When will indyref2 happen?

[strichener]

13 hours ago, Zern said:

That and the EU will actually assist Scotland with funding, because they are not incompetent.

Although not the most outrageous of the false statements in your post, I have picked this one as it is the easiest to refute.  Scotland would be a net contributer to the EU, not a recipient of funding.

Edited June 15, 2022 by strichener

[Anonapersona]

13 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

You seem to think that partitioning Britain has some geopolitical resonance.  It doesn't.

It's all about a shower of daft xenophobes - neds, boors and Shinners - wanting a chap from Eyemouth having to cross an international border to go 10 miles for his messages in Berwick.

It is nasty and pernicious.

I do feel a wee bit sorry for that imaginary chap from Eyemouth who desperately wants to get his messages in Berwick.

Is this where unionism is at?

[btb]

Bottom line is if the Yoons  were convinced they'd win IndyRef2 we'd be having it next week, it's gonna happen and the more prevarication from the Yoons  the better as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Zern]

Douglas Ross has said that people should boycott the referendum. After saying that they would win, obviously.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

27 minutes ago, btb said:

Bottom line is if the Yoons  were convinced they'd win IndyRef2 we'd be having it next week, it's gonna happen and the more prevarication from the Yoons  the better as far as I'm concerned.

 

Silly post. Why would they agree to this anyway? Saying "you're too scared" is a primary school level argument, Unionists can be confident and not want to have referendums every second week. 

[Zern]

22 minutes ago, strichener said:

Although not the most outrageous of the false statements in your post, I have picked this one as it is the easiest to refute.  Scotland would be a net contributer to the EU, not a recipient of funding.

I not going to contest that this is the goal, being successful enough to become a net contributor to the EU project. But the dingus i was responding to was coming out with the tired old trope that austerity would be the direct result of independence, when it is clear that EU membership is the goal. We are not trying to recreate Brexit after all and the EU has mechanisms to assist ascension:

Overview - Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (europa.eu)

Because they are not incompetent. Now these are measures for nation states that are in much worse condition than Scotland, but if assistance is needed we can expect it. The EU is not hostile towards ascending members.

 

 

[GTG_03]

2 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I thought we were having a referendum in 2023?

Unfortunately for people like yourself you're still hooked on the copium that Westminster being shit will lead to people supporting SI. It just doesn't quite work like that. Your side needs to start convincing people on the arguments that have if anything got worse since 2014. "Toaries bad" doesn't explain away currency, pensions, borders, EU entry, Brexit issues, nuclear arguments etc...

At this point it's like advising someone with a broken arm to hack it off with a rusty saw. 

Maybe we will ? I've just mentioned my opinion on what I think will happen.

I also haven't mentioned my opinion on Scottish independence or even 'toaries bad' as you say.

I actually agree with you that the yes side need to give solid answers on currency and pensions amongst others.

The nuclear question is a massive ace in negotiations for the yes side as the ukgov have nowhere else to locate them.

Try and play the ball and not the man in future sunshine. I promise you that you'll feel better for it. 

 

[renton]

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Silly post. Why would they agree to this anyway? Saying "you're too scared" is a primary school level argument, Unionists can be confident and not want to have referendums every second week. 

At the same time, Unionist parties can't complain about years of dominance by the constitutional question over 'day job' type politics if they aren't willing to test the proposition to try and put it to bed.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

6 minutes ago, renton said:

At the same time, Unionist parties can't complain about years of dominance by the constitutional question over 'day job' type politics if they aren't willing to test the proposition to try and put it to bed.

So then this is where the discussion would move on to how often do we "test" this thing that we have "tested" before and we all actually already know the answer to.  I don't believe for one second a 2023 would put anything to bed and by a lot of the logic on here it shouldn't and we would have referendums every cycle of government the SNP win. 

7 minutes ago, GTG_03 said:

Maybe we will ? I've just mentioned my opinion on what I think will happen.

I also haven't mentioned my opinion on Scottish independence or even 'toaries bad' as you say.

I actually agree with you that the yes side need to give solid answers on currency and pensions amongst others.

The nuclear question is a massive ace in negotiations for the yes side as the ukgov have nowhere else to locate them.

Try and play the ball and not the man in future sunshine. I promise you that you'll feel better for it. 

 

I wasnt aware I actually did that, perhaps you read too much into my post. I wad just using it as a general point to reply to, nothing personal. 

Also as an aside it's hilarious to see anyone saying that at someone like myself who almost never ever has the ball played fairly on here. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[101]

2 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

So then this is where the discussion would move on to how often do we "test" this thing that we all actually already know. I don't believe for one second a 2023 would put anything to bed and by a lot of the logic on here it shouldn't and we would have referendums every cycle of government the SNP win

If they can prove its in the devolved competence to do then there is no reason why they couldn't hold one every time there is a mandate to do so, that said I don't buy that council elections are a mandate to hold an Independence referendum and if it's in the competence of the Scottish parliament then the UK parliamentary elections would cease to be a provision for a mandate for independence referendums

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

On 14/06/2022 at 12:48, sophia said:

Super smashing great!

Even before the announcement we had professor Jim Gallagher comparing Ruth Wishart, Ruth Wishart for goodness sake, to the worst of the brexity britnats and this morning someone very shouty being rationally out debated by Lesley Riddoch.

The lashing out, as evidenced here, has a fetid and primaeval desperation that is so unattractive.

In fairness Mhairi Hunter is right up there with the brexity ranty people. 

4 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

I’ll await the subsequent papers they’ve promised on currency etc before taking this push seriously. I have a feeling this was all a bit performative yesterday but fingers crossed it wasn’t.

Notably they are still refusing to commit to a date for a formal section 30 request so I’m not quite sure what the plan is here.

I am praying they can give a serious answer on currency and the like because I don’t think they did that in 2014 and if they can’t this time round it won’t be successful. 

Why not just commit to a Scottish Currency we would get support from the imf/eu etc to put in place our central bank and tbh im fine with going to the Euro when conditions are met. Join the Eu. 

[GTG_03]

2 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

So then this is where the discussion would move on to how often do we "test" this thing that we have "tested" before and we all actually already know the answer to.  I don't believe for one second a 2023 would put anything to bed and by a lot of the logic on here it shouldn't and we would have referendums every cycle of government the SNP win. 

I wasnt aware I actually did that, perhaps you read too much into my post. I wad just using it as a general point to reply to, nothing personal. 

Also as an aside it's hilarious to see anyone saying that at someone like myself who almost never ever has the ball played fairly on here. 

As many times as the Scottish people decide. That's democracy.

I do feel though that if a second indyref is lost, the momentum will have been lost and would be years before tested again, if at all. 

Then again, the world is changing rapidly and the fabric of the Union is being stretched so who knows what the future holds?

[renton]

8 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

So then this is where the discussion would move on to how often do we "test" this thing that we all actually already know. I don't believe for one second a 2023 would put anything to bed and by a lot of the logic on here it shouldn't and we would have referendums every cycle of government the SNP win. 

I wasnt aware I actually did that, perhaps you read too much into my post. I wad just using it as a general point to reply to, nothing personal. 

Also as an aside it's hilarious to see anyone saying that at someone like myself who almost never ever has the ball played fairly on here. 

It's a fairly conventional piece of logic that a second No would put it to bed for a long time. It'll never truly go away, but a thumping No vote 2nd time around would likely bury it for decades.

In point of fact my own theory for how we should run a referendum would be that it must be tested every electoral cycle, regardless of the composition of government (who would be free to campaign as they wanted). However, a single 'Yes' vote would not be enough to trigger independence negotiations. You would need two, or even three Yes votes over a period of two to three parliaments to trigger negotiations.

Such a process would allow the UK government a period of grace to properly address the issues that triggered the original Yes vote, but force them by law to abide by the outcome of multiple Yes votes should that occur. Thus, a cool down period is built in avoiding the rancour and controversy associated with a close vote either way. It also works for the Yes side to build momentum from an original vote. Legally binding the constitutional question to an electoral cycle also takes the sting of it out of the rest of politics, allowing the government of the day to be judged on the merits of their other policies rather than their ability to bring forward or reject a referendum.

Edited June 15, 2022 by renton

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, GTG_03 said:

As many times as the Scottish people decide. That's democracy.

I do feel though that if a second indyref is lost, the momentum will have been lost and would be years before tested again, if at all. 

Then again, the world is changing rapidly and the fabric of the Union is being stretched so who knows what the future holds?

Sounds really fair for Northern Ireland, England and Wales

[Stellaboz]

Is it too much to hope for that people take the time do their own research and quite frankly, their own thinking rather than logging into FB or Twitter and letting whoever is paying them the most sway them towards their already pre-determined decision?

 

[renton]

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Sounds really fair for Northern Ireland, England and Wales

It's not really their business.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

It's a fairly conventional piece of logic that a second No would put it to bed for a long time. It'll never truly go away, but a thumping No vote 2nd time around would likely bury it for decades.

In point of fact my own theory for how we should run a referendum would be that it must be tested every electoral cycle, regardless of the composition of government (who would be free to campaign as they wanted). However, a single 'Yes' vote would not be enough to trigger independence negotiations. You would need two, or even three Yes votes over a period of two to three parliaments to trigger negotiations.

Such a process would allow the UK government a period of grace to properly address the issues that triggered the original Yes vote, but force them by law to abide by the outcome of multiple Yes votes should that occur. Thus, a cool down period is built in avoiding the rancour and controversy associated with a close vote either way. It also works for the Yes side to build momentum from an original vote. Legally binding the constitutional question to an electoral cycle also takes the sting of it out of the rest of politics, allowing the government of the day to be judged on the merits of their other policies rather than their ability to bring forward or reject a referendum.

I do broadly agree but from the posts made since your response it's clear not many people on here feel the same for whatever reason that is. 

My one condition is that the question has to be "Should Scotland Remain in the UK" - seeth levels alone make it a fun position.

[Stellaboz]

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Sounds really fair for Northern Ireland, England and Wales

So fucking what? Should Scotland be kept against it's will then, if she votes to leave the UK? 

Nah sorry boys and girls, some sheep farmers in LLwaneystalllewyln and a couple of gammons in Derby want you to stay, so f**k you. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Just now, renton said:

It's not really their business.

Have fun telling that to people from those countries. 

Here, this wee diddy Scottish administration can potentially f**k up you and your children's lives for generations and generations every 4 years...

Doesn't wash imo. 

[GTG_03]

4 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Sounds really fair for Northern Ireland, England and Wales

They are also free to leave the union anytime they want. The way things are going I can see northern Ireland leaving before us.