When will indyref2 happen?

[GordonS]

You hear it from Unionist all the time unless you have your head firmly stuck in the sand.  The Scottish Parliament is not legally competent to hold a constitutional referendum which is why the Edinburgh Agreement exists.  It also wasn't a throw-away comment, it was a position adopted by the SNP to, as you say, get across to people the importance and rarity of the opportunity.  What we can't do now is throw our hands up in the air and say it doesn't matter.  It clearly does as this together with "now is not the time" is the battlecry from Unionists and whilst others on here may be in favour of proceeding without an Agreement with Westminster there is no way that this would be accepted by the International Community.

There's nothing in the Scotland Act that explicitly rules out a purely consultative referendum on a reserved matter. There is some precedent for this, when Strathclyde Regional Council held a referendum on water privatisation - the Tories challenged their competence to do this and lost. It'll be for a court to decide, and no-one can say with any certainty what way that would go. On cases about competence so far, the Supreme Court has lent heavily in favour of devolution.

[GordonS]

And now it's off the table? 

You'll have had your democracy.

[Mr Heliums]

I think this tired push for federalism again does have a point: Labour clearly trying to build enough traction for it to get it onto the ballot paper as an option. And the way things are going that's probably the only way they'll stop independence – give people a choice just short of indy and they might waver.

Absolutely unscrupulous – and of course ties in with the other, fatuous, part of the argument, that we should wait until the pain of COVID is over before a referendum. In other words, hold off until the anger about being taken out of the EU against our will recedes and we can make up an argument about the importance of staying in the UK market again.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Mr Heliums

[Stellaboz]

Won't happen. Tory's have been eating away at our current responsibilities, what's the point in the feudalism argument? We'd be back (or worse) to square one within years or actually, would never be pushed through.

[GordonS]

Federalism in the UK would require a change to a constitutional convention that I don't even know if it's possible to change. The UK parliament can't permanently give powers away, because it may not bind its successors. Even when they specifically wrote in primary legislation that it couldn't be repealed, the courts ruled that this couldn't apply. That's why even when though we had legislation saying it required a two-thirds majority in parliament to hold an early general election, all that was needed was amending legislation passed by a simple majority to change it.

Federalism would require too many major changes to the UK constitution - it may even require a written constitution - and it's never, ever going to happen because it will never be enough of a priority to the UK government. The only way it could happen is if England voted for it in a referendum.

[SandyCromarty]

2 hours ago, Mr Heliums said:

I think this tired push for federalism again does have a point: Labour clearly trying to build enough traction for it to get it onto the ballot paper as an option. And the way things are going that's probably the only way they'll stop independence – give people a choice just short of indy and they might waver.

Absolutely unscrupulous – and of course ties in with the other, fatuous, part of the argument, that we should wait until the pain of COVID is over before a referendum. In other words, hold off until the anger about being taken out of the EU against our will recedes and we can make up an argument about the importance of staying in the UK market again.

Couldn't agree more.

[NotThePars]

It’s Paul Sweeney and now Findlay that I’ve seen who’ve been the most supportive of this and while I appreciate that they realise that something has to change as I said to them at the time it’s far too late and any chance of a good faith alteration to the makeup of the UK died in December of last year.

It’s independence or nothing and everyone that has any clout in the discussion is happy with either state of affairs.

[SandyCromarty]

8 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Federalism in the UK would require a change to a constitutional convention that I don't even know if it's possible to change. The UK parliament can't permanently give powers away, because it may not bind its successors. Even when they specifically wrote in primary legislation that it couldn't be repealed, the courts ruled that this couldn't apply. That's why even when though we had legislation saying it required a two-thirds majority in parliament to hold an early general election, all that was needed was amending legislation passed by a simple majority to change it.

Federalism would require too many major changes to the UK constitution - it may even require a written constitution - and it's never, ever going to happen because it will never be enough of a priority to the UK government. The only way it could happen is if England voted for it in a referendum.

And therein is a major obstacle to UK democracy in that there is no written constitution apart from repeated references to precedents in english law or the 1689 Bill of Rights which only defines parliamentary rights and removes absolute monarchy and not the rights of the people.

Edited November 16, 2020 by SandyCromarty

[Caledonian1]

1 hour ago, Stellaboz said:

Won't happen. Tory's have been eating away at our current responsibilities, what's the point in the feudalism argument? We'd be back (or worse) to square one within years or actually, would never be pushed through.

typo I am assuming?

[BFTD]

Divorced from disingenuous rhetoric, the argument is that Scots shouldn't be asked if they want to stay within the United Kingdom until support for independence has fallen.

As a supporter of independence, I fully support this strategy.

[Stellaboz]

typo I am assuming?

Chortle, f**k it I'm keeping it there.

[Antlion]

7 hours ago, BFTD said:

Divorced from disingenuous rhetoric, the argument is that Scots shouldn't be asked if they want to stay within the United Kingdom until support for independence has fallen.

As a supporter of independence, I fully support this strategy.

If I understand the slobbering moron Brown correctly, he doesn’t think Scots should be questioning independence whilst the UK is making mistakes (economic, health-wise, etc). It’s just not cricket to let people vote on membership of the UK when the UK’s inherent failings are so obvious and apparent; better to let Blighty scramble about for the mask first.

[Antlion]

7 hours ago, Caledonian1 said:

typo I am assuming?

Freudian slip, I thought.

[Caledonian1]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

Freudian slip, I thought.

Feudian slip.....

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Federalism in the UK would require a change to a constitutional convention that I don't even know if it's possible to change. The UK parliament can't permanently give powers away, because it may not bind its successors. Even when they specifically wrote in primary legislation that it couldn't be repealed, the courts ruled that this couldn't apply. That's why even when though we had legislation saying it required a two-thirds majority in parliament to hold an early general election, all that was needed was amending legislation passed by a simple majority to change it.
Federalism would require too many major changes to the UK constitution - it may even require a written constitution - and it's never, ever going to happen because it will never be enough of a priority to the UK government. The only way it could happen is if England voted for it in a referendum.

The only way federalism might have worked was if the English regions had vote to have assemblies.

It was the Labour Party themselves who kiboshed federalism with their lukewarm campaign in the North East Assembly referendum.

I'd trust the Tories more than Labour when it came to constitutional matters.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

If I was an independence strategist I'd be quietly pleased that Gordon Brown, that most famous of unelected former UK Prime Ministers is again pooling and sharing his unique brand of pish.
It indicates either that somebody, Broon himself perhaps, thinks he still has any influence or no-one else wants the gig. Go on Ruth, you know you want to join him.

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

If I was an independence strategist I'd be quietly pleased that Gordon Brown, that most famous of unelected former UK Prime Ministers is again pooling and sharing his unique brand of pish.
It indicates either that somebody, Broon himself perhaps, thinks he still has any influence or no-one else wants the gig. Go on Ruth, you know you want to join him.

Yep. It's yet another aspect that's moved from a strength in 2014 to a weakness in any upcoming indyref2. Like them personally or not, the unionist side had some fairly impressive, and still relevant, 'big hitters' in the line up last time round.

Who have they got this time that isn't either utterly irrelevant, widely despised or burned through any political capital they had six years ago?

[Chapelhall chap]

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

If I was an independence strategist I'd be quietly pleased that Gordon Brown, that most famous of unelected former UK Prime Ministers is again pooling and sharing his unique brand of pish.
It indicates either that somebody, Broon himself perhaps, thinks he still has any influence or no-one else wants the gig. Go on Ruth, you know you want to join him.

When I saw him yesterday on Marr I must not be the only one who groaned but was pleased to see him being released from his cave.  He wrote a book not long after being a loser in 2010 and he has not shifted in desperately hoping that the English electorate want constitutional change. Why would they since they almost always get the governments they vote for since 1945?

[NotThePars]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

Yep. It's yet another aspect that's moved from a strength in 2014 to a weakness in any upcoming indyref2. Like them personally or not, the unionist side had some fairly impressive, and still relevant, 'big hitters' in the line up last time round.

Who have they got this time that isn't either utterly irrelevant, widely despised or burned through any political capital they had six years ago?

Burned through it up here and down south. The Labour Party are relying on Ian Murray to guide them through the next few years re Scotland and the Tories have virtually surrendered any claim or interest to speak for Scotland. Genuinely looking forward to seeing who takes the reins for the next referendum. It'll be like when WCW invaded the WWF, they'll have to try and get Salmond and Robertson to defect to try and balance the rosters.

Edited November 16, 2020 by NotThePars

[Caledonian1]

I think Lesley Riddoch would be a good shout to head up a YES campaign.  Blair Jenkins were pretty invisible and whilst came across as a decent guy he was less than inspiring