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

2 minutes ago, Zern said:

Well. They've not had one called by a Nationalist yet.

It is worth considering if MIchelle O'Neill were in a similar position to Nicola Sturgeon, able to legislate a request for a border poll, whether the UK would refuse.

We haven't had one called by a unionist either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

And that’s your prerogative but it becomes an argument for independence in itself. 

 

And as it stands I don't think that argument engages or turns on enough people. Perhaps it will in the future. 

I personally think losing the SC battle would be catastrophic for Indy and I think the following GE would result in them losing seats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zern said:

Well. They've not had one called by a Nationalist yet.

It is worth considering if MIchelle O'Neill were in a similar position to Nicola Sturgeon, able to legislate a request for a border poll, whether the UK would refuse.

the route to a border poll is vague and in theory could be whatever the secretary of state decides.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/irish-reunification

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell the only genuinely legal route for Scotland to become independent is by an act of the UK Parliament (whether preceded by a referendum or simply adopted as policy by whoever is in government at the time)

 

This is effectively what would have happened if Scotland had voted Yes in 2014.

 

The Scottish Parliament is not a sovereign entity. It has the powers it has simply because Westminster has deferred a range of powers to Holyrood. The Scottish Government has no legal basis to unilaterally declare Scotland independent. Similarly, the 59 Scottish MPs are not a sovereign entity in themselves and the idea that getting 30+ SNP MPs at the next GE on a single issue manifesto would lead to independence is a non-starter.

 

Scotland becoming independent requires UKG consent. David Cameron said he would give this consent if Yes had won in 2014, but if Sturgeon plans a referendum herself without consent then Johnson could simply ignore the result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

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. 

But that's not the democratic route. In 2014, it was 'granted' by Westminster as it was recognised there was enough of a mandate, but legally, it didn't need to be done.

You could have ever single person vote for pro independence parties in every election in Scotland and the UK government does have to allow a referendum, political pressure or not.

Regardless on anyone's view as to whether Scotland should be independent or not the question. If it relies on goodwill of others and not a clear democratic route, then it's not democratic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I'd count that as movement, stating that you're going to SC over the issue is what's already been the state of play for the past 6 or 7 years... having a further GE after SC ruling against you is barely "movement" unless you're a sloth. 

The fact that the Lord Advocate has succeeded in having this taken up by the Supreme Court demonstrates that this is far from settled law.

The First Minister is thorough, with backup plans for every eventuality. She did no come before us with 1 plan, but 3.

The offer for a section 30 remains open, to whoever occupies the PM slot between now and 19th October 2023.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zern said:

The fact that the Lord Advocate has succeeded in having this taken up by the Supreme Court demonstrates that this is far from settled law.

The First Minister is thorough, with backup plans for every eventuality. She did no come before us with 1 plan, but 3.

The offer for a section 30 remains open, to whoever occupies the PM slot between now and 19th October 2023.

Good luck with that!

Plan 1 is ask (we know the answer is no)

Plan 2 is courts (we don't know)

Plan 3 is GE (that's not a plan) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

But that's not the democratic route. In 2014, it was 'granted' by Westminster as it was recognised there was enough of a mandate, but legally, it didn't need to be done.

You could have ever single person vote for pro independence parties in every election in Scotland and the UK government doesn't have to allow a referendum, political pressure or not.

Regardless on anyone's view as to whether Scotland should be independent or not the question. If it relies on goodwill of others and not a clear democratic route, then it's not democratic. 

This is also what we've been saying since 2014. You can democratically get WM to grant one right enough. 

Funny how some people don't mind the SNP lying about this continously to gain votes though. That's where the Alba Das have my sympathy. 

Edited by Albus Bulbasaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Left Back said:

the route to a border poll is vague and in theory could be whatever the secretary of state decides.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/irish-reunification

I have a feeling that the US and Ireland may have something to say about that. If Sinn Fein where able to command as much control of the NI legislature as Nicola Sturgeon is able to, with a plurality of parties supporting the border poll it would appear that the UK government is obliged to recognise that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Good luck with that!

Plan 1 is ask (we know the answer is no)

Plan 2 is courts (we don't know)

Plan 3 is GE (that's not a plan) 

It is a plan though. With several steps. At the last they will finally become the thing they've been called all these years; a one issue party.

Just like how the Tories only stand for 1 thing in Scotland, the NO TO INDYREF2 party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Good luck with that!

Plan 1 is ask (we know the answer is no)

Plan 2 is courts (we don't know)

Plan 3 is GE (that's not a plan) 

That's the point you're missing.  Why is the answer no?

After the last indyref a clearly defined trigger should have been put in place defining the requirements to invoke a new Section 30.  Granted they'd all probably still be arguing to this day what the trigger should be but I'm not aware of any attempt by either side to codify it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zern said:

I have a feeling that the US and Ireland may have something to say about that. If Sinn Fein where able to command as much control of the NI legislature as Nicola Sturgeon is able to, with a plurality of parties supporting the border poll it would appear that the UK government is obliged to recognise that.

Sinn Fein currently hold a similar percentage of Assembly seats (30%) as the SNP did in the 2007 elections (36%).

When you include the other nationalist MSP's, that percentage of Assembly seats increases to 38%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zern said:

It is a plan though. With several steps. At the last they will finally become the thing they've been called all these years; a one issue party.

Just like how the Tories only stand for 1 thing in Scotland, the NO TO INDYREF2 party.

The grand plan is to have a General Election and moan when WM doesn't grant a section 30. When do i start quaking in my boots? 

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

That's the point you're missing.  Why is the answer no?

After the last indyref a clearly defined trigger should have been put in place defining the requirements to invoke a new Section 30.  Granted they'd all probably still be arguing to this day what the trigger should be but I'm not aware of any attempt by either side to codify it. 

I'm not missing any point, WM will have a multitude of reasons which they've said numerous times, "once in a generation" seems to be one of their main ones, they've recently been citing pro Indy parties elected to Holyrood and the way the vote splits in percentages as another. 

I sincerely think this particular argument would have weight and support if they hadn't literally granted the powers less than a decade ago. That makes it very difficult to argue that WM are being unreasonable to most people. 

Can agree somewhat on your last part though. That's hardly the fault of Unionists though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

The grand plan is to have a General Election and moan when WM doesn't grant a section 30. When do i start quaking in my boots? 

I'm not missing any point, WM will have a multitude of reasons which they've said numerous times, "once in a generation" seems to be one of their main ones, they've recently been citing pro Indy parties elected to Holyrood and the way the vote splits in percentages as another. 

I sincerely think this particular argument would have weight and support if they hadn't literally granted the powers less than a decade ago. That makes it very difficult to argue that WM are being unreasonable to most people. 

Can agree somewhat on your last part though. That's hardly the fault of Unionists though. 

That's not the plan. The idea is that some kind of GE win (whether base don vote share, or number of seats) should trigger negotiations on independence. Not that it should trigger another request for a S30 for another referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

This is also what we've been saying since 2014. You can democratically get WM to grant one right enough. 

Funny how some people don't mind the SNP lying about this continously to gain votes though. That's where the Alba Das have my sympathy. 

Only you cannot. I'm not sure you grasp the problem. It's up to Westminster to grant one, regardless of what Scotland wants or votes for. The only alternative I can see is that SNP or other pro independence parties stand in seats outside Scotland and win those (they would never) to form a full UK govt, which clearly would never happen.

I'm not clear on how this issue isn't one that unionists can grasp. I'm not particularly keen on SNP and while likely to vote yes in any vote, not 100% convinced, but what does concern me and a great many is this undemocratic nature. Maybe people who are pro union would like the opportunity to put this to bed once and for all? If I was the UK govt, I'd want the vote ASAP and kill off the SNP now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, renton said:

That's not the plan. The idea is that some kind of GE win (whether base don vote share, or number of seats) should trigger negotiations on independence. Not that it should trigger another request for a S30 for another referendum.

The idea is flawed and unrealistic imo. I can't see Labour or Tories agreeing to this idea. 

3 minutes ago, Zern said:

De facto referendum, start quaking when the SNP withdraw their MPs from Westminster and pass a motion for UDI.

I live in the Borders so UDI would be hilarious imo. 

2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Only you cannot. I'm not sure you grasp the problem. It's up to Westminster to grant one, regardless of what Scotland wants or votes for. The only alternative I can see is that SNP or other pro independence parties stand in seats outside Scotland and win those (they would never) to form a full UK govt, which clearly would never happen.

I'm not clear on how this issue isn't one that unionists can grasp. I'm not particularly keen on SNP and while likely to vote yes in any vote, not 100% convinced, but what does concern me and a great many is this undemocratic nature. Maybe people who are pro union would like the opportunity to put this to bed once and for all? If I was the UK govt, I'd want the vote ASAP and kill off the SNP now.

Oh no you're wrong I fully grasp what your problem is with the constitutional set up. I understand your frustrations and why you think more people should be concerned by this, as addressed previously it's quite evident that a lot of people are indifferent and this big perceived injustice just isn't really one the majority of Scottish people feel bothered about on a day to day basis. 

Having a referendum just because you're confident you'd win would be foolish. You don't jump across a gorge with a death drop just because you're confident you would make it if there's a longer safe path around the side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Left Back said:

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.

As I posted a day or so ago, it was used by Sturgeon in her speech to Conference.  It was a politically motivated statement, nothing off the cuff about it.

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...