When will indyref2 happen?

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

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

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

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. 

Interesting example, that. The trouble with it is, the path is guarded by a vile troll ten times your size who says "you can't use it". 

[KingRocketman II]

Just now, strichener said:

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.

so honour, consistency, avoiding falsehoods and misrepresentations applies only to politicians in Scotland? The UK Govt has lowered that bar to beyond recognition, even happy to break international law and rip up the application of HR conventions on a whim. It's not whataboutery; it is looking at the current political environment of the UK voters making and within that context, why should anyone give two fecks if at the worse, NS or the SG are rowing back on their word from 9 years ago? 

[strichener]

5 minutes ago, KingRocketman II said:

so honour, consistency, avoiding falsehoods and misrepresentations applies only to politicians in Scotland? The UK Govt has lowered that bar to beyond recognition, even happy to break international law and rip up the application of HR conventions on a whim. It's not whataboutery; it is looking at the current political environment of the UK voters making and within that context, why should anyone give two fecks if at the worse, NS or the SG are rowing back on their word from 9 years ago? 

That whole post is whataboutery.  I was responding to someone that was debunking the "off the cuff" remark.  If you can counteract that with any evidence that it was only "off the cuff" then feel free to do so.

The point isn't that politicians can change their mind.  The SNP used the "once in a generation" phrase as a political tool, a rallying call if you like.  They can't undo that and they certainly cannot level criticism at their opponents when it is thrown back at them.

[Granny Danger]

I accept that there are people who don’t want Scottish Independence, it is a legitimate position though one that I vehemently disagree with.

However to deny Scotland the right to vote again on Independence or argue that a Westminster Tory government, that has very limited support in Scotland, should have the final say is not a legitimate or defensible position.

[The Holiday Song]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

A "decent argument"?

Or an argument you personally agree with?

There are several good reasons for staying in the UK.

Continuity would be one. People value the devil they know very strongly.

Guaranteed border-free trade and travel would be another.

If you voted Brexit, that would be another.

If you consider yourself British rather than Scottish, that would be another.

There's the fact that the SNP haven't actually articulated what they want to do with the power they've asked for. There are holes in all of the basic problem areas from currency through to EU membership.

Then there's a few of us who would vote No today purely because 8 years isn't enough time since the country democratically voted No to show respect for that decision.

There are plenty of reasons why people voted No and would do so again. Dismissing those views is one quick way to get a second No and kill independence permanently.

 

I'd be voting yes, but this is a perfectly reasonable and fair post.

The one thing I do disagree with though seems to be the actual reason you'd be a no voter (if I'm reading correctly). Eight years is plenty of time for another vote with what we've seen happen since then, the Brexit part of it in particular when you consider not only how big a part EU membership was of the 2014 campaign but also that Scotland as a whole voted by quite a large margin for Remain in 2016. That is, in my opinion anyway, enough of a shift for another referendum to be acceptable.

[Granny Danger]

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

That whole post is whataboutery.  I was responding to someone that was debunking the "off the cuff" remark.  If you can counteract that with any evidence that it was only "off the cuff" then feel free to do so.

The point isn't that politicians can change their mind.  The SNP used the "once in a generation" phrase as a political tool, a rallying call if you like.  They can't undo that and they certainly cannot level criticism at their opponents when it is thrown back at them.

You were wrong previously and continue to be wrong.  A politician with a five year mandate has no control what happens beyond that five years.  If you concentrate really hard you might manage to grasp that.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

20 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Interesting example, that. The trouble with it is, the path is guarded by a vile troll ten times your size who says "you can't use it". 

My analogy was regarding Unionists choosing to have a referendum just because they're confident they'd win, it wasn't aimed at Indy supporters who are frustrated. 

[Zern]

7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I accept that there are people who don’t want Scottish Independence, it is a legitimate position though one that I vehemently disagree with.

However to deny Scotland the right to vote again on Independence or argue that a Westminster Tory government, that has very limited support in Scotland, should have the final say is not a legitimate or defensible position.

It also appears to imply that the Westminster can interfere in a vote held in Scotland, something that is supposed to be devolved.

[williemillersmoustache]

Again, for zillionth time, it's a weird sort of democracy that enshrines something the losing side said and no current government cam bind the hands of a future one.

APART FROM IN THIS ONE SINGLE INSTANCE BECAUSE REASONS

 

The once in a generation argument is fucking desperate and indicative of a lack of testicular fortitude or belief in being able to argue the case for the union. 

If there was a codified interval, fine. But there isn't so there's no basis to put any weight on this issue. 

I'm any case 9 years is a perfectly reasonable number, they've been 3 UK general elections, 3 PMs (probably will be 4) 2 Scottish elections and 2 fundamental rewritings of the devolved settlement, one without consent and there will be a 3rd before October 23. 

A generation, several in my opinion, has passed. There is a cast iron mandate, confirmed multiple times and it does supporters of the Union no favours to pretend otherwise. It would probably be a better idea to start putting together your arguments for the Union and put away the specious offensive dribbley pish about Scotland having the right to self determination is "Above its station." 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by williemillersmoustache

[101]

5 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

A generation, several in my opinion, has passed

With this Tory government there is a once in a lifetime scandal nearly every day. 

[renton]

29 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

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

 

Prior to the existence of Holyrood it was often touted by those at Westminster as the mechanism by which they might negotiate independence.

If the current Westminster parties refuse to engage, they'll end up getting cuffed, and the next Prime Minister will have to say No, and then Sturgeon will just roll into the Holyrood election on the same platform and likely win that one too, and that'll just keep stoking up resentment on both sides up North - Indy folk who will just keep counting up the various democratic mandates being ignored and some Unionists who will feel the pressure of not being able to get any traction in domestic politics beyond the constitutional question.

Disengagement, therefore might be a good short term strategy but simply defers the issue - engagement, though higher risk at least buys the potentiality of burying the Indy movement. This is a prize that is worth WM's time - unless of course they genuinely treat Scotland as a problem that can be safely ignored, rather than a functional constituent nation within their state. If WM ever want to really get a grip on governing Scotland again, they need to break the SNP and the wider Indy movement.

[DublinMagyar]

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. 
 

No

[Albus Bulbasaur]

7 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Again, for zillionth time, it's a weird sort of democracy that enshrines something the losing side said and no current government cam bind the hands of a future one.

APART FROM IN THIS ONE SINGLE INSTANCE BECAUSE REASONS

 

The once in a generation argument is fucking desperate and indicative of a lack of testicular fortitude or belief in being able to argue the case for the union. 

If there was a codified interval, fine. But there isn't so there's no basis to put any weight on this issue. 

I'm any case 9 years is a perfectly reasonable number, they've been 3 UK general elections, 3 PMs (probably will be 4) 2 Scottish elections and 2 fundamental rewritings of the devolved settlement, one without consent and there will be a 3rd before October 23. 

A generation, several in my opinion, has passed. There is a cast iron mandate, confirmed multiple times and it does supporters of the Union no favours to pretend otherwise. It would probably be a better idea to start putting together your arguments for the Union and put away the specious offensive dribbley pish about Scotland having the right to self determination is "Above its station." 

 

You lacking the testicular fortitude to quote me and then try and show my words as out of context does you no favours. 

The SNP saying that voting for them is a definitive way to enact Independence is above its station as they evidently don't have the power. Feel free to quote this if they win the SC case. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

Prior to the existence of Holyrood it was often touted by those at Westminster as the mechanism by which they might negotiate independence.

If the current Westminster parties refuse to engage, they'll end up getting cuffed, and the next Prime Minister will have to say No, and then Sturgeon will just roll into the Holyrood election on the same platform and likely win that one too, and that'll just keep stoking up resentment on both sides up North - Indy folk who will just keep counting up the various democratic mandates being ignored and some Unionists who will feel the pressure of not being able to get any traction in domestic politics beyond the constitutional question.

Disengagement, therefore might be a good short term strategy but simply defers the issue - engagement, though higher risk at least buys the potentiality of burying the Indy movement. This is a prize that is worth WM's time - unless of course they genuinely treat Scotland as a problem that can be safely ignored, rather than a functional constituent nation within their state. If WM ever want to really get a grip on governing Scotland again, they need to break the SNP and the wider Indy movement.

Thats a long way of saying you agree with my post. 

[williemillersmoustache]

I'm not quoting you because you're either a dog and couch thief or a multiple banned alias who is only here to troll. 

[Theyellowbox]

33 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

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

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

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. 

Its not my problem though. It is all of our problem.

It's not about winning a vote or not, it's the democratic route to a vote and your (albeit understandable) inability to set out the democratic route for you, me and everyone else in Scotland to exercise democracy should be as much of a concern to you as me.

Flip the argument, if say Labour was elected and decided Scotland should leave the UK and as a unionist you had no way to have a vote and Scotland returned 50+ Conservative MP's demanding yo stay in the union, you would rightfully ask what is the route to not make it happen and as a democrat I'd be tight beside you asking the same, even if I disagreed on what the end outcome should be.

[renton]

7 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Thats a long way of saying you agree with my post. 

I'm not sure it is.

What exactly is your 'longer, safer path' again?

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Its not my problem though. It is all of our problem.

It's not about winning a vote or not, it's the democratic route to a vote and your (albeit understandable) inability to set out the democratic route for you, me and everyone else in Scotland to exercise democracy should be as much of a concern to you as me.

Flip the argument, if say Labour was elected and decided Scotland should leave the UK and as a unionist you had no way to have a vote and Scotland returned 50+ Conservative MP's demanding yo stay in the union, you would rightfully ask what is the route to not make it happen and as a democrat I'd be tight beside you asking the same, even if I disagreed on what the end outcome should be.

I disagree with your framing tbh. I'm content with the situation and believe there's a democratic route through the democratically elected MPs at Westminster.  

I think we probably agree people perhaps should care more but the general public probably care more about Love Island than flights to Rwanda so I can't say I'm surprised every day normal people aren't fussed about the finer details of parliament and sovereignty.

I've said previously campaigns regarding PR and movements pointing out particular grievances in the system as a slow burn approach is more palatable than the emotionally lead screeching grievance approach we have at the moment. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

I'm not sure it is.

What exactly is your 'longer, safer path' again?

Sure seemed like it considering you didn't really combat anything I said rather just added more detail to the issue. 

What we're doing now is a bit boring, like the other day when you misread a post and then failed to reply when shown what you had been mistaken with. 

For clarity my analogy is regarding the idea you would take a risk when you don't have to. Sure you can argue it's naive long term but in my analogy the "safe path" is still at the moment safer than a risky jump. 

[strichener]

23 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You were wrong previously and continue to be wrong.  A politician with a five year mandate has no control what happens beyond that five years.  If you concentrate really hard you might manage to grasp that.

^^^Simpleton found (to use your own words).

Nobody here is claiming that the SNP are bound by the "once in a generation", only that the current incumbent was one of those that made the statement on multiple occasions and that it was anything but "off the cuff".

I look forward to your next post in the Brexit thread being "Don't blame Boris, he had no control over Brexit and its implementation as it spans three parliamentary terms.