When will indyref2 happen?

[williemillersmoustache]

Codifying the interval between referendums is fine. But it would need to be part of a constitutional settlement which spells out the exact process for achieving one. Just no more talk for 20 years can gtf. 

ETA the established UK union of flags and the Norn precedent of 7 years would seem about the right number to me.

This wouldn't just benefit the Yes side but would put the appropriate pressure on Unionists, UK wide to make the case for No and the thought of remaining a part of this multination state less of a fucking terrible idea and wholly unappealing offer. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by williemillersmoustache

[Clown Job]

[Theyellowbox]

7 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

The SNP saying it's a single issue GE doesn't change anything about the mandate, mechanisms or impact of the GE. They'd be exactly where they are now. 

They pretty much campaign every GE on this single issue anyway. Nicola says so isn't going to unlock this issue, it's empty rhetoric, why would other MPs play along with this ridiculous game. Local MPs will try and win their seats and promote local issues and vote winning subjects no matter what Nicola tells her worshippers. 

 

So maybe you can answer the big question then, what is the democratic route to a referendum? Not whether we should be independent or not, but just the route to the asking of the question?

[btb]

I don't think it can be said often enough but I'll say it again "there will never be a right time for the opponents of IndyRef2".

The other argument against IndyRef2 is that it is a distraction from "the day job" but so much of what could be done is affected by the issue that I consider it to be invalid. I'll throw this at any Labour & Lib-Dem voters out there in P&Bland - Despite there being little between the SNP & Labour & the Lib Dems in terms of economic & social policies the latter two have chosen to ally themselves with the Tories - it's clear who's "not getting on with the day job".

*****************************

I went into the 14 Referendum thinking "probably YES" but the NO coampaign was essentially "we love you Scotland but if you leave we'll fuck you right up" made me a committed YES.

We were sold a lemon on EU membership. The Vow was never implemented so I reckon enough has changed for a second vote to be a valid request - I would note that for NI 7 years is the required gap between referendums. but I'd be happy with a 20 year guarantee after a second one within just 9 years after the first, personally I think a second NO will kill off Indepence for good.

I have been disappointed with the SNPs record over the last 3-4 years but set against the Tories party I think they win hands down - there's no good reason not to have a second IndyRef and if one is held I'm pretty sure I'll be voting YES again.

[razamanaz]

I think Scotland should have independence if the Scottish people want it.

The SNP, after 15 years in power, should have been in a strong position by using their powers to make the country a better place to live, but they've made an arse of everything they touch and the polls are still staying 50/50 in favour

Think they've missed a huge opportunity - but if the Scots vote yes then fair enough

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

So maybe you can answer the big question then, what is the democratic route to a referendum? Not whether we should be independent or not, but just the route to the asking of the question?

The question has been answered multiple times. 

In fact Nicola herself mentioned it multiple times yesterday, you need a section 30 from Westminster unless the SC judges otherwise. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

7 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

One thing has to be agreed , after this indy and imo it will happen , when exactly its the difficult part. It has to be the last one for a long while. 

Get indy done by Oct next year and have it in writing we are done with the question whatever the result until 2045 earliest. 

 

That's the kind of thing that I find odd. If the next UK general produces a clear parliamentary majority in favour of a referendum about rejoining the EU, by your standard, it shouldn't be allowed.  Too soon. The idea that an electorate in 2030 shouldn't be allowed to express a view on a decision taken today or tomorrow is most odd. 

I confess to some surprise at the notion being put forward by some unionists, and rarely if ever directly challenged by the media, that the best people to say what the voters in Scotland think or want are not the MSPs or MPs repeatedly elected by those voters, but are actually the high heid yins in a party that has not won any election in Scotland since the 1950s.  To put it another way, someone born on the day that the Conservatives last won a majority of Scottish seats (Unionists plus National Liberal and Conservatives produced a huge majority of 1) has now passed their state retirement age. 

Enough of this notion that the blessed Union is a voluntary partnership. It is more akin to an abusive marriage with the dominant partner occasionally smiling sweetly and buying his partner a necklace. But 'What? You want to leave me? Never. You are pathetic... Look at you. You can't even talk about some things unless I allow it. You're nothing without me and you are mine, remember that!' 

No. Enough. 

[BigDoddyKane]

28 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

 

Why?

 

imo these sort of fundamental questions are so dominating of the political time that some sort of agreed interval between referendums should be part of the agreement. 

Thats good for everyone imo 

That deosnt stop any party carrying on with an independence path it just means its all clear and agreed how often the window is open to have these votes

[Theyellowbox]

14 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

The question has been answered multiple times. 

In fact Nicola herself mentioned it multiple times yesterday, you need a section 30 from Westminster unless the SC judges otherwise. 

That's not what I asked though. What democratic route can Scotland take? Scottish MP's cannot form a UK government and therefore grant a section 30, so what democratic route is there? 

[BigDoddyKane]

28 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Codifying the interval between referendums is fine. But it would need to be part of a constitutional settlement which spells out the exact process for achieving one. Just no more talk for 20 years can gtf. 

ETA the established UK union of flags and the Norn precedent of 7 years would seem about the right number to me.

This wouldn't just benefit the Yes side but would put the appropriate pressure on Unionists, UK wide to make the case for No and the thought of remaining a part of this multination state less of a fucking terrible idea and wholly unappealing offer. 

I would agree with that but would make it longer than 7 years but the time frame would be something to be discussed and agreed by all

[Clown Job]

You have to wonder why English MP are worried about saving money if Scotland votes for independence 

We are a resource drain apparently, they’ll be saving themselves a fortune 

[williemillersmoustache]

3 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

I would agree with that but would make it longer than 7 years but the time frame would be something to be discussed and agreed by all

Happy to offer a compromise of 9.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

To be fair, that's not answering the question which was asked of you.

If Westminster simply refuse under any circumstances to issue a section 30 order, what is the democratic route to an independence referendum? The SNP have in fairness done everything demanded of them in terms of electoral mandates etc.

It is an answer as to the democratic process, acquiring a section 30 is part of that process. Unilaterally declaring a GE as an Indy ref is not the answer to the democratic process. 

Well considering they've already accepted one less than a decade ago and have said they would do in the future I don't think framing anything as "refuse under any circumstance" is accurate.

The democratic route is acquiring a section 30, usually by political pressure, I'd say there's a few ways they can show this going forward, presently the fact pro Indy parties get under 50% of the vote is an area they would probably need to improve on. 

[BigDoddyKane]

17 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

That's the kind of thing that I find odd. If the next UK general produces a clear parliamentary majority in favour of a referendum about rejoining the EU, by your standard, it shouldn't be allowed.  Too soon. The idea that an electorate in 2030 shouldn't be allowed to express a view on a decision taken today or tomorrow is most odd. 

I confess to some surprise at the notion being put forward by some unionists, and rarely if ever directly challenged by the media, that the best people to say what the voters in Scotland think or want are not the MSPs or MPs repeatedly elected by those voters, but are actually the high heid yins in a party that has not won any election in Scotland since the 1950s.  To put it another way, someone born on the day that the Conservatives last won a majority of Scottish seats (Unionists plus National Liberal and Conservatives produced a huge majority of 1) has now passed their state retirement age. 

Enough of this notion that the blessed Union is a voluntary partnership. It is more akin to an abusive marriage with the dominant partner occasionally smiling sweetly and buying his partner a necklace. But 'What? You want to leave me? Never. You are pathetic... Look at you. You can't even talk about some things unless I allow it. You're nothing without me and you are mine, remember that!' 

No. Enough. 

I think for these fundamental issues like independence and brexit an agreed interval makes sense, for example to look at it another way if its a yes vote for independence and for whatever reason, outside issues, anything some early downsides occur and support grows to stop the process of independence. Are we going to have a vote after a coupe of years to not follow indpendence through. 

It would make sense imo for these big fundamental change issues to only occure after agreed time intervals and after the vote whatever desicion is left as it is until next agreed window opens

Edited June 29, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[Albus Bulbasaur]

6 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

That's not what I asked though. What democratic route can Scotland take? Scottish MP's cannot form a UK government and therefore grant a section 30, so what democratic route is there? 

They can take the democratic route of getting a section 30 granted like they did in 2014.... 

[BigDoddyKane]

4 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Happy to offer a compromise of 9.

Id still go longer but thats how the discussion starts and at end we have an agreed timescale and your right it should have a clear agreed process for achieveing a referndum also. We have that 90% of the talk around this subject is gone and focus can be on the important thing yes or no

Edited June 29, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[Salt n Vinegar]

3 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

I think for these fundamental issues like independence and brexit an agreed interval makes sense, for example to look at it another way if its a yes vote for independence and for whatever reason, outside issues, anything some early downsides occur and support grows to stop the process of independence. Are we going to have a vote after a coupe of years to not follow indpendence through. 

It would make sense imo for these big fundamental change issues to only occure after agreed time intervals and after the vote whatever desicion is left as it is until next agreed window opens

Who gets to "agree" the time interval? 

[Left Back]

2 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

I think for these fundamental issues like independence and brexit an agreed interval makes sense, for example to look at it another way if its a yes vote for independence and for whatever reason, outside issues, anything some early downsides occur and support grows to stop the process of independence. Are we going to have a vote after a coupe of years to not follow indpendence through. 

It would make sense imo for these big fundamental change issues to only occure after agreed time intervals and after the vote whatever desicion is left as it is until next agreed window opens

Not a chance of that happening.

[Crùbag]

This x100

 

 

[Crùbag]

3 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

They can take the democratic route of getting a section 30 granted like they did in 2014.... 

Er, they have done.