Jump to content

When will indyref2 happen?


Colkitto

Indyref2  

816 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jedi said:

Good points. I suppose that it has been difficult in some respects for Sturgeon....she knows that Westminster will continually so No to any Ref request, and at the same time she believes that this will shore up and also boost support for Independence.

However, it hasn't, as, essentially the Yes vote, despite being in the lead on several occasions, has never sustained that 60% margin, needed to be sure of winning.

As you say, by constantly promising a Ref 'soon', 'next year', soon...honestly', 'we have drawn up plans' etc, the SNP have handed the power of the Ref as well as its timing firmly back to Westminster.

Those at the top of the SNP must surely know that the clock is really ticking though...as said-how will they be able to approach the next Scottish Election? Give us our 8th win in a row, and we really, really promise this time, that there will be a Ref next year? Why, what makes it different to the last 8 times you said that?

I like your post and but for the surfeit of commas in your second paragraph, I might well have chosen to vote it positively.

As for the referendum timing, given brexit and covid, not to mention the Edinburgh and London elections, I'm at a loss as to when it could've been realistically scheduled.

Of course this is to discount the inevitable defeat a too-soon repeat ref would have delivered.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/02/2022 at 21:37, oaksoft said:

Faffing around  over the wording of the question won't make any difference at all.

If the SNP genuinely want to hold and win IndyRef2 they need to start answering all the reasonable questions which have been asked of them regarding things like currency, pensions, the EU, borders, trade and everything else.

To still be unable to provide solid, easily defended and winning arguments on any of these fundamental issues after all these years and in particular having already been attacked and humped on them in the 2014 vote is unbelievable.

Voting Yes in 2014 was a vote from the heart and it clearly wasn't enough.

To go into another IndyRef thinking you can just wave the flag again is a dreadful strategy.

The SNP will have some work rebuilding the trust lost amongst many of us with their control freakery over covid and a range of other issues.

I agree with you on the last 4 paragraphs, but not the first. The question has to change to make the union the contentious issue. 

The Snp have had 7 years to make the case for independence and have done nothing about answering many peoples questions.  Their lack of preparation is undeniable. I have lost trust in them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/02/2022 at 21:07, Jedi said:

If they don't get either a Ref (not going to happen), or a push for a majority of MP's starting negotiations off the back of the next GE, its done.

What would the SNP position at the next Scottish election be in that scenario?...vote for us and we will have a mandate for a Ref? By that time looking to win their 8th (eight!) straight election (GE/Scot)  in a row. Even the most hardened Independence supporter by that stage would surely say 'what is the point'?

The window is between now and just after the next GE, or it ain't happening imo.

The referendum on the current terms (section 30) is the last thing that any Scottish nationalist should want as it will only be a repeat of 2014.  

Has to be a plebiscite general election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/02/2022 at 23:09, oaksoft said:

The time to have done this would have been to wait a reasonable amount of time after 2014 to show we respected the result. At least 10 to 15 years.

By being too aggressive and too dismissive of No voters and rushing for an IndyRef2, the Yes side has lost control of the timing of the process and as you say there is now a rapidly closing window which is completely out of the hands of the SNP.

By then being incapable of delivering the IndyRef2 they have repeatedly promised, they will have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and it will kill independence stone dead.

They should have thought all of that through thoroughly before mouthing off and making promises they couldn't reasonably keep and as we've repeatedly seen over the last few years, the SNP talk first and think second.

Ego and arrogance is what will kill this.

It's an entirely self-inflicted wound.

Nope.  The time to have declared independence would have been 2015 when we had 56 out of 59 Snp mps at Westminster. This was when we realised that the "vow" had been broken and English votes for English laws was brought in in the day after the Indy vote.  We had an overwhelming SCOTTISH majority of MPs elected and the treaty of union should have been dissolved at that point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The problem with your point about the wording of the question is that it treats people like idiots and that really isn't a smart way to try and win large numbers of people to Yes IMO.

Now people may BE idiots. But telling them you think they are is a bad move.

What is wrong from changing the question to "Should Scotland dissolve the treaty of union"  from "Should Scotland be an Independent Country" 

In what way is this treating people like idiots?  I will give you an out here, the Snp should have been explaining how we could leave a voluntary union the past 7 years. 

I think I get what you are saying, most people don't understand that the treaty of union is voluntary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:

What is wrong from changing the question to "Should Scotland dissolve the treaty of union"  from "Should Scotland be an Independent Country" 

In what way is this treating people like idiots?  I will give you an out here, the Snp should have been explaining how we could leave a voluntary union the past 7 years. 

I think I get what you are saying, most people don't understand that the treaty of union is voluntary. 

That's because it isn't. The AoU created a new nation from the erstwhile Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

But then, the less you know about Scotland the more likely you are to be a ScotchNat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

How could they have declared independence? A UDI? That would have failed both in the context of the UK government letting Scotland go and the international community isolating us.

Apart from a UDI, how else could it have been done?

To vote for a nationalist political party that wanted independence.  Even though Nicola Sturgeon said it wasnt a vote for Independence.  UDI wouldnt have worked then.

Had Nicola Sturgeon said it was a vote for independence the snp would still have won.  The 56 out of 59 may have been lower, but not by much. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

That's because it isn't. The AoU created a new nation from the erstwhile Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

But then, the less you know about Scotland the more likely you are to be a ScotchNat.

The treaty of union between Scotland and England is a voluntary trade agreement.  England can leave at anytime, as can Scotland. 

All it takes is a number of MPs at westminster to agree to dissolve it.  I have often wondered why England having so much control over the English (UK) parliament at westminster they have never got rid of the subsidy junkies in Scotland.  And recently have wondered why we, Scotland, that have elected a majority of our share of seats in the English (UK) parliament have never actually declared Independence by ripping up the treaty of union. 

Then I discovered the Snp have become comfortable with being a colonial administration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kenneth840 said:

Show me where in the AOU then.

The opening para.  This is the simplest of simple notions.  As the act said:

"That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May
next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name
of Great-Britain"

I know that The Natter Horde hate it but it's how unitary nation-state is.

'Voluntary trade agreement' my arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

The opening para.  This is the simplest of simple notions.  As the act said:

"That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May
next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name
of Great-Britain"

I know that The Natter Horde hate it but it's how unitary nation-state is.

'Voluntary trade agreement' my arse.

How do you reconcile this statement with the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty i.e. that no UK parliament can make a law that binds its successors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goomba said:

It's embarrassing we're still talking about this when it was settled in 2014.

You're dealing with a thicket of ScotchNats whose knowledge of history is a weird synthesis of Braveheart and Trainspotting, though.  Not surprising to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Antlion said:

You mean when we voted to remain in an EU member state? Don’t think we’ve ever been asked if we want to be part of an anti-EU state.

I didn't mention the EU.

We said no to partition in 2014 which settled the issue as per the Edinburgh Agreement, also backed up by countless 'Once in a Generation' and 'Once in a Lifetime' promises by prominent members of the Guess Scotland campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Goomba said:

I didn't mention the EU.

We said no to partition in 2014 which settled the issue as per the Edinburgh Agreement, also backed up by countless 'Once in a Generation' and 'Once in a Lifetime' promises by prominent members of the Guess Scotland campaign.

Of course you didn’t - because it undermines your “settled” claim. We voted to remain part of a state which no longer exists; it’s been replaced by the separatist Brexit Britain. Naturally, racists like Kincy are happy about that - but recent elections indicate the rest of us are not. Of course, if Scots are keen to decide to remain part of a separatist state, I’d have thought Little Britons would be eager for another referendum - to really show our faith in partitioning Europe and getting it right up Johnny Foreigner. Also, you’re wrong about the Edinburgh Agreement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...