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

6 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

I don't have one. As I said a couple of posts back I genuinely don't know where the independence movement goes from here.

Fair enough but if you’re in favour of the people of Scotland’s right to another Referendum and don’t have an alternative  as to how to achieve this then maybe be more supportive of the only other option being proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Absolutely.  This is Plan C

Plan A - Westminster allows s30 order.  Answer No

Plan B - can Holyrood legislate for a referendum?  Answer No.

Plan C - only lever left seems to be using another election as a de facto referendum.

 

If there is a Plan D, I’m all ears.

Absolutely spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Granny Danger said:

Fair enough but if you’re in favour of the people of Scotland’s right to another Referendum and don’t have an alternative  as to how to achieve this then maybe be more supportive of the only other option being proposed.

The point is, this isn't a real option. It is the first part of the SNP general election campaign, for sure. But if only one party calls it a de facto referendum, then it isn't one.

I honestly wish there was some way in which this can be done but the de facto referendum idea is a red herring for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

The point is, this isn't a real option. It is the first part of the SNP general election campaign, for sure. But if only one party calls it a de facto referendum, then it isn't one.

I honestly wish there was some way in which this can be done but the de facto referendum idea is a red herring for me.

This is the very definition of concern trolling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, scottsdad said:

The point is, this isn't a real option. It is the first part of the SNP general election campaign, for sure. But if only one party calls it a de facto referendum, then it isn't one.

I honestly wish there was some way in which this can be done but the de facto referendum idea is a red herring for me.

There is a ‘real option’ and it’s the one Sturgeon is proposing.  It’s a million miles from ideal but it’s the only one there is.

Of course the other parties will try and discredit it but those politicians themselves are discredited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Absolutely.  This is Plan C

Plan A - Westminster allows s30 order.  Answer No

Plan B - can Holyrood legislate for a referendum?  Answer No.

Plan C - only lever left seems to be using another election as a de facto referendum.

 

If there is a Plan D, I’m all ears.

It’s comparatively easier to say what we shouldn’t do - and that’s what the UK Nats are hoping we will: we should absolutely not twiddle our thumbs and hope the glorious leader down south (whoever it might be) one day decides enough of us have wanted to leave the cult for long enough that we should be allowed to ask. Because that is never going to happen and is just a ploy to encourage any momentum to be lost. No way should we play their game on this.

The UK has failed Scotland as a democratic state. It’s institutions - Westminster and a devolved Holyrood - have failed it. Scottish independence tends to gain support when it’s being pushed for and campaigned for (which the UK Nats know, which is why they don’t want any campaigning - they just want us doing nothing). Sturgeon needs to keep independence and the recent exposure of the UK as a prison-state front and centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

This is the very definition of concern trolling. 

In what way?

I voted yes in 2014. I would vote yes if it were held again tomorrow. I want a proper referendum.

I don't know how to get one, and I don't believe that the FM calling the next election a "de facto referendum" makes it so.

I'm at a pretty low ebb on the indyref front. I honestly, today, cannot see how it can be achieved. And this is to just ask the question on independence!

It isn't trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wee Bully said:

This is the very definition of concern trolling. 

I don't think that's terribly fair. I think the strongest argument (other than the inability or denial of the right to hold a referendum) for using the GE as a de facto referendum is its not as if Scotland voting on masse for any other policy area, defence, immigration, finance, foreign affairs makes the blindest bit of difference either.

Its not like if we vote on "the real issues" as the f**k faced servile little gremlins in the unionist parties will no doubt campaign on and assert the election is really about  they'll go "gosh, Scotland wants control over immigration or PR in the commons, let's do that then" is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

In what way?

I voted yes in 2014. I would vote yes if it were held again tomorrow. I want a proper referendum.

I don't know how to get one, and I don't believe that the FM calling the next election a "de facto referendum" makes it so.

I'm at a pretty low ebb on the indyref front. I honestly, today, cannot see how it can be achieved. And this is to just ask the question on independence!

It isn't trolling.

The general election is the only thing going. If it was the perfect solution, it would have been plan A. 
 

it doesn’t matter what the other parties campaign on.  If the SNP has one policy, and more than 50% of the voting public vote for them, no-one can argue as to why. It means more than 50% want independence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wee Bully said:

The general election is the only thing going. If it was the perfect solution, it would have been plan A. 
 

it doesn’t matter what the other parties campaign on.  If the SNP has one policy, and more than 50% of the voting public vote for them, no-one can argue as to why. It means more than 50% want independence. 

I get this if - and only if - the SNP campaign on one policy alone. If their manifesto is only about independence. And if more than 50% of people vote for it. Then that is as persuasive an argument as you can get at the next GE, and that is as close to a de facto referendum as you can get.

Guess we'll have to wait and see what they campaign on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

The general election is the only thing going. If it was the perfect solution, it would have been plan A. 
 

it doesn’t matter what the other parties campaign on.  If the SNP has one policy, and more than 50% of the voting public vote for them, no-one can argue as to why. It means more than 50% want independence. 

Aye - this is pretty much the current option. @scottsdad I’m sympathetic to your view on what a GE should be about. However, the UK has just not only denied us a democratic option for independence (or voting “No”) but made clear we are not even allowed a legal route to one without express permission.

Whatever comes forward at the next GE, it should therefore definitely should not be treated as “business as usual”. If the UK holds us is contempt, why on earth should we meekly go back to accepting their shitty FPTP, multi-issue GEs? The most we should do is use 2023 to our advantage as far as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

I get it, I really do. But unless the unionist parties play ball and agree, and also go with one-liner manifestos, then it isn't a de facto referendum.

 

I haven’t read them but I’m presuming the manifestos have more policy than the campaigns which have been one-liner ‘stop that wumman’ for however long?

I’m also wondering why we should give any credence to a Tory manifesto, in particular, given that party’s using theirs as Johnson’s cum sock for the equivalent period. You could throw Truss in there as well, given the amount of her 20 minutes in power she spent on fracking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

Where in the Supreme Court’s recognition of the position, or in any part of the UK’s constitution, is a single word said about us having any ability or legal mechanism to “persuade” the UK government by “showing what the true sentiment is and its strength”? What form does this “persuasion” take? We’ve established it’s not via the ballot box. What you’re suggesting here sounds a lot like hoping the issue will go away by simply continuing to demand higher and higher bars whilst refusing to recognise election results.

You’re making the UK seem like an imperious overlord, which needs to be convinced to grant things on a whim by … what? Opinion polls set at arbitrary numbers over unknown periods of time? Rattling sabres? When it feels like it? What you’re not suggesting it is is a normal or even an acceptable democracy.

And you’re probably right.

There aren't any.

It seems to me that the ruling by the Supreme Court contains a further, puzzling, undemocratic element. As I understand it, it cited a decision of the Canadian Supreme Court about Quebec, and the UK version said that the right to self determination did not apply to Scotland as such arguments were limited to situations involving colonies or foreign occupation, “none of which applies to Scotland”. 

At face value, that seems to suggest that the right to self determination would only apply to Scotland if we had been successfully invaded or colonised.  Repeated electoral demonstrations of political aspiration is viewed by the court as irrelevant.  One might say that if one was forced into a marriage, either party can leave, but if one agrees to a marriage, one party is locked into it in perpetuity.

It seems to me bizarre that the 21st century rights of a people to determine their own future next year depends on the circumstances under which a decision was taken on votes cast by 110 members of the Scottish Parliament - an entirely undemocratic body with members appointed by the Monarch or holding a hereditary title - almost 316 years ago.  I’ve been unable in the brief digging over lunchtime to find detail of the limited pre-union “electoral” process, but as Monty Python might have put it, a three centuries old gaggle of placemen is hardly an ideal form of a decision-making body that seemingly fetters the political aspirations of a 21st century population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

There aren't any.

It seems to me that the ruling by the Supreme Court contains a further, puzzling, undemocratic element. As I understand it, it cited a decision of the Canadian Supreme Court about Quebec, and the UK version said that the right to self determination did not apply to Scotland as such arguments were limited to situations involving colonies or foreign occupation, “none of which applies to Scotland”. 

At face value, that seems to suggest that the right to self determination would only apply to Scotland if we had been successfully invaded or colonised.  Repeated electoral demonstrations of political aspiration is viewed by the court as irrelevant.  One might say that if one was forced into a marriage, either party can leave, but if one agrees to a marriage, one party is locked into it in perpetuity.

It seems to me bizarre that the 21st century rights of a people to determine their own future next year depends on the circumstances under which a decision was taken on votes cast by 110 members of the Scottish Parliament - an entirely undemocratic body with members appointed by the Monarch or holding a hereditary title - almost 316 years ago.  I’ve been unable in the brief digging over lunchtime to find detail of the limited pre-union “electoral” process, but as Monty Python might have put it, a three centuries old gaggle of placemen is hardly an ideal form of a decision-making body that seemingly fetters the political aspirations of a 21st century population.

Agreed. And this is why I’m coming round to the idea that we need to use the next GE. We’ve literally played by the UK’s rules - and had a small hand in making them - for hundreds of years. We’ve approached a referendum the UK’s way, and for all the “love bombing” of the past and the assurances that we should “lead not leave”, we’ve been told to go and f**k ourselves. How’s that for us being a team player and a key part of the system? It’s probably time to stop playing by the UK system’s rules at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fullerene said:

Not a valid comparison.  There are multiple parties to choose from as opposed to a binary question.

So it’s SNP or nothing?

No other independence favouring parties count?

Sounds like a stitch up to claim the electorate support everything that will be sinisterly tucked away in their mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said:

So it’s SNP or nothing?

No other independence favouring parties count?

Sounds like a stitch up to claim the electorate support everything that will be sinisterly tucked away in their mandate.

This is why I said earlier, it can only be a de facto referendum if this is their only policy in the next election. If they get 50% +1 of the vote on that basis, that's a mandate. Anything else, isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said:

So it’s SNP or nothing?

No other independence favouring parties count?

Sounds like a stitch up to claim the electorate support everything that will be sinisterly tucked away in their mandate.

What else in the SNP’s manifesto would be unknown and, as importantly, what could even a full complement of 59 MPs (which they won’t get) actually pass through a house of 650?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting views on the best way forward in the thread. There can't be a further referendum other than through the grace and favour of Westminster. So what is the position of liberal England?  I did look to see if there was a Guardian editorial on the issue. You know . . . on the one hand, on the other hand, affront to democracy etc lines, but couldn't see anything.  Only subjective comment appeared to be the offensive cartoon below.

How often should a referendum on this issue be acceptable? Well the Irish Border Poll can occur every seven years and this will be even more contentious and bitter than a Scottish Independence Referendum.

What should be the crucial factor in triggering a referendum? In the case of the Irish Border Poll, it seems to depend on the perceptions of the Secretary of State and, surely, this can only be informed by the outcome of Province-wide elections. 

The suggestion that opinion polls, with their notorious margins of error, should be used as an indicator is absurd. The electoral system can be the only contributory factor.  And what should be the threshold for a legitimate result?  For better or for worse, 50%+1 is the democratic answer. Any result that passes this threshold is, in my view, legitimate.  To maintain that a majority vote is not legitimate, whilst a minority vote that maintains the status quo represents the democratic will of the people is nonsensical.

Steve Bell 24.11.2022

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...