When will indyref2 happen?

[Clown Job]

12 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

12 hours ago, BFTD said:

Scotland had its say and voted not to be a country ever again in 1707.
Seriously, I don't know why anyone would engage at this point. The excuses have been gradually whittled away down to the point that we're at the GIF below.
They've disappeared down the same fascist hole as the Republicans in the States - "if my values aren't popular enough, democracy can take a hike".

In fairness only 10% voted back in 1707. The hard working peasants were not allowed. It was the 10% of Tartan gonks (forefathers of our current rugby support) that made the decision

The locals at the time didn’t see very happy about it 

Click

From Glasgow to Dumfries to Lanark, people took arms with articles of the treaty burnt in the street.

In Edinburgh a ‘villanous and outragious mobb’ threatened and insulted judges and Members of the Scottish Parliament, according to an account held by National Library of Scotland.

Ministers of the Kirk spread more discontent as they began campaigning against union, which gathered momentum in the spring of 1706, just as the negotiations began in London.

In October 1706, the Scottish Parliament met to consider and ratify the Articles of Union. Publication of the Articles triggered widespread unrest.

Violent demonstrations took place outside Parliament House, and inside there were fears that the building would be invaded by protesters.

Troops were brought into the city with orders to shoot if necessary, and several regiments were placed at l on the Scottish border and in Ireland in the event of trouble.

Rewards were offered for the capture of rioters with the more wealthy resident of our burghs urged to take responsibility for the actions of their staff and servants.

By December 1706, parliament was ordering the burning of pamphlets that challenged the proposed union with the papers to be destroyed by the hangman at Edinburgh’s Mercat Cross. Further proclamations were made against so-called seditious meeting.

Meanwhile, parliamentarians were engaged in their own manoeuvres as work intensified to push the treaty through.

Lord Queensberry was appointed the Queen’s High Commissioner for the parliamentary session that would decide upon the treaty and was tasked with insuring a successful outcome.

Honours, appointments, pensions and even arrears of pay and other expenses were distributed to secure support from Scottish peers and MPs.

The treaty’s 25 articles were debated and approved between October 1706 and January 1707.

Petitions were drawn up all over Scotland and submitted to the Scottish Parliament as the anti union campaign gathered momentum.

A total of 96 petitions were presented against the union, most in November and December 1706.

The Duke of Argyll, one of the leaders of the Scottish Court party, said that petitions were little more than "paper kites".

Economic matters were dealt with by the majority of articles with new flags and coinage also addressed.

It was agreed customs and excise charges would be set equally across the kingdom with Scots law and the country’s distinct education system to remain.

Critically, the Hanoverian line of succession to the Crown was confirmed - and the exclusion of Papists from the throne agreed.

Under the Treaty of Union, Scotland was paid £398,000 - a sum known as ‘the Equivalent’. This would partially offset losses incurred by the failed Darien Scheme to set up a colony in the Isthmus of Panama.

It would also compensate Scotland for sharing the responsibility for England’s national debt of £18 million.

On January 16, the Act ratifying the treaty was finally passed by 110 votes to 69 with the nobility forming the largest pro-Union group.

The Scottish Parliament then turned to the question of Scotland’s future parliamentary representation.

Article 22 of the Treaty set out that Scotland was to be represented by 16 peers and 45 commoners.

At the time, more than 300 representatives made up the Scottish Parliament, with just under half of its members hereditary peers.

Deep resentment among the public was stirred by this reduced representation at Westminster.

The Scottish Parliament continued to sit until 25 March 1707. The Queen’s Commissioner in Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry, ended its proceedings.

He urged the members to ‘… promote an universal desire in this kingdom to become one in hearts and affections, as we are inseparably joyn’d in interest with our neighbour nation’.

The Scottish Parliament did not meet again until May 12, 1999.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Clown Job

[John Lambies Doos]

The locals at the time didn’t see very happy about it 
Click
From Glasgow to Dumfries to Lanark, people took arms with articles of the treaty burnt in the street.
In Edinburgh a ‘villanous and outragious mobb’ threatened and insulted judges and Members of the Scottish Parliament, according to an account held by National Library of Scotland.
Ministers of the Kirk spread more discontent as they began campaigning against union, which gathered momentum in the spring of 1706, just as the negotiations began in London.
In October 1706, the Scottish Parliament met to consider and ratify the Articles of Union. Publication of the Articles triggered widespread unrest.
Violent demonstrations took place outside Parliament House, and inside there were fears that the building would be invaded by protesters.
Troops were brought into the city with orders to shoot if necessary, and several regiments were placed at l on the Scottish border and in Ireland in the event of trouble.
Rewards were offered for the capture of rioters with the more wealthy resident of our burghs urged to take responsibility for the actions of their staff and servants.
By December 1706, parliament was ordering the burning of pamphlets that challenged the proposed union with the papers to be destroyed by the hangman at Edinburgh’s Mercat Cross. Further proclamations were made against so-called seditious meeting.
Meanwhile, parliamentarians were engaged in their own manoeuvres as work intensified to push the treaty through.
Lord Queensberry was appointed the Queen’s High Commissioner for the parliamentary session that would decide upon the treaty and was tasked with insuring a successful outcome.
Honours, appointments, pensions and even arrears of pay and other expenses were distributed to secure support from Scottish peers and MPs.
The treaty’s 25 articles were debated and approved between October 1706 and January 1707.
Petitions were drawn up all over Scotland and submitted to the Scottish Parliament as the anti union campaign gathered momentum.
A total of 96 petitions were presented against the union, most in November and December 1706.
The Duke of Argyll, one of the leaders of the Scottish Court party, said that petitions were little more than "paper kites".
Economic matters were dealt with by the majority of articles with new flags and coinage also addressed.
It was agreed customs and excise charges would be set equally across the kingdom with Scots law and the country’s distinct education system to remain.
Critically, the Hanoverian line of succession to the Crown was confirmed - and the exclusion of Papists from the throne agreed.
Under the Treaty of Union, Scotland was paid £398,000 - a sum known as ‘the Equivalent’. This would partially offset losses incurred by the failed Darien Scheme to set up a colony in the Isthmus of Panama.
It would also compensate Scotland for sharing the responsibility for England’s national debt of £18 million.
On January 16, the Act ratifying the treaty was finally passed by 110 votes to 69 with the nobility forming the largest pro-Union group.
The Scottish Parliament then turned to the question of Scotland’s future parliamentary representation.
Article 22 of the Treaty set out that Scotland was to be represented by 16 peers and 45 commoners.
At the time, more than 300 representatives made up the Scottish Parliament, with just under half of its members hereditary peers.
Deep resentment among the public was stirred by this reduced representation at Westminster.
The Scottish Parliament continued to sit until 25 March 1707. The Queen’s Commissioner in Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry, ended its proceedings.
He urged the members to ‘… promote an universal desire in this kingdom to become one in hearts and affections, as we are inseparably joyn’d in interest with our neighbour nation’.
The Scottish Parliament did not meet again until May 12, 1999.

What a minter of a country

[Duries Air Freshener]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Clarity is one of the English language's greatest strengths. you pompous c**t.

#YouYesYet?

[BFTD]

On 16/07/2022 at 10:38, BFTD said:

Scotland had its say and voted not to be a country ever again in 1707.

On 16/07/2022 at 10:49, John Lambies Doos said:

In fairness only 10% voted back in 1707. The hard working peasants were not allowed. It was the 10% of Tartan gonks (forefathers of our current rugby support) that made the decision

12 hours ago, Clown Job said:

The locals at the time didn’t see very happy about it 

Just to be clear, that was rather my point with that flippant comment.

That, and it's the kind of thing the democracy deniers will straight-facedly say in their desire to keep things as they want.

[Paxo]

What is all this 'once in a generation' timeframe stuff that seems to be a favourite mantra of unionist MPs these days? Where did it come from? I recall hearing Alex Salmond saying it, presumably trying to drive the yes vote through brinkmanship, but was it actually an agreed condition of the referendum? I would be very surprised if a definition as loose as 'generation' made it into the Edinburgh Agreement.

[John Lambies Doos]

What is all this 'once in a generation' timeframe stuff that seems to be a favourite mantra of unionist MPs these days? Where did it come from? I recall hearing Alex Salmond saying it, presumably trying to drive the yes vote through brinkmanship, but was it actually an agreed condition of the referendum? I would be very surprised if a definition as loose as 'generation' made it into the Edinburgh Agreement.

Of course it didn't. The tartan gonk unionists spout this ad nauseum so they can turn up at right wing events dawning the kilt and bowing to peers and royalty.

[sophia]

54 minutes ago, Paxo said:

What is all this 'once in a generation' timeframe stuff that seems to be a favourite mantra of unionist MPs these days? Where did it come from? I recall hearing Alex Salmond saying it, presumably trying to drive the yes vote through brinkmanship, but was it actually an agreed condition of the referendum? I would be very surprised if a definition as loose as 'generation' made it into the Edinburgh Agreement.

It was more than just a throwaway debating remark and although this might be better placed in the unpopular opinion thread, I think it is a legitimate response, especially from a Tory party that would also have had a manifesto pledge regarding their stance.

That said, the easy answer is to say that it was only stated as once in a generation because we knew that the British State wouldn't gamble twice and certainly not with anything like a 50/50 starting point

[BFTD]

Such a shame that nobody thought to catch Salmond out with that statement at the time, isn't it. You'd think that someone would've wanted to catch him out and formalise that there'd be no further discussion of Scottish independence for <x> years after 2014. I'm sure he'd have been happy to agree to that, considering unionists believe in good faith that's absolutely what he meant with that comment.

[Paxo]

19 minutes ago, sophia said:

It was more than just a throwaway debating remark and although this might be better placed in the unpopular opinion thread, I think it is a legitimate response, especially from a Tory party that would also have had a manifesto pledge regarding their stance.

That said, the easy answer is to say that it was only stated as once in a generation because we knew that the British State wouldn't gamble twice and certainly not with anything like a 50/50 starting point

Aye fair enough, but for English unionists to be trotting it out now as gospel is a bit rich? So the reason they think it should be a 'one in a lifetime' matter is because the SNP unofficially said it was? I didn't see them clambering to ratify that as official party policy at the time.

[williemillersmoustache]

23 minutes ago, sophia said:

It was more than just a throwaway debating remark and although this might be better placed in the unpopular opinion thread, I think it is a legitimate response, especially from a Tory party that would also have had a manifesto pledge regarding their stance.

That said, the easy answer is to say that it was only stated as once in a generation because we knew that the British State wouldn't gamble twice and certainly not with anything like a 50/50 starting point

 

 

[Dan Steele]

The continuing use of "once in a generation", like Mordaunt closing down further exploration of her referendum statement, shows up the dearth of argument on the Unionist side. Did the phrase "once in a generation" ever work its way into a legally binding document or is it just in the publication @sophia links? Because if that's the only written evidence, that document clearly states it is a Publication - Strategy/Plan. 

Unless the Union argument is that anything that is ever said in a campaign should be held as irrevocable. Which might make the red bus NHS claim and getting that oven-ready Brexit deal a bit problematic.

Edited July 17, 2022 by The Skelpit Lug
Sp

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

2 hours ago, sophia said:

It was more than just a throwaway debating remark and although this might be better placed in the unpopular opinion thread, I think it is a legitimate response, especially from a Tory party that would also have had a manifesto pledge regarding their stance.

That said, the easy answer is to say that it was only stated as once in a generation because we knew that the British State wouldn't gamble twice and certainly not with anything like a 50/50 starting point

You know, id maybe even remotely agree that 9 years is soon if it wasn’t for the fact ‘lead the uk not leave it’ ‘boris will never be PM’ ‘devo max’ or ‘federal uk’ or ‘protect our place in europe’ wasnt a central part if not ‘all’ of the no campaign. There have been some clear governmental changes in a brexit Scotland didn’t vote for, 3 governments it didnt vote for, which for me make asking the questions absolutely legitimate in a fairly fought referendum. 
If we have this referendum, we can say, look at what has happened, if people still vote for the status quo then the issue is put to bed for a good 25 years and is dead for most of our lifetimes. I mean if we say no again then i think we should just all die of embarrassment. 

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

You know, id maybe even remotely agree that 9 years is soon if it wasn’t for the fact ‘lead the uk not leave it’ ‘boris will never be PM’ ‘devo max’ or ‘federal uk’ or ‘protect our place in europe’ wasnt a central part if not ‘all’ of the no campaign. There have been some clear governmental changes in a brexit Scotland didn’t vote for, 3 governments it didnt vote for, which for me make asking the questions absolutely legitimate in a fairly fought referendum. 
If we have this referendum, we can say, look at what has happened, if people still vote for the status quo then the issue is put to bed for a good 25 years and is dead for most of our lifetimes. I mean if we say no again then i think we should just all die of embarrassment. 

There’s the thing: the UKNats seriously expect the SNP’s claims of “once in a generation” to be treated as though they’re set in stone. Their own claims - of an ongoing place in the EU especially - however, are to be completely forgotten by everyone. It’s unbelievable hypocrisy. The answer to “but but but once in a generation!!!” should be met every time with “we had a once-in-a-generation vote to remain part of an EU member. We’ve never voted on being part of Brexit Britain”.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Antlion

[Duries Air Freshener]

3 hours ago, Antlion said:

There’s the thing: the UKNats seriously expect the SNP’s claims of “once in a generation” to be treated as though they’re set in stone. Their own claims - of an ongoing place in the EU especially - however, are to be completely forgotten by everyone. It’s unbelievable hypocrisy. The answer to “but but but once in a generation!!!” should be met every time with “we had a once-in-a-generation vote to remain part of an EU member. We’ve never voted on being part of Brexit Britain”.

No Unionist politician promised we’d stay in the EU for good.

In 2014, the upcoming EU referendum was acknowledged.  The argument was that partition would take us out of the EU, which it would have.

The only way to stay in the EU, was indeed to stay in the UK, but that was never a lifelong guarantee.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

57 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

No Unionist politician promised we’d stay in the EU for good.

In 2014, the upcoming EU referendum was acknowledged.  The argument was that partition would take us out of the EU, which it would have.

The only way to stay in the EU, was indeed to stay in the UK, but that was never a lifelong guarantee.

Revisionist nonsense. Perhaps you’ll point to the odd article, but to the politically unengaged or those who only read headlines, it was absolutely framed in the way that its to protect our place in the EU. Indeed when Labour paid campaigners were knocking doors telling EU citizens they would be deported its hard to argue otherwise. 

[John Lambies Doos]

Revisionist nonsense. Perhaps you’ll point to the odd article, but to the politically unengaged or those who only read headlines, it was absolutely framed in the way that its to protect our place in the EU. Indeed when Labour paid campaigners were knocking doors telling EU citizens they would be deported its hard to argue otherwise. 

Not seen u around for a bit? Maybe just being missing your posts?
Anyway, good to see u back.

[Duries Air Freshener]

56 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Revisionist nonsense. Perhaps you’ll point to the odd article, but to the politically unengaged or those who only read headlines, it was absolutely framed in the way that its to protect our place in the EU. Indeed when Labour paid campaigners were knocking doors telling EU citizens they would be deported its hard to argue otherwise. 

It was indeed the only way to protect our place in the EU.  It just happened that the people voted to leave.

An independent Scotland would have taken us out, and the claim was in the context of that.

[John Lambies Doos]

It was indeed the only way to protect our place in the EU.  It just happened that the people voted to leave.
An independent Scotland would have taken us out, and the claim was in the context of that.

Its a fair point but it wasn't messaged quite like that in campaign.
UK unionist politicians spread fear across the settled EU ex pat populations living in Scotland plus the EU itself (obviously not anticipating the 2016 referendum) said we'd be out and at back of queue. This wasn't strictly true as we met all conditions and would have been fast tracked in; not to mention all Scots would be continued EU citizens due to them having UK passports .
It was fear, lies and bullshit that was spread.

[Boo Khaki]

Should ask him if there's any possibility to negotiate Wales getting turned into a sheet of glass anaw.

[BFTD]

If anyone's going to nuke England, I'd rather they threw a few our way too, as grinding through radiation sickness and the nuclear winter is for the birds.