When will indyref2 happen?

[Kenneth840]

Holding my hands up here, I never expected Nicola Sturgeon to do that amazing speech on Tuesday.  As most on here know, I have been very vocal against her, but the other day she made me happy.  She gave me hope again that we are going to make progress towards Independence.  

If Plan A fails (which is expected but if Bojo is clever he will agree the section 30) there is Plan B.  If Plan B fails (which I expect it to) then there is Plan C. This is where we win.  The plebiscite election. 

Many here know I am an Alba voter, but if it means voting SNP to secure Independence then of course I will.  Independence is important and there must be unity between all pro Independence parties.  It is time, to focus on the future.  

I noticed a Unionist poster had earlier spoke about dissolving Holyrood.  In my opinion that would be a bad idea.  The Scotland act is what gives Westminster its power over Scotland.  I'm not sure you would really want that. 

Like to add an article on a blog about UK and Ireland.  I can't comment on Irish things, I don't know too much about it but I thought it was very apt. 

Scotland.  Do we really want to continue being part of this?

https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2022/06/29/england-cannot-be-trusted/

Quote

When considering new constitutional arrangements in Ireland, or in Scotland, the focus is usually on the desirability of change against an assumed UK status quo. What status quo? The UK constitution has changed at a bewildering speed, it is changing at bewildering speed. The changes have happened in spite of the concerns of those people in Northern Ireland and Scotland who will decide its future.

Quote

In recent weeks, the British government has published a Bill with the explicit intention of breaking international law in relation to the protocol. And not just breaking it in “limited and specific” ways, as a previous Bill claimed to, but giving any “minister of the crown” the ability to unilaterally override international legal obligations. They have also published a Bill to repeal the aforementioned Human Rights Act, diluting the ECHR in UK domestic law – the original commitment to enshrine it having been provided for in the Belfast Agreement.

 

Vote YES.

[Kenneth840]

31 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

'You are not a hostage.' 

'Oh, great, can we see if we want to leave then?' 

'Errrm, no.' 

That is where I hope the UN get involved.  And Boris's troubles begin in regards to the voting franchise. 

[sophia]

Ursula Von Der Leyen was today gushing about the candidacy of Ukraine for membership of the European Union.

Where there is a political will, there is a way.

To once again existentially connect with our friends is a joy that is worth retaining as a bright light.

[Zern]

3 hours ago, Kenneth840 said:

I don't think so either, and even if it does allow it the UK government will change the Scotland act so that the Scottish parliament can't hold one. 

That's when plan c comes into play. Plebiscite election. 

Scotland wins. 

Article penned by Joanna Cherry mentioned that the Keatings thing you mentioned may be allowed representation in this case, now that it is no longer a hypothetical.

[Lex]

Ursula Von Der Leyen was today gushing about the candidacy of Ukraine for membership of the European Union.
Where there is a political will, there is a way.
To once again existentially connect with our friends is a joy that is worth retaining as a bright light.

Wait, you don’t think Ukraine is going to become a member of the EU, do you?[emoji28]
Suggest googling North Macedonia and the EU for an example of the way the bloc treats candidate countries. They’ve been a candidate since 2005, and they’re still not in the club, even after they changed their name to keep the Greeks happy.
Turkey have been a candidate since 2004 and they’re nowhere near joining.
The platitudes of bureaucrats like Van Leyden is to try and distract from the fact their purchasing of Russian gas is funding Vlad’s war machine. Ukraine is at the back of the queue.

[Antlion]

7 minutes ago, Lex said:

 

Wait, you don’t think Ukraine is going to become a member of the EU, do you?
Suggest googling North Macedonia and the EU for an example of the way the bloc treats candidate countries. They’ve been a candidate since 2005, and they’re still not in the club, even after they changed their name to keep the Greeks happy.
Turkey have been a candidate since 2004 and they’re nowhere near joining.
The platitudes of bureaucrats like Van Leyden is to try and distract from the fact their purchasing of Russian gas is funding Vlad’s war machine. Ukraine is at the back of the queue.

 

There. Is. No. Queue.

[sophia]

6 minutes ago, Lex said:

 

Wait, you don’t think Ukraine is going to become a member of the EU, do you?
Suggest googling North Macedonia and the EU for an example of the way the bloc treats candidate countries. They’ve been a candidate since 2005, and they’re still not in the club, even after they changed their name to keep the Greeks happy.
Turkey have been a candidate since 2004 and they’re nowhere near joining.
The platitudes of bureaucrats like Van Leyden is to try and distract from the fact their purchasing of Russian gas is funding Vlad’s war machine. Ukraine is at the back of the queue.

 

My word.

My outlook is positive and I'm not about to shade that by engaging with your drudge.

Scotland will be welcomed with open arms and what's not to like about that.

 

 

[Barney Rubble]

14 minutes ago, Lex said:

 

Wait, you don’t think Ukraine is going to become a member of the EU, do you?
Suggest googling North Macedonia and the EU for an example of the way the bloc treats candidate countries. They’ve been a candidate since 2005, and they’re still not in the club, even after they changed their name to keep the Greeks happy.
Turkey have been a candidate since 2004 and they’re nowhere near joining.
The platitudes of bureaucrats like Van Leyden is to try and distract from the fact their purchasing of Russian gas is funding Vlad’s war machine. Ukraine is at the back of the queue.

 

An independent Scotland would be fast-tracked into the EU provided the economic criteria were met.

Scotland met all other criteria as part of the UK.

It's an open goal that the EU would welcome an independent Scotland - should we apply - to stick one up Westminster.

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, sophia said:

My word.

My outlook is positive and I'm not about to shade that by engaging with your drudge.

Scotland will be welcomed with open arms and what's not to like about that.

 

 

I’m a bit baffled by the particular UKNat mindset which holds that:

1. The EU is bad and evil (especially next to the glorious and equitable Blighty) and we should have nothing to do with it.

2. Oh no - if independent we’ll never be allowed into the EU (and that’s bad!) so forget about leaving the UK.

Which is it? Is not getting into the EU bad, because the EU is worth joining, or is the EU not worth getting into anyway, because it is bad?

Or are some UKNats by now so utterly mindfucked that literally everything is bad except the UK? EU bad! Not being in the EU (if independent) bad! UK is perfect either way and always will be!

[Crùbag]

On 29/06/2022 at 09:44, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Evidently not. 

The electoral system we use was designed by the British Govt in Westminster. Pro-independence parties have a thumping majority under that system. The majority is almost a wipe-out under the FPTP sytem used for WM elections.

Suck it up.

[Crùbag]

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Crùbag

[Donathan]

14 hours ago, Kenneth840 said:

I don't think so either, and even if it does allow it the UK government will change the Scotland act so that the Scottish parliament can't hold one. 

That's when plan c comes into play. Plebiscite election. 

Scotland wins. 

The “plebiscite election” is just as easily ignorable. Whoever forms the government after the next general election will be elected on a manifesto that does not support Scottish independence. 

 

 

14 hours ago, Kenneth840 said:

Holding my hands up here, I never expected Nicola Sturgeon to do that amazing speech on Tuesday.  As most on here know, I have been very vocal against her, but the other day she made me happy.  She gave me hope again that we are going to make progress towards Independence.  

If Plan A fails (which is expected but if Bojo is clever he will agree the section 30) there is Plan B.  If Plan B fails (which I expect it to) then there is Plan C. This is where we win.  The plebiscite election. 

Many here know I am an Alba voter, but if it means voting SNP to secure Independence then of course I will.  Independence is important and there must be unity between all pro Independence parties.  It is time, to focus on the future.  

I noticed a Unionist poster had earlier spoke about dissolving Holyrood.  In my opinion that would be a bad idea.  The Scotland act is what gives Westminster its power over Scotland.  I'm not sure you would really want that. 

Like to add an article on a blog about UK and Ireland.  I can't comment on Irish things, I don't know too much about it but I thought it was very apt. 

Scotland.  Do we really want to continue being part of this?

https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2022/06/29/england-cannot-be-trusted/

Vote YES.

Why do you think agreeing the section 30 would be a clever move from Johnson? I guess the argument is that if the unionists were confident of winning, they should have the referendum and if they do win, the issue is absolutely stone dead for a very long time (two No’s in < 10 years probably kills it until the 2040s, IMO)

 

IMO, Johnson would be clever to deny the section 30 but organise the referendum himself, under Westminster franchise rules, which would mean no votes at 16, and Scottish expats living around the world getting a postal vote (there are 850,000 Scots living in the rest of the UK who would OVERWHELMINGLY reject independence due to the potential passport issues down the line for them). They could also reframe the question along Remain/Leave lines which has been demonstrated in opinion polls to give less support for independence. Would the nationalists boycott such a poll? Maybe, but hard to see Sturgeon turning her nose up at a legal, sanctioned, binding referendum if Johnson was to go ahead and organise it. 

[BigDoddyKane]

Theres a few options I was thinking UK Government has, ofcousre they can do as they suggest which is deny an indyref. With the hope that delaying and time passing kind of kills the momentum, risk for them is it has opposite effect and Yes vote grows because of it

They could deny it and wait and see what happens in general election and see how that goes, if snp dont get enough vote then it makes sense if they do then pressure is really on for a referendum.

They could surprise everyone and agree to one next year, leaving quite a short time to campaign for it which may work in their favour but I dont think they have any idea how a vote would go

other options potentially is give a commitment to a referendum but put it some long term future date 5+ years away, saying brexit and covid make that sensible, their hope is sturgeon who is popular is gone by then and maybe people tire of the snp being in government

offer further devolved powers to the SG instead of a referendum

 

all these may have good reasons why they will never happen, but i was just running through what options UK government actually have 

Edited July 2, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[Clown Job]

If we vote against independence next year I think you can pretty much say goodbye to devolution not long after it 

No chance they’ll be risking this again

[Kenneth840]

14 hours ago, Zern said:

Article penned by Joanna Cherry mentioned that the Keatings thing you mentioned may be allowed representation in this case, now that it is no longer a hypothetical.

I haven't seen the article but I believe Martin Keatings is seeking legal advice on whether to take the case to the Supreme court.  May help strengthen our position.

3 hours ago, Donathan said:

The “plebiscite election” is just as easily ignorable. Whoever forms the government after the next general election will be elected on a manifesto that does not support Scottish independence. 

 

 

Why do you think agreeing the section 30 would be a clever move from Johnson? I guess the argument is that if the unionists were confident of winning, they should have the referendum and if they do win, the issue is absolutely stone dead for a very long time (two No’s in < 10 years probably kills it until the 2040s, IMO)

 

IMO, Johnson would be clever to deny the section 30 but organise the referendum himself, under Westminster franchise rules, which would mean no votes at 16, and Scottish expats living around the world getting a postal vote (there are 850,000 Scots living in the rest of the UK who would OVERWHELMINGLY reject independence due to the potential passport issues down the line for them). They could also reframe the question along Remain/Leave lines which has been demonstrated in opinion polls to give less support for independence. Would the nationalists boycott such a poll? Maybe, but hard to see Sturgeon turning her nose up at a legal, sanctioned, binding referendum if Johnson was to go ahead and organise it. 

If there is a huge yes result in a plebiscite election and the government of the day refuses to acknowledge the will of the Scottish people, after exhausting the section 30 route, then it would show that the union is not voluntary as Scotland has no way of regaining its Independence without Englands permission.  I would hope that the UN would have some form of mechanism in place to allow Scotland to become Independent.  Article 1?

For the reasons you have stated is why I think it would be a good move for Johnson to allow a section 30 referendum.  I don't agree with the section 30 process for exactly the reasons outlined.  It allows England to interfere and control the referendum and it could prove difficult for Nicola Sturgeon to refuse a sanctioned referendum. I disagree on the Scottish expats living abroad though.  I believe they would back it as they could easily get a Scottish passport. 

[Kenneth840]

10 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

Theres a few options I was thinking UK Government has, ofcousre they can do as they suggest which is deny an indyref. With the hope that delaying and time passing kind of kills the momentum, risk for them is it has opposite effect and Yes vote grows because of it

They could deny it and wait and see what happens in general election and see how that goes, if snp dont get enough vote then it makes sense if they do then pressure is really on for a referendum.

They could surprise everyone and agree to one next year, leaving quite a short time to campaign for it which may work in their favour but I dont think they have any idea how a vote would go

other options potentially is give a commitment to a referendum but put it some long term future date 5+ years away, saying brexit and covid make that sensible, their hope is sturgeon who is popular is gone by then and maybe people tire of the snp being in government

offer further devolved powers to the SG instead of a referendum

 

all these may have good reasons why they will never happen, but i was just running through what options UK government actually have 

All good points but they tried offering us more devolution powers the last time.  Still waiting!

8 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

If we vote against independence next year I think you can pretty much say goodbye to devolution not long after it 

No chance they’ll be risking this again

If they get rid of Holyrood that will end the Scotland act, the very act that gives them power over Scotland in the first place.  Not sure they would do that.  

[BFTD]

1 hour ago, Clown Job said:

If we vote against independence next year I think you can pretty much say goodbye to devolution not long after it 

No chance they’ll be risking this again

There's would certainly be an effort made to explicitly block Holyrood from ever throwing a referendum again, much like the top priority within seconds of the last one was to stop the Jocks from having any say on what England does. Which is why a bigger priority ought to be ensuring that our parliament has the right to launch a binding public vote on any topic it chooses within a single term.

I've only been skimming, but it seems like the "Sturgeon doesn't want independence" crew have changed their minds. Surely this is still just a ploy by the SNP to cover up for their arch unionism?

[Zern]

Sturgeon is clearly playing the long con.

Post-independence she will reveal her true colours.

[Salt n Vinegar]

5 minutes ago, Zern said:

Sturgeon is clearly playing the long con.

Post-independence she will reveal her true colours.

I know it's just my personal opinion but it seems to me that the long con has been used against Scotland since 1955. Too long IMO.

[Clown Job]

Honestly they must think people are idiots