When will indyref2 happen?

[AUFC90]

 This may sound sad, but before the Indy ref was announced I didn’t even realise how the system actually worked. I thought we were an independent nation. Didn’t realise we weren’t, we had our own parliament so just assumed we were.
 
In fairness I was in my teens and not the slightest bit interested in politics (like literally everyone I knew of a similar age) but that’s changed massively now. I’d say that after 2014 engagement in politics amongst younger people has rocketed, fortunately the majority of younger voters seem to be of the same opinion as myself, even though I’ve now reached the grand old age of 25 and wouldn’t class myself as a young voter now.
 

I had little interest either. I knew the politicians and the arguments but never voted and as I was the opinion that they're all practically the same. That was at Westminster level. At Scottish level I had no interest whatsoever. That all changed during the referendum. I now vote at every election.

I was also a no voter until the day of the white paper and I'll now vote yes in every referendum till the day I die. Im 27 btw.

[AyrExile]

8 hours ago, AUFC90 said:

I had little interest either. I knew the politicians and the arguments but never voted and as I was the opinion that they're all practically the same. That was at Westminster level. At Scottish level I had no interest whatsoever. That all changed during the referendum. I now vote at every election.

I was also a no voter until the day of the white paper and I'll now vote yes in every referendum till the day I die. Im 27 btw.

So are you saying it was reading the white paper that changed your mind? Must have been some eye openings for you to commit to Yes for the rest of your life 

[Antlion]

44 minutes ago, AyrExile said:

So are you saying it was reading the white paper that changed your mind? Must have been some eye openings for you to commit to Yes for the rest of your life 

Not necessarily. I’m sure, for example, many Finns are committed to Finland being a nation state. I’m sure many UK nationalists are committed to the UK being a nation state. I’m sure many French people are committed to France being a nation state. These people don’t need a White Paper to believe their country should be a normal, sovereign country. Why should Scots require extraordinary evidence that Scotland should be what most other countries in the world take for granted?

Scotland is the exception amongst nations - surely it should be “unionists” who require (and provide) evidence that Scotland is unusual in being unable, unsuited, and unfitted to the international status quo. Surely they should require and provide evidence that Scotland in the twenty-first century, unlike most nations, needs decisions made for it by its larger neighbour; that Scotland, unlike most nations, is better served by having its sovereign parliament located outside of it, by a minority of representatives; that Scotland, unlike most nations, should have power devolved to it from elsewhere rather than having a parliament beholden to its own electorate with powers to be shared decided by that parliament. When pressed, many proponents of the UK seem to think the only evidence they require is that it has been this way since the 1700s.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Antlion

[HTG]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

Not necessarily. I’m sure, for example, many Finns are committed to Finland being a nation state. I’m sure many UK nationalists are committed to the UK being a nation state. I’m sure many French people are committed to France being a nation state. These people don’t need a White Paper to believe their country should be a normal, sovereign country. Why should Scots require extraordinary evidence that Scotland should be what most other countries in the world take for granted?

Scotland is the exception amongst nations - surely it should be “unionists” who require (and provide) evidence that Scotland is unusual in being unable, unsuited, and unfitted to the international status quo. Surely they should require and provide evidence that Scotland in the twenty-first century, unlike most nations, needs decisions made for it by its larger neighbour; that Scotland, unlike most nations, is better served by having its sovereign parliament located outside of it, by a minority of representatives; that Scotland, unlike most nations, should have power devolved to it from elsewhere rather than having a parliament beholden to its own electorate with powers to be shared decided by that parliament. When pressed, many proponents of the UK seem to think the only evidence they require is that it has been this way since the 1700s.

Amen brother!

[Baxter Parp]

https://oilprice.com/freewidgets/get_oilprices_chart/46/4

Brent Crude

71.77 +1.03%

Oh oh.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

27 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

https://oilprice.com/freewidgets/get_oilprices_chart/46/4

Brent Crude

71.77 +1.03%

Oh oh.

Still 28% down compared to Referendum Day 2014 ($98.82)

But denominated in Sterling it's dropped from £60.52 to £50.36 which is only  17% down

The Sterling Price of Oil has rocketed 41% since the eve of the Brexit Referendum.

 

You can all spin that lot however you want to 

 

 

[AyrExile]

9 hours ago, Antlion said:

Not necessarily. I’m sure, for example, many Finns are committed to Finland being a nation state. I’m sure many UK nationalists are committed to the UK being a nation state. I’m sure many French people are committed to France being a nation state. These people don’t need a White Paper to believe their country should be a normal, sovereign country. Why should Scots require extraordinary evidence that Scotland should be what most other countries in the world take for granted?

Scotland is the exception amongst nations - surely it should be “unionists” who require (and provide) evidence that Scotland is unusual in being unable, unsuited, and unfitted to the international status quo. Surely they should require and provide evidence that Scotland in the twenty-first century, unlike most nations, needs decisions made for it by its larger neighbour; that Scotland, unlike most nations, is better served by having its sovereign parliament located outside of it, by a minority of representatives; that Scotland, unlike most nations, should have power devolved to it from elsewhere rather than having a parliament beholden to its own electorate with powers to be shared decided by that parliament. When pressed, many proponents of the UK seem to think the only evidence they require is that it has been this way since the 1700s.

Not sure you even read the original post before launching into an anti union rant as per usual. The point of interest was why someone switched from being a no vote on the day of the white paper to a lifetime yes one. Not sure why the unionists would really need to provide evidence as everyone has the chance to live that way currently. If it were really that bad then I’m sure the poll would have been somewhat different. With the high flying  Mhairi Black even admitting the white paper was fiction and also the Brexit shambles down south then maybe the noisy minority’s future claims should  be subject to greater scrutiny. 

[NotThePars]

A Westminster created shambles necessitating greater scrutiny of a Scottish government campaign is some wild logic.

[bob the tank]

Not sure you even read the original post before launching into an anti union rant as per usual. The point of interest was why someone switched from being a no vote on the day of the white paper to a lifetime yes one. Not sure why the unionists would really need to provide evidence as everyone has the chance to live that way currently. If it were really that bad then I’m sure the poll would have been somewhat different. With the high flying  Mhairi Black even admitting the white paper was fiction and also the Brexit shambles down south then maybe the noisy minority’s future claims should  be subject to greater scrutiny. 

 

Yet again we are presented with a person of the yoon persuasion who doesn't think they need to present evidence of their ability to able to rule over us. I have seen the decline in my country over the last fifty years under the Westminster "watch". We have lost company upon company, our infrastructure has been left in the dark ages and English labour in Scotland even returned £1.5 billion to Westminster because they couldn't think of anything to spend it on. I'm bitter about the way things have gone over the years, the mccrone report, the Smith commission, cover ups aplenty, a lack of an oil fund because it was subsidising the M25, but I want to leave the past behind, take over our own affairs and make a better country. Im afraid you come over as a bitter man too, but also backward looking and lacking in imagination and ambition to improve everyone lot across the whole of Scottish society. Under our precious, precious union we have around the worst pensions in Europe, disability benefits being slashed and Westminster are in the sights of the UN for the way it treats it's population. There is nothing you can possibly say that can justify staying in this complete clusterfuck of a so called union.

 

 

 

[lichtgilphead]

37 minutes ago, AyrExile said:

 With the high flying  Mhairi Black even admitting the white paper was fiction 

Are you referring to her talk at the Scottish Secular Society last week? She didn't say anything of the sort. 

If you're referring to something else, please provide a link.

[Ira Gaines]

AyrExile also showed their ability to think they know what an article was about by reading a headline. Which sums up far too many people from both sides tbh. All you need is a soundbite, and those who's minds are made up will just believe it and not even question it. And in the case of AyrExile, that branches out. Doesn't want to know anything really about the union. He's got his beliefs and will believe anything about it that gets put out there.

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, AyrExile said:

Not sure you even read the original post before launching into an anti union rant as per usual. The point of interest was why someone switched from being a no vote on the day of the white paper to a lifetime yes one. Not sure why the unionists would really need to provide evidence as everyone has the chance to live that way currently. If it were really that bad then I’m sure the poll would have been somewhat different. With the high flying  Mhairi Black even admitting the white paper was fiction and also the Brexit shambles down south then maybe the noisy minority’s future claims should  be subject to greater scrutiny. 

It’s this kind of shite that will prevent Scottish regionhood ever climbing back to 70% support. Keep it up. Exactly as predicted, the UK nat doesn’t feel any need to justify opposing Scotland’s sovereignty; we should just accept that Scotland is unfit, incapable, and just plain shouldn’t have what every nation state in the world does, because that’s how it is now. The problem is the questions of why, and shouldn’t we have what is normal, are out there now, openly debated and discussed. Less people are as blindly accepting of the status quo as was once the case. At some point any institution has to justify its power or risk falling, and it’s heartening that supporters of the antiquated British union remain arrogant enough to think that inertia is enough to keep it going forever. 

As to the “noisy minority’s future claims being subject to greater scrutiny”, you support the continuance of a Brexiting nation state. Your favoured country abhors scrutiny of a minority’s claims about political independence. 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Antlion

[John Lambies Doos]

Ayrexile ????????????

[Baxter Parp]

Theresa May set to launch legal bid to stop Nicola Sturgeon's Brexit Bill becoming law

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16152953.May_set_to_launch_legal_bid_to_stop_Sturgeon_s_Brexit_Bill_in_its_tracks/?ref=twtrec

Soon the Scottish Government will have done everything they could to protect Scotland from Brexit.  After Westminster has blocked every other avenue, an Independence referendum will be the only game in town.

[Crùbag]

On 4/10/2018 at 15:00, AUFC90 said:

On 4/10/2018 at 14:32, Crùbag said:

 
In the 80s and 90s, which I well remember, support for Indy was never more than 25%. IIRC the polls had it at 28% when Salmond called Indref. To reach 45% in a two-year campaign is excellent progress. Another campaign proper and not just 'chat' coupled with Brexitshambles should be more than enough to see us over the line.

I'll indulge you troll boy as I've nothing else to do. No one gave a f**k about independence 20 years ago. No one gave a f**k about it 5 years ago (including me) fact is youve got at least 40 percent of a country that will vote yes in 3 years time, 10 years time whatever and you also have a situation where the majority of Scots are yes voters and Scotlands biggest city is a yes city. You can discount this all you want. The writings on the wall and I am in no rush to go out and vote for it but i will when i have to. The difference is if the vote goes the wrong way for you and the likes of RedHandRob then the UK is gubbed FOREEVER and you and RedHandRob will have to use a deformed union jack as your cum rag.

You think I'm defending the UK? Care to look at my posts or my signature.

[Loondave1]

You think I'm defending the UK? Care to look at my posts or my signature.

I laughed when i saw that first time. Classic Nat foaming at the mouth at your perceived anti Indy post although great mystery how it was interpreted as such. Just another potty mouthed individual who drives voters into the NO camp. His like will kill off Indy hopes single handed.

[BawWatchin]

37 minutes ago, Loondave1 said:

I laughed when i saw that first time. Classic Nat foaming at the mouth at your perceived anti Indy post although great mystery how it was interpreted as such. Just another potty mouthed individual who drives voters into the NO camp. His like will kill off Indy hopes single handed.

It's a good thing nawbags are civilized, well mannered people. Otherwise those jumping from the NO camp to the YES camp would be far greater. 

[DrewDon]

It's good, fair-minded, sane people like Jill Stephenson and Tom Gallagher who will win the next referendum for No, I tell you. 

[Loondave1]

It's a good thing nawbags are civilized, well mannered people. Otherwise those jumping from the NO camp to the YES camp would be far greater. 

Indeed. That's why they aren't i would imagine. "Nawbag" is quite retro, its "yoon" now i think for your info. Even poor Wet Pishfart is greeting about getting abuse and the damage it does to the cause.

[Loondave1]

It's good, fair-minded, sane people like Jill Stephenson and Tom Gallagher who will win the next referendum for No, I tell you. 

Think them plus us will be all deid when and if the next Referendum turns up. Have you thought about Cryogenics ?