When will indyref2 happen?

[Clown Job]

13 minutes ago, Aufc said:

Hopefully this will give the SNP to actually sit down and work out a proper financial plan for how an independent Scotland would look.

Will the Unionist do the same? Because it’s increasingly looking like the UK can’t afford to be independent 

[renton]

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1595717474732892161?t=0N12mvsWjeOrKRpHENjRvA&s=19

[DeeTillEhDeh]

That should have been buried

[Big Chief Toffee Teeth]

I wasn't doing anything. I just don't think 59-seat Scotland often makes the crucial difference in 650-seat elections. Starmer would also have to do unbelievably badly or the general public would have to be even more of a bunch of p***ks than I've assumed if the Tories don't get absolutely battered at the next election.

Apologies. I thought you were referring to 1979 when, following the "defeat" in the first devolution referendum, the SNP voted with Thatcher's Tories in the vote of no confidence in James Callaghan's Labour Government. As a result the motion was carried by one vote, a general election was called - and we know what happened next!

[Bully Wee Villa]

Ah yes, I was aware of that but don't think there is any prospect of the SNP helping the Tories these days. Their great success has been in gaining disaffected Labour voters and they'd undo all that progress if they sell out.

[Dawson Park Boy]

55 minutes ago, Donathan said:

So what is the unionist approach going to be to the de facto referendum?

 

Option 1 would be to stand on a joint ticket. The closest challenging party to the SNP (or the incumbent party, in the 11 seats with unionist MPs) stands on a 1 line, no to independence manifesto. This would effectively legitimise the idea that the GE is a de facto referendum and would make the result very hard to ignore, so it would effectively be like a section 30. For this reason, I don’t see this happening.

 

Option 2 (by far the most likely IMO) is to stand as normal and put forward their own policies and spend the entire campaign talking about how they’re actually putting forward real policies whilst the SNP rabbit on about independence.

 

Option 3 is to boycott it altogether and refuse to put up any candidates. Unlikely imo.

 

 

The campaign will be a bit of a farce tbh with the largest party running a single issue campaign. In the leaders debates when Bernard Ponsonby and Glenn Campbell, Sarwar/DRoss/ACH taking questions on the economy, defence and other key issues, and when Sturgeon is asked about the SNP’s economic policy…. “Eh, we don’t have one anymore” 

I think I’d be inclined to Option3 but you may be right regarding Option2.

[williemillersmoustache]

15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

That should have been buried

Football chat on a football forum, whatever next 

[picklish]

I sometimes think that the SNP recalling their MPs from Westminster would be a useful tactic in highlighting the problem that Westminster is the de facto English parliament, and as such an English referendum on independence would not need Scottish approval, whilst conversely a Scottish referendum requires English votes to be attained. They could donate the ~£5m yearly total MPs income saved to foodbanks for publicity. I'm not entirely sure what the benefit of sending SNP MPs to Westminster is, other than to take part in the circus?

I don't understand how using the General Election as a referendum would work - would the SNP refuse all debates where they would be asked the usual questions? I assume there is some planning on this, considering the SC decision wasn't unexpected.

 

[renton]

11 minutes ago, picklish said:

I sometimes think that the SNP recalling their MPs from Westminster would be a useful tactic in highlighting the problem that Westminster is the de facto English parliament, and as such an English referendum on independence would not need Scottish approval, whilst conversely a Scottish referendum requires English votes to be attained. They could donate the ~£5m yearly total MPs income saved to foodbanks for publicity. I'm not entirely sure what the benefit of sending SNP MPs to Westminster is, other than to take part in the circus?

I don't understand how using the General Election as a referendum would work - would the SNP refuse all debates where they would be asked the usual questions? I assume there is some planning on this, considering the SC decision wasn't unexpected.

 

I suppose the special party conference in the new year will clear things up but aye, suspect the manifesto would be an A5 postcard that said: Do you think Scotand should be independent? Vote SNP"

Controlling the narrative in the run up is the difficult bit. You'd have to ignore the leaders debates (if there were any), you'd need to get a popular movement going that the media couldn't ignore. You'd have to make Sarwar and Ross look stupid trying to run UK attack lines against each other.

[Richie]

See folk who say "Once in a generation"; do they genuinely believe they're fooling anyone?

Its just straw-clutchery and opportunism.
You could site loads of examples for the opposite.
Thatcher said all that was needed for independence was a majority of pro-Indy MPs in WM.
Ross, Davidson etc all explicitly said a vote for the SNP was a vote for a 2nd referendum etc.

The direction of travel is towards pro-indy.
I think they're missing a trick by not granting a referendum, as IMO it would still be a marginal no vote.
Similar to the Ireland situation, time is the Unionist enemy, going by demographic trends.

[razamanaz]

Just watched FMQ and Nicola has substituted the word democracy for independence in every sentence. It's gonna be a long 2 years of this

Edited November 24, 2022 by razamanaz

[Abdul_Latif]

Any indication if it’s 50% of seats, or the electorate that is going to be the metric?

Are the SNP allowing any independence party to be counted or is it just themselves and possibly the Greens?

If Alba for example win a seat, will this be counted or dismissed?

This just seems like a disaster from the off.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Abdul_Latif

[Aufc]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

1 hour ago, Aufc said:

Hopefully this will give the SNP to actually sit down and work out a proper financial plan for how an independent Scotland would look.

Like the Brexit campaign did . . .

Well Brexit has surely shown the harm that separating from a union can do? I am genuinely undecided on the whole thing. On one side, the tories are a disgrace but should surely get voted out in the next election. The yes side havent made a proper financial case. The SNP have done a lot of good but they have also made a total arse of some of the stuff and some of the stuff that Nicola Sturgeon has done makes me question what she would be like if she had complete control over everything. 

[Aufc]

1 hour ago, Clown Job said:

Will the Unionist do the same? Because it’s increasingly looking like the UK can’t afford to be independent 

I think the issue is that the "better together" campaign just need to refer to the GERS which mentions Scotland get more spending that they put in. This is a report prepared by Scottish government officials. So its easy for them to say "Scotland cant afford to be independent". 

[Antlion]

13 minutes ago, Aufc said:

Well Brexit has surely shown the harm that separating from a union can do?

And yet Brexit was and is being inflicted on Scotland. If one were to accept that Brexit and Scottish independence are similar (they’re not, for all kinds of reasons), this would therefore mean that the choice is “harm” or “harm”. Voting for the UK is clearly not a safe choice.

[renton]

24 minutes ago, Aufc said:

I think the issue is that the "better together" campaign just need to refer to the GERS which mentions Scotland get more spending that they put in. This is a report prepared by Scottish government officials. So its easy for them to say "Scotland cant afford to be independent". 

I honestly don't think GERS has as much cut through as it used to.

[renton]

28 minutes ago, Aufc said:

Well Brexit has surely shown the harm that separating from a union can do? I am genuinely undecided on the whole thing. On one side, the tories are a disgrace but should surely get voted out in the next election. The yes side havent made a proper financial case. The SNP have done a lot of good but they have also made a total arse of some of the stuff and some of the stuff that Nicola Sturgeon has done makes me question what she would be like if she had complete control over everything. 

Independence is not about Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP. You are not voting for a 5 year programme of government.

[williemillersmoustache]

Taps link to an article from the Indy loving BBC. 

[git-intae-thum]

58 minutes ago, Aufc said:

I think the issue is that the "better together" campaign just need to refer to the GERS which mentions Scotland get more spending that they put in. This is a report prepared by Scottish government officials. So its easy for them to say "Scotland cant afford to be independent". 

And it just needs to be pointed out (patiently and politely) that only absolute thickets, or those seeking to decieve,   believe the figures have any relevance to the economy of an independent Scotland.

Edited November 24, 2022 by git-intae-thum

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, Aufc said:

I think the issue is that the "better together" campaign just need to refer to the GERS which mentions Scotland get more spending that they put in. This is a report prepared by Scottish government officials. So its easy for them to say "Scotland cant afford to be independent". 

I’m not sure “look how poor and dependent we are after centuries of UK rule” is quite the advertisement for UK rule people want it to be.