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

7 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I'd be perfectly happy if the UK and Scottish government came to some kind of agreement that put limits on the timescales of referenda as long as the legal power to hold binding referenda came with it. Once every 25 years and no need for a section 30, for example. That would have been a pretty reasonable compromise in 2014. But it didn't happen, so everything's just perpetually in limbo.

A fixed period would favour Westminster. Neglect Scotland for 20 years then throw money at for 5 to get over the line, cheap at the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

A fixed period would favour Westminster. Neglect Scotland for 20 years then throw money at for 5 to get over the line, cheap at the price.

Obviously. That's what WM get out of it. What the SG get out of it is that undisputable legal power to hold a referendum once the buffer period is up. That's what a compromise is.

I'm not saying it's a situation that exclusively favours the pro-independence side. I just think that it's broadly fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yes side warned of the risk to our place in the EU in the UK, the No side denied it and made it a central plank of their campaign.

This doesn't negate the EU argument for a referendum it cements it. 

You don't hold against the losing side the claims they made which turned out to be true when they show the winning side to have been wrong. That's totally upside down, back to front, inside out and bollocks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Both views are perfectly acceptable.

For me it would have to be about 15 to 20 years between referenda but I'm open to persuasion on that.

I think I said 2030 on another post. That seems like the right sort of timescale to convince me that the original decision has been respected.

As for the Brexit vote causing a material change? Well, yes but this sort of change is just life IMO. We all knew it was a possibility regardless of what the Tories said in 2014. I'm not convinced by the argument about 62% in Scotland voting remain. Our chance to consider Scotland's vote on that issue was lost when we voted No in 2014. It's an invalid argument in that respect. People voted No knowing full well we could easily be outvoted on the EU and could end up outside the EU. They still voted No anyway.

That's horseshit btw, at least in the sense that there was widespread awareness of any such thing.

I seem to recall Ruth Davidson, in the run up to the referendum, going to great pains at one of the televised indyref things to tell people there was no chance that the Tories would win the 2015 GE outright and that therefore there would be NO Brexit vote, far less a Leave result.

Some folk might still have watched that and went "well, I don't trust her so it could happen" but to suggest that the population at large went into soothsayer mode and knew "full well" that we might be outvoted on the EU when it wasn't at all certain to the casual voter that there would even BE a vote is purest revisionism. Not least because it was thought around that time that Labour were going to win the 2015 GE (and even that they would win the Scotland-wide part of that vote and THAT didn't happen as many people would have predicted either; unless you're going to tell us that everyone knew there were going to be 56 SNP MPs as well).

Edited by Eddie Hitler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Then I'm afraid that is on the SNP for failing to make that case.

As it happens, the SNP were very vocal about remaining in the EU not being a given.

They lost the argument on it at the time. That's the way it goes I'm afraid.

So what would constitute a material change in your eyes? 

You don't think a quite drastic change in foreign policy approach (voted down here) is a big thing? 

What would be?

Or are you just wedded to the idea that you personally have decided how long there should be between votes and that's that, other folks' policy preferences etc just don't matter (even when they were the majority view within Scotland)? Whatever happens until your personally decreed amount of time has passed is "just the way it goes"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Of course, I grasped it as soon as it was said. 

They would still need a section 30 though and what I think you might not be grasping is this GE would be of no difference technically speaking than any of the ones we've had previously no matter what Nicola says. Can you seriously see a scenario where SNP lose the SC and then win a GE and try and take Scotland out of the UK? 

Nicola Sturgeon (and I) know that even if the SNP win the majority of seats, and possibly even 51% of the votes at the General Election, this won’t provide independence.

However, it would be confirmation that the majority of people in Scotland want independence. Then when the (reckless) Toaries refuse a Section 30 order it has them refusing to acknowledge the will of the Scottish people to be an independent nation. 

Of course some people in Scotland have now suffered through 12 years of Tory government, and may think the best way to get rid of them is to vote Labour and hope enough people in England in key seats do the same. Who can tell what people will be thinking in 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

Nicola Sturgeon (and I) know that even if the SNP win the majority of seats, and possibly even 51% of the votes at the General Election, this won’t provide independence.

However, it would be confirmation that the majority of people in Scotland want independence. Then when the (reckless) Toaries refuse a Section 30 order it has them refusing to acknowledge the will of the Scottish people to be an independent nation. 

Of course some people in Scotland have now suffered through 12 years of Tory government, and may think the best way to get rid of them is to vote Labour and hope enough people in England in key seats do the same. Who can tell what people will be thinking in 2024.

Lmao no it wouldn't no matter how you and Nicola try and spin a general election. We would be voting for MPs to serve us at Westminster.

What's it going to say on your ballot? 

I see John Swinney has said that a majority of seats would lead to starting the process (whatever that actually means) so that's 30MPs needed. It's actually kinda sad to see them going out like this. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Lmao no it wouldn't no matter how you and Nicola try and spin a general election. We would be voting for MPs to serve us at Westminster.

What's it going to say on your ballot? 

I see John Swinney has said that a majority of seats would lead to starting the process (whatever that actually means) so that's 30MPs needed. It's actually kinda sad to see them going out like this. 

 

That's since been contradicted and retracted.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/29/john-swinney-sows-confusion-over-snp-claims-on-independence-mandate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

Aye apparantly he repeated it a few times so he must have got a bit carried away. Sensible for them to retract it though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the No side wanted respecting the result to mean everyone has to stfu for 30 years or whatever they should have written these things down in a prospectus before the vote. As it is everything other than not leaving the UK and becoming independent is respecting the result. 

If they wanted it to mean more than that they should have written it down. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

If the No side wanted respecting the result to mean everyone has to stfu for 30 years or whatever they should have written these things down in a prospectus before the vote. As it is everything other than not leaving the UK and becoming independent is respecting the result. 

If they wanted it to mean more than that they should have written it down. 

 

I respect the last referendum so much that i want another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

We are better together because we want access to your resources 

Not exactly surprising from the guy who doesn’t believe in human rights, economic or social rights mind you

I’m shocked by that!  Raab was asked a question and told the truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

A material change in the way we live? Leaving the EU.

A big thing? Sure. Never said otherwise.

A material change which justified not respecting the last referendum result? Not in my opinion.

Other people's opinions don't matter? Nope. I'm expressing my view. Others are entitled to differ. That's what forums are for.

Whatever happens until 2030 is "just the way it is"? Yes. 2014 sucked but that's how democracy works. We voted No. That's the end of it IMO.

It used to be the SNP's line that they wanted polls to show 60% support for independence over a sustained period before having another referendum (Herald link).  Even as someone that thinks independence would be an unmitigated shitshow akin to Brexit on steroids, I always felt that was a fair position.  If the people of Scotland consistently say that this is what they want, then I don't think it would be fair to disallow another vote.  It's safe to say we're nowhere near that point at present.  Despite a historically unpopular Tory government led by someone that most Scots understandably find comparable to Satan, opinion polls continue to show a majority of people would opt for the status quo.  Of the 23 opinion polls taken in the last 12 months,  3 have shown a lead for independence while 18 have shown a lead for the union.  Indeed, 2 of those 3 'yes' polls were taken by Ipsos Mori whose methodology for whatever reason seems to tilt in that direction (yes, there will be others that tilt the other way) - but even they showed a narrow lead for the no side in their most recent poll.

Neither does there appear to be any sizable appetite among the broader population for a referendum over the next 12 months.  Each of the 7 polls that have asked this question since 2021 have shown that only around 17-25% of Scots actually want another vote in that timescale.  This might not reflect the echo chamber on this forum, but it does seem like a majority of Scots either don't want a referendum or are quite happy kicking the can down the road for a few more years at least.

As for the 2024 general election somehow becoming a de facto independence vote.... no it isn't.  The other parties don't have to play by the SNP's rules.  I'll be voting for the candidate and party that I think will best govern the country.  It's not a referendum just because Sturgeon says it is.  This is the person that when asked who a voter that wanted her to remain as FM but didn't want a second referendum should vote for said 'vote for me'.... and then proceeded to take every single vote she received as a 'mandate' for said referendum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Lmao no it wouldn't no matter how you and Nicola try and spin a general election. We would be voting for MPs to serve us at Westminster.

What's it going to say on your ballot? 

I see John Swinney has said that a majority of seats would lead to starting the process (whatever that actually means) so that's 30MPs needed. It's actually kinda sad to see them going out like this. 

 

Well, that’s my take on it anyway. Don’t see how you can’t see that. If the majority vote for a party that have clearly stated they are standing on the single issue of independence, that’s clear proof that the majority want independence.

However, I have sympathy with those who are in favour of the Union, given we’ve had a result in 2014 in favour of the staying part of the UK. 8 years isn’t a long time, but a lot has happened in 8 years. 10 years by the time 2024 comes, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KingRocketman II said:

it wasn't off the cuff I agree, but neither is it enshrined in legislation. You saying the comment was used as a "political tool" is subjective - as for whether it can be "undone", well it depends from what. And of course the SNP can level criticism when say the Tories throw it back at them because they can point out the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. 

To many the comment is not a big deal particularly in view of the subsequent elections and average political life-spans of politicians. The comment is a big deal to you, fair enough. 

Tbh, I agree with most of that.  The one thing that I disagree with is whether it was used as a political tool or not.  If it wasn't used as a political tool to get people involved as perhaps their only chance to vote on Independence then what was it?  Bearing in mind that it was part of a pre-prepared speech given at the SNP conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I think that was a sensible position to take as well, primarily because a result of that magnitude would be utterly decisive.

For reasons best known to themselves, the SNP have decided they can't wait for the polls.

My fear is we get another vote and the result is still in that 55-45 band for one side or the other and we never break free of the potential for a neverendum cycle where one side tries to reverse the decision. We need a result which is decisive and 60% for one side IMO gives us that. And again IMO the SNP shouldn't be going near another referendum until they see that happening in the polls or 2030, whichever comes first.

That however is different from the debate about who should have the power to decide when the vote should be. That should be the voters, not WM and they've clearly said it should be Scotland's remit through Holyrood. No reasonable person can argue against that.

I'd say the opposite, that it was a stupid thing to say at the time. Opinion polls aren't elections or referendums (referenda?) for good reason. Not only are they inaccurate, they're sometimes not impartial either.

YouGov Forced To Deny Suppressing Poll Because It Was 'Too Positive' For Labour

Government policy should be based on the programmes that parties have successfully put to the electorate in proper elections, not justified by opinion polls.

I will say the 60% thing is maybe something the SNP should have kept to themselves as a sensible bit of internal strategy. I don't buy this 'but we started on X% last time' argument. We've been actively debating independence for a decade now and the don't knows are 100% folk who are going to vote no but feel a bit ashamed about voting against their own independence. The Yes side have some significant ground to make up and October 2023 is a big gamble, imo.

If I was one of these staunch unionists greeting about the SNP all day every day, I'd want the UK government to agree to this.

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...