When will indyref2 happen?

[madwullie]

36 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

The effort you put in to be laughably unfunny is actually impressive, stick to the dotting buddy. 

Monster Craven Loony Party was actually really good tbf

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, BILmac1967 said:

Manifesto pledges are like bubble-gum dabities from the 1970's - free with every mouthful and wear off quickly.

There's nothing official about election manifestoes, the lot of them just lie like eff.

Well aye, I didn't say it should be legally binding. I'm saying if that's what people voted for, why shouldn't there be one?

[SANTAN]

Just now, madwullie said:

Monster Craven Loony Party was actually really good tbf

Better than the asshole party for sure! 

[Jagsman411971]

In my opinion, the fairest way, would be for everyone to share the responsibility for our country. 

So, with that in mind, the Unionists have had the last 300 years, so we'll take the next 300.

Sounds fair to me.

[BILmac1967]

11 minutes ago, GordonS said:

You do understand that those who campaigned for and voted for Brexit overwhelmingly wanted it to reduce trade between the UK and the EU, and to reduce freedom of movement, while those who campaigned for and voted for Scottish independence wanted it to have no impact on trade or free movement at all?

Independence supporters don't want to "cut ourselves off" from anyone, you're thinking of Leavers.

If we voted Indy we'd be both out of the EU and the UK, CMIIW, over 92% of our trade with Europe has to travel through English ports I don't see how Independence works in our favour-also there's no guarantee we'd get to rejoin the EU, I believe there's a trial period in which we have to prove our version of a currency, (based on the pound). There's every chance our currency would be downgraded in that time period and we might never get to join the EU as an independent nation. I just don't see where the advantage is for Scotland.

[wastecoatwilly]

7 minutes ago, BILmac1967 said:

If we voted Indy we'd be both out of the EU and the UK, CMIIW, over 92% of our trade with Europe has to travel through English ports I don't see how Independence works in our favour-also there's no guarantee we'd get to rejoin the EU, I believe there's a trial period in which we have to prove our version of a currency, (based on the pound). There's every chance our currency would be downgraded in that time period and we might never get to join the EU as an independent nation. I just don't see where the advantage is for Scotland.

The suez canal looks pretty blocked up recently,no problem for them to come straight up the Clyde.

[HTG]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Woah, are you advocating the violent suppression of civilians expressing their political will? Falangist police officers cracking pensioners' heads? Please tell me you're not that bad.

He is that bad. It's obvious he's that bad when you read the rest. 

[gaz5]

If the UK or any part of it re-joined the EU would they be deciding to return to being subservient?

No, because Westminster currently holds around 90% decision making power as part of the UK "Union" where the EU is around 15% of its member states. Being a of the EU would not mean we get the government another country votes for.

Not all Political Unions are analogous. Some are Unions of equals where small countries can have a voice, others, not so much.

Besides, if the best argument for remaining in your Union is that the other Union is bad, the one you told us we'd never get into on our own anyway and we had to stay in your Union to be members of when you didn't think it was bad, before taking us out of that Union because that's a bad Union again, you've not really got much of an argument.

FWIW, I'm open to a discussion on joining the EU post independence. I'm undecided on that front.

I'm also all for hearing good reasons to stay as part of the UK, but they never seem to be forthcoming, all we ever get is semantic arguments about referendums.

[jakedee]

Then be specific, how far apart should each referendum be, until you get the win you demand?
If economic conditions of the future might suit, how soon do the reamainers get another?
But in your mind there will never be another, you only see your own point and no-one elses.
Also current economic conditions might not be the same 25 years from now, that's why referenda should be a generation apart.

Quite simple really, a party with a manifesto to re run the referendum wins power, and legislates for another.
Not a good history for that though.

[BILmac1967]

13 minutes ago, HTG said:

He is that bad. It's obvious he's that bad when you read the rest. 

You've invented an argument of violence I didn't actually make.

The point is that Catalan independence isn't internationally accepted.

Our own version of a referendum wouldn't either.

Funny how quickly the whole Catalan thing left the news and the world moved on.

[BILmac1967]

9 minutes ago, jakedee said:

Quite simple really, a party with a manifesto to re run the referendum wins power, and legislates for another.
Not a good history for that though.

Which party with a manifesto to re-run the referendum, I don't remember that?

 

[jakedee]

Which party with a manifesto to re-run the referendum, I don't remember that?
 

You asked how remainers (presumably UK remainers) get another referendum if they lose.
I have given a simple answer how that's achievable.

[madwullie]

There is literally nothing whatsoever stopping Labour stating that their manifesto will contain a promise to hold a referendum on applying to re-enter the EU, campaigning on that basis, and implementing it when elected. They seem to think that the electorate are by and large swivel eyed EU hating maniacs though and it wouldn't win them votes.

Its called the will of the people.

Hence, when the SNP campaigned on a manifesto promise that they would seek another referendum in the event of a material change of circumstances (and specifically stated that would be if Scotland were to vote as a whole to remain in the EU, but that the UK wide vote went against those wishes and therefore we left) and people voted for them in droves, it can be taken that the will of the Scottish people is to have a referendum.

When a political party makes promises in an election campaign and people subsequently vote for them, it is right that those promises be upheld. If they're not, the people can withhold their vote the next time round.

Presumably you'll be voting for a unionist party who vow to oppose a divisive referendum or some other buzzword bullshit like that. I imagine you would be incandescent were the party you lend your vote to subsequently supported one.

[GordonS]

44 minutes ago, BILmac1967 said:

If we voted Indy we'd be both out of the EU and the UK, CMIIW, over 92% of our trade with Europe has to travel through English ports I don't see how Independence works in our favour-also there's no guarantee we'd get to rejoin the EU, I believe there's a trial period in which we have to prove our version of a currency, (based on the pound). There's every chance our currency would be downgraded in that time period and we might never get to join the EU as an independent nation. I just don't see where the advantage is for Scotland.

I don't believe Scotland would be out of the EU for a minute if it were independent and neither does anyone who works there.

Being out of the UK should make literally no difference to freedom of movement of goods, people, services or capital between Scotland and the rest of the UK, but unfortunately the little Englanders who currently run the UK see it otherwise so I have to accept that they would impose controls. We're talking about people so backward they're happy to risk violence in Northern Ireland just so they can pretend to be in charge. You may be happy to be beholden to such regressive, xenophobic, parochial, nationalistic attitudes but in general those who support independence seem to be considerably more outward-looking.

To me the main advantage of independence is not being run by those people and not being dragged down the social and economic toilet with them. The UK is already the least wealthy nation in our neighbourhood because of American-style economic policies and decades of decline in comparison with those around us are about to accelerate rapidly. 

[GordonS]

17 minutes ago, BILmac1967 said:

You've invented an argument of violence I didn't actually make.

The point is that Catalan independence isn't internationally accepted.

Our own version of a referendum wouldn't either.

Funny how quickly the whole Catalan thing left the news and the world moved on.

The "whole Catalan thing" didn't leave the news. All you're telling us is that you don't follow the news.

The only point on which we agree is that a referendum not recognised by the UK government would not be recognised by anyone else.

But it's very disturbing that you seem fine with what happened in Catalonia. 

[sophia]

6 minutes ago, GordonS said:

The "whole Catalan thing" didn't leave the news. All you're telling us is that you don't follow the news.

The only point on which we agree is that a referendum not recognised by the UK government would not be recognised by anyone else.

But it's very disturbing that you seem fine with what happened in Catalonia. 

Given the context of and the nature of this forum just at the moment I can forgive you for being simplistic.

The referendum will be scheduled and if it so wishes the uk government can challenge it through the courts but as we know there is no certainty in that outcome. Simply not recognising the referendum is not an option.

DRoss has used the word wildcat and it is obvious what he's up to. However, I do not think for one moment that Anas Sarwar and whoever takes over from Willie Rennie will align themselves with the tolies and deny a clear expression of the electorate.

We therefore start the referendum process and if Johnson immediately challenges it, they are doubling down on their fail and that's a terrible look.

If they win in court, it just kicks the can down the road and with that we get further away from 1945 with fewer blazer wearers by the day to bolster the Winston based support. If they lose, wow, cobbling together a no campaign with that backdrop would be something.

If they leave it until after the yes vote, they're throwing all their cash at one horse in a two horse race.

The only sensible option is to accept a referendum at the earliest opportunity and give it all the negative they can in the hope that Lizzie will purr once again.

 

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, sophia said:

Given the context of and the nature of this forum just at the moment I can forgive you for being simplistic.

The referendum will be scheduled and if it so wishes the uk government can challenge it through the courts but as we know there is no certainty in that outcome. Simply not recognising the referendum is not an option.

DRoss has used the word wildcat and it is obvious what he's up to. However, I do not think for one moment that Anas Sarwar and whoever takes over from Willie Rennie will align themselves with the tolies and deny a clear expression of the electorate.

We therefore start the referendum process and if Johnson immediately challenges it, they are doubling down on their fail and that's a terrible look.

If they win in court, it just kicks the can down the road and with that we get further away from 1945 with fewer blazer wearers by the day to bolster the Winston based support. If they lose, wow, cobbling together a no campaign with that backdrop would be something.

If they leave it until after the yes vote, they're throwing all their cash at one horse in a two horse race.

The only sensible option is to accept a referendum at the earliest opportunity and give it all the negative they can in the hope that Lizzie will purr once again.

 

There are three possible referendums:

• One legislated for by the UK government through a s30 Order
• One legislated through the Scottish Parliament and ruled competent by the Supreme Court
• One arranged outside the legislative process.

Number one isn't going to happen.

Number three would be boycotted by unionists and have no legitimacy. It could raise pressure if it got a good enough result but the risks are enormous.

Number two - I expect the Supreme Court to rule it unlawful based on what experts have said but it's definitely an open and realistic possibility. But the UK government would have absolutely no obligation to take part in it or respect the result, and unionists could still boycott it (in practice I don't think they would, though the Tories might.) It's impossible to foresee what happens if we end up down this unlikely but possible road.

I completely disagree with you that it's a terrible look for the Tories to challenge the referendum process. Do you really think the Tories care what it looks like to people who would never vote for them anyway? Telling the Scottish Parliament to fk off would massively appeal to their supporters across the UK. About half of Tories in Scotland want them to abolish the Scottish Parliament!

[BFTD]

By Christ, this thread never disappoints.

[sophia]

15 minutes ago, GordonS said:

There are three possible referendums:

• One legislated for by the UK government through a s30 Order
• One legislated through the Scottish Parliament and ruled competent by the Supreme Court
• One arranged outside the legislative process.

Number one isn't going to happen.

Number three would be boycotted by unionists and have no legitimacy. It could raise pressure if it got a good enough result but the risks are enormous.

Number two - I expect the Supreme Court to rule it unlawful based on what experts have said but it's definitely an open and realistic possibility. But the UK government would have absolutely no obligation to take part in it or respect the result, and unionists could still boycott it (in practice I don't think they would, though the Tories might.) It's impossible to foresee what happens if we end up down this unlikely but possible road.

I completely disagree with you that it's a terrible look for the Tories to challenge the referendum process. Do you really think the Tories care what it looks like to people who would never vote for them anyway? Telling the Scottish Parliament to fk off would massively appeal to their supporters across the UK. About half of Tories in Scotland want them to abolish the Scottish Parliament!

No I don't but the key is not the staunch 20%, it's about the others in Scotland who are persuadable. The rest of the uk is immaterial but the persuadables in Scotland will take a dim view of political leaders with an anti democratic purpose.

Oh and also, your three scenarios as I've already explained are simplistic. Nicola has already said that it's up to Johnson to challenge through the courts if he has a gripe. Else it is not outside a legislative process.

 

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

3 hours ago, gaz5 said:

No, because Westminster currently holds around 90% decision making power as part of the UK "Union" where the EU is around 15% of its member states. Being a of the EU would not mean we get the government another country votes for.

Not all Political Unions are analogous. Some are Unions of equals where small countries can have a voice, others, not so much.

Besides, if the best argument for remaining in your Union is that the other Union is bad, the one you told us we'd never get into on our own anyway and we had to stay in your Union to be members of when you didn't think it was bad, before taking us out of that Union because that's a bad Union again, you've not really got much of an argument.

FWIW, I'm open to a discussion on joining the EU post independence. I'm undecided on that front.

I'm also all for hearing good reasons to stay as part of the UK, but they never seem to be forthcoming, all we ever get is semantic arguments about referendums.

Some are Unions of equals where small countries can have a voice, others, not so much. 

Are you saying in the EU that Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia have the same voice as say Germany and France?

 

As for the rest of your answer - it looks like you just made it all up as I never mentioned anything being bad. I voted to stay in the EU as on balance it is better to be inside the tent trying to change for the better than stepping out and becoming a smaller, inward -looking entity. 

I also have lots of good reasons to stay in the UK, but put simply, I am happy being a part of Britain and would not risk leaving for a 'potential' gain. I also don't like the rampant anti-English agenda of many nationalists. It's borne of ignorance.