When will indyref2 happen?

[Jeff Venom]

Maybe you can inform us of the SNP plan to break links with "the Queen and her parasite family" ?
The Nats are quite warm to the Queen and fear the repercussions of being seen as a Republican party. Never hear an anti Royal squeak in their rhetoric.

One step at a time.
SNP are a means to an end for some.

[Savage Henry]

One step at a time.
SNP are a means to an end for some.

As should independence be, to my mind. Those who see it as an end in itself - a big hello to Wings and his internet cyberfreaks - are not attractive to the cause.

[mizfit]

One step at a time.
SNP are a means to an end for some.

For me it is, not a fan of many SNP MP’s but who else do I have to vote for in P&NP, if my vote goes elsewhere I may allow a tory to slip through the net.

Once we’re independent I’ll be reviewing the party I vote for. Until then it’s the SNP

[Baxter Parp]

I see Paddy Power have us at 2/5 to be independent in the next few years and 5/6 to be independent in 2020. Seems reasonable

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The front page of today's Mail is an utter disgrace.

There's stretching the truth and then there's the Fail's lies.

[DA Baracus]

30 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The front page of today's Mail is an utter disgrace.

There's stretching the truth and then there's the Fail's lies.

Full on panic from them

[lichtgilphead]

10 hours ago, strichener said:

You agree than that it will not be an equal voice with Spain, France and Germany.  You could have just said as much.

If you agree that Scotland has no effective voice in the UK, you might have a point. You must admit that we currently do not have an equal voice with the dominant partner in our so-called "Union of Equals"?

However, as has been pointed out above, some EU votes must be unanimous. Can you give me a real life example of when Scotland can veto a UK decision?

[strichener]

6 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

If you agree that Scotland has no effective voice in the UK, you might have a point. You must admit that we currently do not have an equal voice with the dominant partner in our so-called "Union of Equals"?

However, as has been pointed out above, some EU votes must be unanimous. Can you give me a real life example of when Scotland can veto a UK decision?

Utter whataboutery. 

My original comment was in response to the claim that we would have an equal voice with Spain, France and Germany in the EU and nothing to do with Scotland within the UK.  

0/10 must try harder.

[lichtgilphead]

12 minutes ago, strichener said:

Utter whataboutery. 

My original comment was in response to the claim that we would have an equal voice with Spain, France and Germany in the EU and nothing to do with Scotland within the UK.  

0/10 must try harder.

My original comment had nothing to do with having an equal voice. Here it is again.

22 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

I would much rather have 12 or 13 Scottish MEP's representing me in the EU than zero UK MEP's

I stand by my original comment. 

It's you that keeps trying to twist the thread into a discussion on QMV. I responded in kind.

Whataboutery or not, are you willing to answer 2 simple questions:

1) Do we have an equal voice with the dominant partner in our so-called "Union of Equals"?

2) Can you give me a real life example of when Scotland can veto a UK decision?

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Independent Scotland would have an equal voice in the European Council and approximately double its current MEP complement in the European Parliament.

But Germany will have more MEP's 

(c) strichener

[lichtgilphead]

I see that Scotland in Union have released details of their most recent polling, and are spinning it wildly!

Their headline figure is that a whole 34% of those polled think that there should never be another referendum. They claim victory, because they then go on to split the "yes, there should be another referendumat some point " into 4 separate & discrete answers.

21% think it should happen in the next 2 years, 10% in 2-5 years, 9% in 5-10 years and 17% after 10 years.

8% don't know

However, does anyone really think that anyone is saying that "if I don't get a referendum in 2 years, my next choice is "never"?

Let's look at a truer way to represent the figures

Within 2 years - 21% Never 34%

Within 5 years - 31% Never 34%

Within 10 years - 40% Never 34%

After 10 years - 57% Never 34%

All that SIU have proved is that a significant majority of adults resident in Scotland want a referendum within 10 years, and that that number increases further after that date!

Note also, that they only asked adults. Perhaps that's because the vast majority of 16/17 year olds are likely to support an early indyref2?

They also pulled the old trick of asking "if there was an indyref tomorrow, how would you vote". Asking biased ridiculous questions of that type just invalidates the result.

Finally, they confirmed the forthcoming SNP landslide at the (hopefully imminent) Westminster General Election

SNP 41%, Lab 24%, Con 22%, LD 8% Others 5%

Estimates suggest that under FPTP, that would mean something like 51 out of 55 Westminster seats!

Personally, I would suggest that SIU have shot themselves in the foot with this poll, but expect the Scottish press to go with "Disaster for Sturgeon" anyway.

Tick tock.

[BawWatchin]

16 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Personally, I would suggest that SIU have shot themselves in the foot with this poll, but expect the Scottish press to go with "Disaster for Sturgeon" anyway.

Yep...

[Frank Grimes]

Scotland In Union

I could never imagine being that self loathing 

The sheer panic and bile coming from the online Unionist wallopers over the last couple of days has been great, keep it coming

Very much looking forward to voting Yes 

[renton]

10 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

I see that Scotland in Union have released details of their most recent polling, and are spinning it wildly!

Their headline figure is that a whole 34% of those polled think that there should never be another referendum. They claim victory, because they then go on to split the "yes, there should be another referendumat some point " into 4 separate & discrete answers.

21% think it should happen in the next 2 years, 10% in 2-5 years, 9% in 5-10 years and 17% after 10 years.

8% don't know

However, does anyone really think that anyone is saying that "if I don't get a referendum in 2 years, my next choice is "never"?

Let's look at a truer way to represent the figures

Within 2 years - 21% Never 34%

Within 5 years - 31% Never 34%

Within 10 years - 40% Never 34%

After 10 years - 57% Never 34%

All that SIU have proved is that a significant majority of adults resident in Scotland want a referendum within 10 years, and that that number increases further after that date!

Note also, that they only asked adults. Perhaps that's because the vast majority of 16/17 year olds are likely to support an early indyref2?

They also pulled the old trick of asking "if there was an indyref tomorrow, how would you vote". Asking biased ridiculous questions of that type just invalidates the result.

Finally, they confirmed the forthcoming SNP landslide at the (hopefully imminent) Westminster General Election

SNP 41%, Lab 24%, Con 22%, LD 8% Others 5%

Estimates suggest that under FPTP, that would mean something like 51 out of 55 Westminster seats!

Personally, I would suggest that SIU have shot themselves in the foot with this poll, but expect the Scottish press to go with "Disaster for Sturgeon" anyway.

Tick tock.

Yeah,  think their 34% never figure is reasonably accurate to be fair to them. Probably in line with the British Not Scottish  Census answer.  I've honestly never seen the point of splitting the referendum timing question up, other than for mischief. If you want a referendum, then even if you think the timing is wrong, you'll still bloody vote in it. Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that asking people if they want a referendum at all is pointless. Ask people if they want a GE tomorrow and they'd likely balk at it, yet they'd still vote in it. Folk  in the UK are fairly disengaged from politics. They want someone, somewhere to be doing something about "it" but they don't want to be bothered at all by the process. Cynically I think that the only reason authoritarianism wouldn't or hasn't worked is that it suppresses criticism and free speech. I suspect that so long as you let people complain about the person in charge they honestly wouldn't care that it was always the same person in charge....

And yeah, standard SIU tactics regarding the polling question. Wings asked a similarly non standard question last month and produced a 53% in favour of independence. 

[DAFC.]

As soon as the mandate is signed, sealed and delivered, I'll be on the campaign trail. 

The Yoons are full on panic mode. It's coming, brothers and sisters.

[doulikefish]

As soon as the mandate is signed, sealed and delivered, I'll be on the campaign trail. 
The Yoons are full on panic mode. It's coming, brothers and sisters.

Not sure if i can get a "study" break to get out n about full time the same as 14 but as soon as it gets going that will change [emoji41]

[strichener]

14 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

My original comment had nothing to do with having an equal voice. Here it is again.

I stand by my original comment. 

It's you that keeps trying to twist the thread into a discussion on QMV. I responded in kind.

Whataboutery or not, are you willing to answer 2 simple questions:

1) Do we have an equal voice with the dominant partner in our so-called "Union of Equals"?

2) Can you give me a real life example of when Scotland can veto a UK decision?

Your understanding of how a conversation works needs a little refinement, there was no twisting of the conversation.  I even quoted directly from the post that I disagreed with.  You on the other hand have attempted to draw comparisons between two different relationships as some justification of why Scotland in the EU would have a preferable representation than is currently the case in the UK.  An argument against which not a single person has voiced.

I see no need to answer any questions about the UK union when the conversation was about the EU.  

So why don't you answer this question: 

Would Scotland in the EU have an equal voice to Germany, France etc?

Edited April 26, 2019 by strichener

[John Lambies Doos]

We are anything but a Nation of Equals.

We never were and anyone who fell for that rhetoric pre 2014 is an abject simpleton

[Bairnardo]

Your understanding of how a conversation works needs a little refinement, I see no need to answer any questions about the UK union when the conversation was about the EU.  
So why don't you answer this question: 
Would Scotland in the EU have an equal voice to Germany, France etc?

"Equal voice" is a metaphor that cant really be qualified in any way.

A smaller nation will never have "as loud a voice" (again metaphorical) as a huge nation.

However, the difference between the two Unions is that in one, our voice can be and is routinely ignored.

In another, the holding of a veto means shitty voice metephors are irrelevant surely?

[strichener]

14 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

But Germany will have more MEP's 

(c) strichener

Disingenuous nonsense from you.  Again.