When will indyref2 happen?

[Brother Blades]

9 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

That they dont seem able to make any political gain in an ever deepening crisis at westminster, is just that they are clueless would be my guess.  It feels like a wasted opportunity. Maybe they are just too cautious but you have to take some risks to take a country into independence.

What risks do you think they should take? I’m genuinely flabbergasted that latest polls aren’t swinging more towards Yes, but I’m not sure what else can be done? Maybe the FM should call a press conference & just state every single failure of Westminster in the last week, not sure the national broadcasters have that much time spare in their schedule to be fair. 

[BigDoddyKane]

2 hours ago, Brother Blades said:

What risks do you think they should take? I’m genuinely flabbergasted that latest polls aren’t swinging more towards Yes, but I’m not sure what else can be done? Maybe the FM should call a press conference & just state every single failure of Westminster in the last week, not sure the national broadcasters have that much time spare in their schedule to be fair. 

I think they should say that if the tories change leader again and dont call a GE, they will go ahead and hold indy2 asap next year. That the tories failure is so bad and their actions so undemocratic that Scotland has to have a vote to decide if its indy or not. 
 

it would put pressue on tories to do that now b4 they change leader 

it would raise the stakes and get a bit of momentum going as its all a bit flat at moment on indy side

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[williemillersmoustache]

10 hours ago, BigDoddyKane said:

I think they should say that if the tories change leader again and dont call a GE, they will go ahead and hold indy2 asap next year. That the tories failure is so bad and their actions so undemocratic that Scotland has to have a vote to decide if its indy or not. 
 

it would put pressue on tories to do that now b4 they change leader 

it would raise the stakes and get a bit of momentum going as its all a bit flat at moment on indy side

 

I sympathise with this view but the bit in bold has been true for years and does not make holding a referendum more or less legal nor does it reduce the likelihood of councils or the No side boycotting it as a "WILDCAT REFERENDUM"

It's a shite state of affairs but we have to know whether or not Scotland has a mechanism to choose independence or if we are in effect prisoners, first. 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

12 hours ago, BigDoddyKane said:

I think they should say that if the tories change leader again and dont call a GE, they will go ahead and hold indy2 asap next year. That the tories failure is so bad and their actions so undemocratic that Scotland has to have a vote to decide if its indy or not. 
 

it would put pressue on tories to do that now b4 they change leader 

it would raise the stakes and get a bit of momentum going as its all a bit flat at moment on indy side

 

We've been over this before. a non-sanctioned "wildcat referendum" is a non-starter. the unionist side will simply boycott the debate and referendum process and instruct all their voters to do likewise. yes will win with 85% but only on a 40 odd percent turnout. exactly like Catalonia. it will just become a farce, the UK government won't recognise the vote or the result and no country internationally would recognise Scotland as a sovereign state.  The Scottish government in its current guise doesn't have any means of collecting its own revenue or controlling its own territory, so the only way we're becoming a proper state is if the UK lets us

TLDR anything other than officially sanctioned referendum is a hiding to nothing

[BigDoddyKane]

2 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

I sympathise with this view but the bit in bold has been true for years and does not make holding a referendum more or less legal nor does it reduce the likelihood of councils or the No side boycotting it as a "WILDCAT REFERENDUM"

It's a shite state of affairs but we have to know whether or not Scotland has a mechanism to choose independence or if we are in effect prisoners, first. 

Thats a fair point

[BigDoddyKane]

31 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

We've been over this before. a non-sanctioned "wildcat referendum" is a non-starter. the unionist side will simply boycott the debate and referendum process and instruct all their voters to do likewise. yes will win with 85% but only on a 40 odd percent turnout. exactly like Catalonia. it will just become a farce, the UK government won't recognise the vote or the result and no country internationally would recognise Scotland as a sovereign state.  The Scottish government in its current guise doesn't have any means of collecting its own revenue or controlling its own territory, so the only way we're becoming a proper state is if the UK lets us

TLDR anything other than officially sanctioned referendum is a hiding to nothing

Thats a fair point, I can understand that viewpoint. I would still be for forcing the issue more now while things are in such a chaotic state. Maybe the way I said would lead to a boycott which would be serving no purpose. Some other way of building up pressure and getting some momentum going would be worth discussing at least. We are in exceptional times at the moment and history usually shows that in these times actions that determine the future happen. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[jamamafegan]

Every other political party in the UK, Europe and North America is full of chancers who are only after career advancement and personal enrichment but the SNP are immune to it......
Who's the dafty here?
At this point believing that Sturgeon is pro independence is as daft as thinking Starmer is pro worker. 

I think in part you make a fair point, the SNP possibly does have some members who are careerists and would maybe not be too disappointed shall we say if it was another No vote because it possibly keeps them in a job. Personally I highly doubt that, but as you say political parties are full of careerists these days so the SNP shouldn’t be immune to these suggestions.

That being said, I think in the small chance that any of these SNP members exist they will be extremely few in number to the point where it would be insignificant. I believe that the party members absolutely do want independence. To suggest that the leader of the party itself is secretly anti-independence - that really is tinfoil hat territory and to echo@The Scarf , you need to give your head a wobble.

[Aufc]

21 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Ive certainly moved from yes to no, im a massive fan of being poorer. My gran used to tell me about living in slums, using food rations and rolling black outs etc, it sounds like a great laugh and the only way to guarantee that is to vote no. Im also a big fan of the shift to the far right that politics has taken since 2014, its quite sensible to just blame foreigners for everything thats going wrong. 

The thing is though that we dont actually know whether you will be better off with independence. All of the above wont suddenly be solved by independence. Again, using the GERS figures as a basis, there is going to have to be large cuts or tax increases. I dont really have an issue with tax increases to a certain level (even though we already pay a higher level of tax already) but we have an ageing population and a productivity issue so clearly we are going to have to do something about this. We only have 2.7m taxpayers in Scotland so clearly we need to increase this number. Do the SNP have an idea of the number required? 

We talk all about the resources that Scotland has and the shift to renewables, however, most of the renewables energy projects are owned by foreign companies. Most of the infrastructure is being built by foreign companies. We cant even build a few ferries without it being a disaster. 

The one absolutely bonus of Scotland being independent is getting away from the tories but then they will almost certainly be kicked out in the next two years (granted they can always get back in power but the hope is that these last few years will be enough to keep them out for a very long time). 

As i have said, i have been leaning towards Yes but they need to present a better financial case rather than just relying on passion as that wont solve the issues that a newly independent scotland would face

[TheScarf]

34 minutes ago, Aufc said:

The thing is though that we dont actually know whether you will be better off with independence. All of the above wont suddenly be solved by independence. Again, using the GERS figures as a basis, there is going to have to be large cuts or tax increases. I dont really have an issue with tax increases to a certain level (even though we already pay a higher level of tax already) but we have an ageing population and a productivity issue so clearly we are going to have to do something about this. We only have 2.7m taxpayers in Scotland so clearly we need to increase this number. Do the SNP have an idea of the number required? 

We talk all about the resources that Scotland has and the shift to renewables, however, most of the renewables energy projects are owned by foreign companies. Most of the infrastructure is being built by foreign companies. We cant even build a few ferries without it being a disaster. 

The one absolutely bonus of Scotland being independent is getting away from the tories but then they will almost certainly be kicked out in the next two years (granted they can always get back in power but the hope is that these last few years will be enough to keep them out for a very long time). 

As i have said, i have been leaning towards Yes but they need to present a better financial case rather than just relying on passion as that wont solve the issues that a newly independent scotland would face

But we will be better off?  We will have the borrowing powers that we currently don't have.  The SG is limited to what it can spend on devolved issues, they have to rob Peter to pay Paul and shift money about each sector.  They don't have enough to fix all the issues facing them but with independence they would.

[Dawson Park Boy]

32 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

But we will be better off?  We will have the borrowing powers that we currently don't have.  The SG is limited to what it can spend on devolved issues, they have to rob Peter to pay Paul and shift money about each sector.  They don't have enough to fix all the issues facing them but with independence they would.

Maybe you should have a read of John Mclaren’s article in the Scotsman regarding the SNP economic plans?

[TheScarf]

6 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Maybe you should have a read of John Mclaren’s article in the Scotsman regarding the SNP economic plans?

I’m good thanks. Anyone with a working brain will understand Scotland will be better off financially and economically as an independent country.

[Aufc]

46 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

But we will be better off?  We will have the borrowing powers that we currently don't have.  The SG is limited to what it can spend on devolved issues, they have to rob Peter to pay Paul and shift money about each sector.  They don't have enough to fix all the issues facing them but with independence they would.

But we will be a new country with no economic history. It is basically like a newly formed company going into a bank and asking to borrow £1m. Also, being able to borrow doesnt mean we will be better off. It just means we increase our debt which needs to be paid out an ageing population. 

7 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

I’m good thanks. Anyone with a working brain will understand Scotland will be better off financially and economically as an independent country.

Well why does the SNP figures not show that? I admire your enthusiasm but nothing has shown this so far. 

I actually read the above article after the reference. It sums up exactly my thoughts. The guy is basically saying Scottish independence could be good but the SNP need to lay everything out correctly. Sorry but you are totally blinkered and trotting out the above line just absolutely highlights what a lot of yes voters say and think. The SNP need to be honest and realistic which they are currently not doing. 

[TheScarf]

2 minutes ago, Aufc said:

But we will be a new country with no economic history. It is basically like a newly formed company going into a bank and asking to borrow £1m. Also, being able to borrow doesnt mean we will be better off. It just means we increase our debt which needs to be paid out an ageing population. 

Well why does the SNP figures not show that? I admire your enthusiasm but nothing has shown this so far. 

I actually read the above article after the reference. It sums up exactly my thoughts. The guy is basically saying Scottish independence could be good but the SNP need to lay everything out correctly. Sorry but you are totally blinkered and trotting out the above line just absolutely highlights what a lot of yes voters say and think. The SNP need to be honest and realistic which they are currently not doing. 

They literally said it was a high level overview, theres nothing blinkered about me or any pro-Indy people’s views on here. This isn’t a White Paper like in 2014. On what planet would an independent Scotland be worse off financially and economically than it is being tied to Westminster? 
 

Just say you’re worried about you’re pension and move on with your life.

[Dav nan Gael]

41 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Maybe you should have a read of John Mclaren’s article in the Scotsman regarding the SNP economic plans?

Thee Scotsman........A Tory mouthpiece .

[strichener]

1 hour ago, TheScarf said:

They literally said it was a high level overview, theres nothing blinkered about me or any pro-Indy people’s views on here. This isn’t a White Paper like in 2014. On what planet would an independent Scotland be worse off financially and economically than it is being tied to Westminster? 
 

Just say you’re worried about you’re pension and move on with your life.

I am a supporter of independence as I think we should be able to make our our decisions and our own mistakes.  However there is no way that we can state that we will be financially better off with independence, in the same way anti-independence supporters cannot say we will be worse off.

So to answer your question directly - this planet.  You made reference to borrowing in an earlier reply as if that is the magic bullet that Scotland needs.  Scotland already borrows both independently and as part of the UK.  If you think higher borrowing in Scotland is the solution then you are deluded.

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by strichener

[TheScarf]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

I am a supporter of independence as I think we should be able to make our our decisions and our own mistakes.  However there is no way that we can state that we will be financially better off with independence, in the same way anti-independence supporters cannot say we will be worse off.

So to answer your question directly - this planet.  You made reference to borrowing in an earlier reply as if that is the magic bullet that Scotland needs.  Scotland already borrows both independently and as part of the UK.  If you think higher borrowing in Scotland is the solution then you are deluded.

 

Scotland will be financially and economically better off as an independent nation.  Every penny made in Scotland from its rich resources can be spent in Scotland and not sent down to the treasury.  That's before you talk about borrowing powers. If you think otherwise then you're deluded.  

[Dawson Park Boy]

4 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Scotland will be financially and economically better off as an independent nation.  Every penny made in Scotland from its rich resources can be spent in Scotland and not sent down to the treasury.  That's before you talk about borrowing powers. If you think otherwise then you're deluded.  

Wow!!

They've certainly got you indoctrinated.

I don’t think anyone has ever denied that Scotland could be independent.

The point is, as to whether the tax rises, restricted public expenditure, borrowing (markets permitting) are worth it?

I just don’t see the plans as outlined passing the test of scrutiny that will happen prior to any referendum, even if it were to take place.

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

3 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Wow!!

They've certainly got you indoctrinated.

I don’t think anyone has ever denied that Scotland could be independent.

The point is, as to whether the tax rises, restricted public expenditure, borrowing (markets permitting) are worth it?

I just don’t see the plans as outlined passing the test of scrutiny that will happen prior to any referendum, even if it were to take place.

 

Why are you scared of tax rises? If we follow a Scandinavian model that’s what will happen, but services will improve and wages will also rise. Our household is in the highest tax bracket and tbh Im happy to pay a bit more tax to have first class services and ensure people are paid better.
On AUFC’s point about foreign owned energy investment, the nice thing about tidal power is that you’re not competing for an oil or gas field, theres plenty of tide for everyone. We have vast areas for wind power too, the potential is massive, we’ll be exporting the stuff down south at a premium. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

But honestly, f**k me, please, someone gonnae explain with whats happened in the UK over the last 6 years and especially recently, please honestly tell me how we’re ‘better together’? Every single thing they told the no voters that would happen or wouldnt happen, has fucking happened. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck the tories. 

[Antlion]

14 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Wow!!

They've certainly got you indoctrinated.

I don’t think anyone has ever denied that Scotland could be independent.

The point is, as to whether the tax rises, restricted public expenditure, borrowing (markets permitting) are worth it?

I just don’t see the plans as outlined passing the test of scrutiny that will happen prior to any referendum, even if it were to take place.

 

You didn’t even need to see plans outlined, never mind scrutinised, to believe Brexit was worth blindly voting for - so let’s not pretend you require answers to questions before making constitutional decisions.