When will indyref2 happen?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

2 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

Fucking hell 

Shut the f**k up. We're discussing indyref2 on a thread about indyref2.

[Ad Lib]

4 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

No, as you always do you lie in order to oppose. You'r'e an immature contrarian attempting to shift the debate to cover up for the fact you are wrong. You're fundamentally dishonest.

I’ll let my record speak for itself.

4 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

We were talking about unionists. You said they are democrats and will accede to indyref2 in the event of an SNP majority.

Where did I say that? Please quote very specifically.

4 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Now you have attempted to shift the focus to Starmer and 'non' Tories . Newsflash Starmer is the leader of the opposition so can't grant a s30 any more than I can. As it happens he has stated he will oppose indyref2 in the event on an SNP majority anyway so you'd still be wrong even if you weren't lying, but you are.

The stance of other Unionists will be relevant as to the question of how politically viable it is for the UK Government to hold out on a referendum far beyond 2021. I stand by that.

Starmer has said Labour will campaign against a referendum in the Holyrood elections and he’s said a referendum shouldn’t be taking place in the context and immediate aftermath of a pandemic. As far as I understand it he is not ruling out the possibility of backing calls for a section 30 order, or at any rate he’s not saying he’ll vote against a section 30 order regardless of the context, in the lifetime of the new Scottish Parliament. Perhaps you can quote him saying otherwise?

4 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Therefore its been the British government we've been talking about right from the start. You said a majority for the SNP will result in a referendum request being granted, which obviously would require the consent of the British government.

Where did I say that?

4 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Now that's been pointed out to you and you know you lied you are scrabbling to shift the terms of debate.

Presumably you’ll be able to point to where I lied? Like quote a specific post?

4 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Again, you don't speak for unionists or know their minds. They have, to a man, opposed Scottish democracy every day since September 18th 2014, and openly stated they continue to do so. They very much are a monolith, and when they prove it again after May I'll delight in reminding you how full of shit you were, though you know that yourself already.

I think you’re wrong. Some unionists recognise that the SNP have a mandate now. Others don’t but would accept they do if they win a majority at Holyrood’s next elections. Others, of course, will oppose a referendum in any circumstances but that was also true in 2011 and yet we got a section 30 order.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

So lets game out Ad Libs wee fantasy scenario he just created to pretend he was right all along.

The Tories have an 80 seat majority. So lets say we do manage to persuade Starmer, every single Labour parliamentarian and every single non Tory parliamentarian.

Do we get indyref2?  Do we f**k.

So you're lying.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

6 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Shut the f**k up. We're discussing indyref2 on a thread about indyref2.

@Ad Lib is discussing indyref2 on a thread about indyref2. I don't think even you know what the f**k you're on about. 

[Ad Lib]

7 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

"They aren't all NAW SURRENDER either in action or deed and if you want to persuade them, you have to take points a to h seriously."

Riddle me this genius, who were you talking about there?

British Unionists generally including but not limited to registered voters, parliamentarians and political parties.

7 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Starmer and non Tory unionists?  Or the British government?  Cause Starmer and non Tory unionists can't grant a s30 can they?  So what would even be the point in persuading them?

Converting the leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, an avowedly unionist party, to supporting a section 30 order and recognising the mandate of the Scottish Government to pursue a second independence referendum would be pretty fucking consequential.

It would make it much more difficult politically for the UK Government to frame a second referendum as simply a whingy Nat demand and would significantly strengthen the political and international pressure on the UK Government to enter section 30 talks or to make some sort of other concessions.

Is it a guarantee of a section 30 order? No. But it could create the political conditions for one or, failing that, the political cover for seeking to hold a referendum without one.

7 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

 That's like persuading a lump of coal to let you pump Zooey Deschanel, you're still not getting to pump her are you?

I don’t want to pump Zoe Deschanel.

7 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

So you were talking about the British government. You were lying in order to be contrarian, as you know they won't suddenly start to respect our wishes after yet another mandate, but took an opposing position because that's just your nature. Then when pointed out how full of shit you were you've attempted to roll back from that. 

What a load of pish.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

8 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I’ll let my record speak for itself.

Where did I say that? Please quote very specifically.

The stance of other Unionists will be relevant as to the question of how politically viable it is for the UK Government to hold out on a referendum far beyond 2021. I stand by that.

Starmer has said Labour will campaign against a referendum in the Holyrood elections and he’s said a referendum shouldn’t be taking place in the context and immediate aftermath of a pandemic. As far as I understand it he is not ruling out the possibility of backing calls for a section 30 order, or at any rate he’s not saying he’ll vote against a section 30 order regardless of the context, in the lifetime of the new Scottish Parliament. Perhaps you can quote him saying otherwise?

Where did I say that?

Presumably you’ll be able to point to where I lied? Like quote a specific post?

I think you’re wrong. Some unionists recognise that the SNP have a mandate now. Others don’t but would accept they do if they win a majority at Holyrood’s next elections. Others, of course, will oppose a referendum in any circumstances but that was also true in 2011 and yet we got a section 30 order.

Manana x

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

I don’t want to pump Zoe Deschanel.

 

 

Wtf is wrong with you?  

 

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

I don’t want to pump Zoe Deschanel

Wtf is wrong with you?  

She’s boring as f**k mate. Get yourself a Romanian bird.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Ad Fib and his Mrs 

[sergie's no1 fan]

Our parliament voted through a second independence referendum. Westminster denied this. This is an undeniable fact. What is to stop Westminster saying no again if there is another Indy majority in our parliament?

Unionists love to bring up 2014 and democracy but it is only democracy when it suits their agenda.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Shut the f**k up. We're discussing indyref2 on a thread about indyref2.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Please, someone make it stop.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

4 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Ad Lib shouldn't have flexed his credentials imo.

I don'tmind that I didn't know and same as I was correcting whoever else it was he was just correcting me. I never brought that up, somebody else did, as everyone is qualified to discuss politics.

Will reply to him when I have the time today.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Ad Lib shouldn't have flexed his credentials imo.

It was pretty funny. That's Libby and Craigkillie dished out two of the most outstanding slapdowns on P&B within a week on the same spamming arsehole. Excellent stuff.

[Gordon EF]

14 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Aye but I generally don't like 'you must be this tall to get on the ride' type comments.

It's also a bit like Ali smashing Liston's face instead of pulling that last punch.

[strichener]

11 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Gosh well this is awkward. My first class undergraduate degree was literally a joint honours LL.B. Law and Politics. I have a university prize in an undergraduate political theory module and took several honours classes in political theory, political history and domestic government over the course of four years’ study.

My professional experience quite literally involves advising MPs, their staff, other lawyers, journalists and the general public on the intersection between the law, politics and parliamentary procedure, because I am a public law researcher and my expertise is in the constitution and constitutional law.

In other countries that might make me not an expert in aspects of the political system and government because there is a sharper distinction between the legal constitution and politics. But we live in the UK, where the political components of the constitution are particularly important and therefore where to be a constitutional lawyer is to have to be literate in (major aspects of) political science too.

I don’t for a second suggest my path is the only one to professional or academic expertise in politics, especially UK politics, but I think you’re a little bit wide of the mark suggesting I’m not qualified in politics simply because law was my main subject at university.

Uh huh, but apart from that?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

It's also a bit like Ali smashing Liston's face instead of pulling that last punch.

That was Foreman

[Anonapersona]

12 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

I’ll let my record speak for itself.

Where did I say that? Please quote very specifically.

The stance of other Unionists will be relevant as to the question of how politically viable it is for the UK Government to hold out on a referendum far beyond 2021. I stand by that.

Starmer has said Labour will campaign against a referendum in the Holyrood elections and he’s said a referendum shouldn’t be taking place in the context and immediate aftermath of a pandemic. As far as I understand it he is not ruling out the possibility of backing calls for a section 30 order, or at any rate he’s not saying he’ll vote against a section 30 order regardless of the context, in the lifetime of the new Scottish Parliament. Perhaps you can quote him saying otherwise?

Where did I say that?

Presumably you’ll be able to point to where I lied? Like quote a specific post?

I think you’re wrong. Some unionists recognise that the SNP have a mandate now. Others don’t but would accept they do if they win a majority at Holyrood’s next elections. Others, of course, will oppose a referendum in any circumstances but that was also true in 2011 and yet we got a section 30 order.

To be fair, the unionists will always argue that it's never a good time. They'll always find an excuse. Starmer knows fine that if he supported another referendum, his career is over in England. Where it actually matters.

The polls are very consistent in the desire for a referendum. It shouldn't have anything to do with an election result.

We are neck deep in 'let's-try-to-delay-it-forever' territory.

Scotland is nothing more than a novelty item to Westminster.

[Ad Lib]

2 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

Ad Lib shouldn't have flexed his credentials imo.

I’m loath to do so, but to be fair it was specifically claimed that I was not “qualified” in something I very clearly am.

I’m used to having my bona fides questioned on here and often by people who themselves do not have the same bona fides. It is tiresome sometimes, especially when on both my qualification, skills and experience and on the substantive matter of discussion they haven’t a fucking scoobie.

2 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

Aye but I generally don't like 'you must be this tall to get on the ride' type comments.

Me neither. My qualifications and experience aren’t a trump card; they just mean my contributions are (hopefully) more likely to be informed ones.

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

That was Foreman

So it was.