When will indyref2 happen?

[BigDoddyKane]

2 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Who gets to "agree" the time interval? 

it would need to be a public discussion, maybe a citizens assembly of Scots

Edited June 29, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[Albus Bulbasaur]

1 minute ago, Crùbag said:

Er, they have done.

Evidently not. 

[williemillersmoustache]

5 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

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

What's the democratic route to you giving Stormzy his dog and couch back?

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Just now, oaksoft said:

You're still not answering the question.

And that last paragraph highlights the problem.

The SNP were told to win a General Election. Which they did.

Then they were told to win at Holyrood. Which they did.

Now they are being fobbed off with pish about winning 50% in an election when the Tories had a Brexit referendum with 35% of the vote at a General Election. If the SNP did achieve 50%, no doubt the goalposts would be shifted again.

The SNP have done everything asked of them. If you truly believe in democracy you'll agree there is no justification in withholding that order whether you agree with a referendum being held right now or not. It's unreasonable to deny them it.

If you don't have an answer that's fair enough but the original question still stands. What is the democratic route for the SNP when the Tories are simply refusing to allow a Section 30 order after the SNP have won a clear democratic mandate to obtain one?

I've answered your question...

They're not "simply refusing" to grant one as they don't feel like their is a clear mandate for one, this is what will be contested in court. This argument would hold weight if the Tories hadn't granted one less than a decade ago...

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

What's the democratic route to you giving Stormzy his dog and couch back?

25 greenies. 

[TheScarf]

The once in a generation line was an off the cuff comment made by an SNP member, may have been Salmond, in an effort to get people to vote Yes.  No where in any legislation does it state the vote in 2014 was once in a generation.  The Unionist media still lap that comment up as gospel.

[Dons_1988]

5 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I've answered your question...

They're not "simply refusing" to grant one as they don't feel like their is a clear mandate for one, this is what will be contested in court. This argument would hold weight if the Tories hadn't granted one less than a decade ago...

They are refusing though. Even if the arbitrary mandate you mention was achieved, they’re not bound to grant one.

If the Supreme Court rules there’s no way for them to call a referendum without a section 30, you’re essentially saying Westminster have the power to deny Scot’s the opportunity to leave the union indefinitely, which means it’s not a democratic union and that is quite serious.  

[Dawson Park Boy]

30 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. 

That kind of begs the question. What is it you want to do that you can’t do now?

From what I observe the SG seems to want to ban things more than do them e.g. oil extraction and fracking to name but two.

With all the levers of power which they say they need to boost productivity and GDP, what do you want to do differently to bring about the upsurge. Specifics please.

[Scary Bear]

54 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. 

 

If the Scottish Government are not granted the power to hold a referendum, then it’s the best they can do to demonstrate that a majority of people in Scotland want independence. 

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

That kind of begs the question. What is it you want to do that you can’t do now?

From what I observe the SG seems to want to ban things more than do them e.g. oil extraction and fracking to name but two.

With all the levers of power which they say they need to boost productivity and GDP, what do you want to do differently to bring about the upsurge. Specifics please.

Control our own monetary policy and re-establish single market trading relations with the EU. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

They are refusing though. Even if the arbitrary mandate you mention was achieved, they’re not bound to grant one.

If the Supreme Court rules there’s no way for them to call a referendum without a section 30, you’re essentially saying Westminster have the power to deny Scot’s the opportunity to leave the union indefinitely, which means it’s not a democratic union and that is quite serious.  

They're not indefinitely refusing one though, they've granted one less than a decade ago and they've repeatedly pointed to reasons why they don't feel one needs to be granted at this time whilst acknowledging one may be granted in the future. 

The SC ruling shall certainly be interesting. I'm sure they'll adequately explain the legality behind their decision. 

Out of curiosity what do you think is the appropriate mechanism for Wales to gain independence? 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

7 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

If the Scottish Government are not granted the power to hold a referendum, then it’s the best they can do to demonstrate that a majority of people in Scotland want independence. 

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue with certainty that SNP winning a GE would mean Scotland wants independence even if the SNP try and frame it that way, like they've done previously multiple times. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

2 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

it would need to a public discussion, maybe a citizens assembly of Scots

As far as I know, the only gap between referenda that the Government has ever legislated for is 7 years. If anyone except the voters in the area MUST be given a say on the time interval, wouldn’t it be reasonable to match that? I'm not agreeing the notion of others apart from the Scottish electorate deciding when the time is "right", but if I did, I couldn't accept a longer period than was felt appropriate in NI. The key point I'd keep in mind is that it shouldn't be up to anyone but voters in Scotland to determine their political future, at any time of their choice. 

BTW, it's already 7 years, 9 months and 11 days since the previous indyref. Too soon? Must be another case of "except for viewers in Norther Ireland". 

[BigDoddyKane]

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue with certainty that SNP winning a GE would mean Scotland wants independence even if the SNP try and frame it that way, like they've done previously multiple times. 

I think the aim is that this adds the pressure to get an Indyref

[Suspect Device]

12 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

The once in a generation line was an off the cuff comment made by an SNP member, may have been Salmond, in an effort to get people to vote Yes.  No where in any legislation does it state the vote in 2014 was once in a generation.  The Unionist media still lap that comment up as gospel.

It was included in the Scotland's Future publication.

 

Personally, I'd have preferred a 16 year gap between referendums but I can see the argument for bringing one sooner given the massive changes in our relationships with the EU and the non delivery of 'the vow'.

I'll still be voting Yes. Disappointed the vote isn't in 2016 because I'd like my daughter to have a say since it's more about her future than mine. She'd be a Yes voter as well. 

[101]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Control our own monetary policy and re-establish single market trading relations with the EU. 

The good thing is by 2023 we will won't have left the EU and there will be no control on the import of goods so I think it's about perfect as we will still have huge alignment with the EU. Say if it had been held in 2025 or later there naturally would have been some divergence if the UK government had sorted the mess out. Which to be fair is a big if.

[BigDoddyKane]

3 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

As far as I know, the only gap between referenda that the Government has ever legislated for is 7 years. If anyone except the voters in the area MUST be given a say on the time interval, wouldn’t it be reasonable to match that? I'm not agreeing the notion of others apart from the Scottish electorate deciding when the time is "right", but if I did, I couldn't accept a longer period than was felt appropriate in NI. The key point I'd keep in mind is that it shouldn't be up to anyone but voters in Scotland to determine their political future, at any time of their choice. 

BTW, it's already 7 years, 9 months and 11 days since the previous indyref. Too soon? Must be another case of "except for viewers in Norther Ireland". 

not too soon for me with the Brexit argument, without that it would be too soon for me and I doubt without brexit the momentum for one would be winnable compared to last time, i think indyref now would be easy to win once its granted

Edited June 29, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Just now, BigDoddyKane said:

I think the aim is that this adds the pressure to get an Indyref

Oh aye if course I get that but imo it's just bluster, especially after the event of an unfavourable SC ruling. 

We'd still be in the same boat. 

[Antlion]

13 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

That kind of begs the question. What is it you want to do that you can’t do now?

From what I observe the SG seems to want to ban things more than do them e.g. oil extraction and fracking to name but two.

With all the levers of power which they say they need to boost productivity and GDP, what do you want to do differently to bring about the upsurge. Specifics please.

I thought you abhorred “specifics” and preferred vague promises printed on the side of buses? You thinking you can demand “specifics” after openly admitting you voted for a blank cheque is a bit like Jeffrey Dahmer campaigning for better prison food.

[Left Back]

14 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

It was included in the Scotland's Future publication.

 

Personally, I'd have preferred a 16 year gap between referendums but I can see the argument for bringing one sooner given the massive changes in our relationships with the EU and the non delivery of 'the vow'.

I'll still be voting Yes. Disappointed the vote isn't in 2016 because I'd like my daughter to have a say since it's more about her future than mine. She'd be a Yes voter as well. 

Seeing as such store is being set in this phrase I went looking yesterday.  You don't have to look very hard to find multiple instances of "once in a generation" or "once in a lifetime" being bandied about by both Salmond and Sturgeon.

4:40 in and Sturgeon uses both phrases.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-24147303

You can argue all you want about how long a generation or lifetime is but the "off the cuff" remark seems to have been thrown out an awful lot.  Any savvy politician should realise that anything they say will be used against them so to keep repeating it played into the Tories hands.

The tories (and probably labour as well) are of course twisting it for their own ends but that's what politicians do.

ETA someone has put a clip of Lisa Nandy repeating the "once in a generation" thing in the Labour thread in this form so Labour are obviously picking it up as well.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Left Back