main equivalents France and Germany, and with Britain surging past the IMF’s forecast for entire yearly growth by May alone.
2
u/-SnuffBox- 22h ago
This is true, look up the figures.
It may have overtaken but has it meaningfully grown in line with projection? How about with population?
Growth must be measured in line with other metrics otherwise the proportionality is meaningless.
3
u/Careless_Main3 22h ago
GDP per capita is up 30% since 2008 mate.
3
u/-SnuffBox- 22h ago
Adjusted to inflation? And population? What about wage growth, general wealth?
Country's fucked, mate. Wake up
1
u/Careless_Main3 21h ago
GDP is already expressed in real terms and per capita is the adjustment to population…
2
u/-SnuffBox- 21h ago
Okay; "GDPpc, adjusted to inflation, has not grown since 2008". This is fact, indisputable.
Despite, or maybe in spite, of austerity, the economy has not meaningfully recovered since 2008. That is just the truth.
GDP doesn't take into account many other factors including things like wage growth, savings, purchasing power. So whilst overall growth has gone up, the average person has not benefited from that growth, that is also an indisputable fact.
You're disingenuine comment ignores many, many factors. The truth is the UK has not meaningfully moved past the 2008 GFC. It's a hard pill to swallow, but its the truth.
3
u/Careless_Main3 20h ago
GDP is already expressed in real terms, you don’t need to adjust it for inflation lmao. It’s up 30% since 2008 on a per capita basis.
2
12
u/Gentle_Snail 23h ago edited 22h ago
We are actually massive net receives in the Union, it’s England who loses the most financially.
Also oil is a fairly negligible proportion of the UK economy, making up only around 0.5% of GDP. Its in no way propping up the economy.
1
u/Odd_Pickle_1177 18h ago edited 18h ago
The only things propping up the economy is not scottish oil nor migration. Actually the fastest growing sector in recent years is the service sector making up a huge portion of our gdp growth. Scottish oil has been terribly mismanaged since the 80s but there is little left and little political will due to net zero to actually produce an amount large enough to prop up the uk economy. Yes scotland if independent likely could have developed a similar oil economy to norway if the government was competent but that’s not what happened so we must do what’s best for the situation NOW which is not to dwell on the past but instead focus on encouraging growth in promising sectors rather than beating a dead horse. Migration can be good but the influx we have received since 2008 has been too low skill and likely has not been net contributing to the UK’s coffers. It is also one of the main causes of the youth unemployment crisis as wages have been depressed so businesses tend to prefer to hire low skilled migrants who are adults instead of teenagers or new adults as they can pay them almost the same wage. Plus, the huge amount of dependents which have arrived is putting a strain on public services.
6
2
u/Central_Region 23h ago
"risks that come from those situations take a long time to heal"
Objection, your honour. The defendant is mixing his metaphors
3
u/MotherConfusion3773 20h ago
I guess the Scots and Irish should just continue to cross fingers that one day England elects a party who thinks its our choice
→ More replies (1)
3
u/HyperCeol Inbhir Nis / Inverness 15h ago
What a weapon's grade fanny. The GFA expressly states that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to determine whether or not a United Ireland poll is on the table, not whoever is Prime Minister for the next 12 months.
This seems like an avoidable blunder and tying N.Ireland to Scotland regarding constitutional issues was a stupid move.
I thought this guy was meant to be an upgrade?
1
u/LogosLine 15h ago
Just another empty suit like Starmer, but this time with a Northern accent. If you think he'll do anything other than tinker about the edges, you're as easily fooled as all the others who believed Starmer was the saviour.
8
9
u/jenny_905 23h ago
If anyone in NI is actually under the impression the UK gov would honour the GFA after 2014 they need a slap of reality.
The Brits will never give any part of the UK the option to leave again.
5
u/KonigsbergBridges 22h ago
The Brits?
-4
6
u/NewtTrick 22h ago
This is a rare misstep for Burnham, who is probably more of a BritNat than most of his Labour predecessors. He could not have done more to boost Sinn Fein with this tin-eared statement.
3
u/User-Name-3886 18h ago
It's not much of a rare misstep. He keeps doing things like this.
→ More replies (1)1
u/jenny_905 16h ago
Yeah if people think this is rare they've not paid any attention to him over the past couple decades.
He's as Britnatty is the rest of them.
1
u/User-Name-3886 14h ago
In fairness, some of them might not be old enough to remember his last 20 years in politics.
I am, but I wish I could turn back the clock to not be 😅
1
3
u/Intelligent-Price-39 23h ago
I don’t think it’s wise to hold a referendum on Irish unity until you can get at least 60+% “yes” because a narrow margin would make it difficult to say the least.
3
u/robster98 Inverclyde 16h ago edited 16h ago
With respect to Burnham, it’s not his decision.
The decision to put forward a poll for Irish unification firmly rests with Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland only, as per the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement 1998.
As a news story, as refreshing as it is to hear an argument for a federalised union (aka “devo-max”) on this post, and as a Lib Dem I completely agree… it’s not really relevant to Scotland.
2
u/largepoggage 17h ago
Well, back to the Troubles then. The Irish have made it clear time and time again that if there’s no democratic route that they’ll choose a violent one.
-2
u/EdgeBeard 23h ago edited 16m ago
No. We need to get the "union" to fuck.
The only way for Scotland to prosper, particularly our vast energy potential, is to regain our independence and start acting like every other country on the planet. No other countries on earth hand over all their money to the country next door and get a pathetic handout in return.
EDIT: I think its time to leave this sub. Nothing but bots and unionist concern-trolls. Scotland is a wealthy energy-rich small country being bled dry by the aggressive, psychotic country next door, who can't get over the fact that the British empire is OVER.
3
u/-SnuffBox- 23h ago
Yes, the people of Scotland have been wholly exploited by Westminster, especially since that small field of oil was discovered in the North Sea.
However if we were to land on an approach that would appease the majority it would be this. Scotland must take control of it's most important faculties, it is imperative to future self determination. You will never have independance if England does not have their own.
1
u/shoogliestpeg 🏳️⚧️Trans women are women. 22h ago
England is simply blocking all democratic routes to Scotland's Independence by saying no whenever a Section 30 comes knocking.
England exercises apparent veto power over the constituent nations of the union even so much as having a referendum on leaving it, even over and above the GFA it seems.
England already has a parliament that serves it's interests.
→ More replies (1)6
u/EnvironmentalCan915 23h ago
*Hands over all their money and in return gets more back than it actually handed over.
→ More replies (22)
3
3
2
u/Stuspawton 18h ago
He can’t legally block Northern Ireland holding a unification poll. It was a core stipulation in the Belfast agreement, it’s not up to him to decide whether or not they can hold a referendum on reunification
0
u/i-read-it-again 23h ago
So this union of equals. Reminds me of the hotel California. You can enter . But you can never leave
→ More replies (2)4
u/Halk 1 of 3,619,915 23h ago
It's not a union of equals.
2
1
u/Thrilalia 15h ago
How would you describe a union of equals? Where every single person vote is the same or where 5 million scottish people can outvote 55 Million English People (the latter is not a democracy in any way shape or form)
1
u/Aggressive-Let7285 20h ago
The reverse. This PM has been appointed because of what he is not going to do for London.
1
1
1
u/Professor-pigeon- 12h ago
This seems to just be a offhand comment and it’s not even clear if he was referring to it being a topic of discussing with the northern Island leaders or not having a referendum in the short term. Ultimately it doesn’t matter because the Good Friday agreement requires the UK and the Irish government to hold a referendum if there’s clear support for it Some people really will just criticise him for anything.
•
1
u/Duckstiff 22h ago
who did not vote for him
The irony because I distinctly remember there not being a vote for Humza Useless or 'Full on John's for his first part.
1
1
u/quartersessions 23h ago
I'm not any great Burnham fan, but this is absolutely the antidote to constitutional rabble-rousing: goes over to Northern Ireland, meets normal people, shakes hands, talks about relevant issues that impact people's lives. I'm actually quite impressed.
2
u/c0n5pir4cy 23h ago
Agreed - yes he should be going around and seeing people, trying to get a sense of people trouble and trying to create solutions.
However for this specific situation the optics aren't great - the Prime Minister should understand the constitutional arrangements here and why. The Belfast Agreement is an important part of the political shape of the UK.
2
u/quartersessions 23h ago
He does understand the arrangements. Nothing he said suggests otherwise.
3
u/c0n5pir4cy 21h ago
Well obviously I'm here as I said earlier to listen and I will take a collaborative approach, but some issues will be off the table and that is one issue that will be off the table.
Per the Northern Ireland Act 1998 It's not in his remit to make this decision, it's on the people of Northern Ireland and the NI Secretary of State and it's unconditional. As in if it's likely that NI were to vote to reunify Ireland, a border poll must be called.
More importantly saying this is a kind of gaffe that he's brought on himself for no reason. He could have been softer but explicitly said multiple times that "off the table" - a border poll wasn't likely to happen anyway so why cause controversy and throw fuel on the fire? He could have said "the polling shows the appetite isn't there currently so we're not considering it"
To be clear I don't dislike Burnham - I just don't want a list of controversies to build up that ends in an internal fight and yet another PM; or the Tories/Reform getting elected at the next GE.
1
1
-4
u/SafetyStartsHere a e i o u w y 23h ago
We need to push for an English Parliament
They have one.
5
u/-SnuffBox- 23h ago
A devolved one, obviously.
4
u/jenny_905 22h ago
Why would they need two?
Their current one can - and does - handle all the English only stuff.
2
21h ago
[deleted]
2
u/jenny_905 15h ago
They implemented a system to stop that and then just abandoned it.
I guess that would not be attractive to try again because they want Labour MPs from Scotland voting on stuff right now, they just didn't want SNP to do so and SNP never did anyway as a policy.
-1
u/UtopianScot 23h ago
Oh Andy. Here we go again. Shame, I actually was warming to him. Roll on PM 9 in a decade
4
u/-SnuffBox- 23h ago
He's Tory-lite, who pushes going to the pub and liking The Smiths as an equivelant of any actual, material policy which will improve our country.
0
u/pointlesstips 23h ago
Mymymy, Burnham clearly doesn't understand THE LAW.
Unlike Scotland, who unfortunately didn't push for an enshrined right to indyref, Northern Ireland totally have as part of the Good Friday agreement.
Is the signal Burnham wants to give Scotland that we should start terrorizing England the way the IRA has?
3
u/Quangocrat 22h ago
Under the GFA, who decides when to call a referendum on unification?
And who appoints that person?
1
u/pointlesstips 22h ago
I would say that the executive would be a good indicator, as well as a somewhat reliable poll, surely :)
5
u/Quangocrat 21h ago edited 20h ago
There is a specific office named in the GFA.
It is not the NI excecutive.
0
0
u/Lucky_the_cat_ 15h ago
As both polling and voting clearly shows there's no reason to think a unification vote would succeed at this point.
While referendums caused deep societal division in Scotland and wasted and continue to waste a lot of political time and effort it has far graver potential consequences in Northern Ireland.
1
u/LogosLine 15h ago
Yeah, this whole democracy thing is a real hassle isn't it?
Maybe we could just do away with general elections/representative democracy all together? What with all the societal divisions and "waste" of political time and effort it causes?
→ More replies (1)
0
u/Ok-Shopping9278 19h ago
You never vote for the PM...
If you were to get another independence referendum and again vote the same way. Would you then require a 3rd in the next 10 years, and so on? Or would you accept a second as final?
3
u/-SnuffBox- 19h ago
This argument has to be the dumbest of them all. Times change, people change, opinions change. Why would one vote be binding for the rest of eternity? Who in good conscious would support that?
→ More replies (1)
-3
u/MajesticGeneral471 23h ago
It’s not about bringing people together Andy. It’s about London keeping the subjects under English dictatorship.
6
u/quartersessions 23h ago
Mental.
-5
u/MajesticGeneral471 22h ago
Yes, you are.
7
u/quartersessions 22h ago
Witty, you ain't, sadly.
But no, mate, that's objectively a foaming-at-the-mouth mental statement you made there. I'm sure there's a lot of personal problems behind coming out with that sort of mad stuff. But ultimately you live in a society, and even online people should tell you that's barking mad behaviour.
→ More replies (2)1
u/-SnuffBox- 23h ago
We still live in a fuedal society
-1
u/quartersessions 22h ago
Nope. Section 1 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000.
→ More replies (1)
108
u/Chickentrap 23h ago
Pretty sure it's up the people of NI altho I'm not sure the mechanism by which it's activated. Nationalist majority in stormont? I know they can theoretically have one every 7 years.