When will indyref2 happen?

[scottsdad]

1 minute ago, Thane of Cawdor said:

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/23/the-guardian-view-on-scotland-and-the-constitution-a-crisis-is-brewing

here's their editorial from a few days back.

[williemillersmoustache]

2 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/23/the-guardian-view-on-scotland-and-the-constitution-a-crisis-is-brewing

here's their editorial from a few days back.

It's articles like that that ensure I'll never give the guardian any money ever. 

[Double Jack D]

3 hours ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

It is unless there was a much larger majority strongly in favour of independence.  That isn’t the case.  The vast majority of Scots aren’t seething about this, taking to the streets rather they have other issues in their lives to deal with 

Democracy works when it doesn't require those who win elections to "seethe" or, more worryingly, " take to streets".

This demonstrates why the mechanism for this needs to be clarified soon. Once it reaches the stage of "seethe" or "taking to streets" we could be in a situation that is difficult to reverse from.

Whilst we may not be there yet, the continuing denial of democracy does risk this spilling into the situation you mention. No-one on any side wants that.

[Abdul_Latif]

11 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

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.

I guess they could call an election at Holyrood on that basis of a single policy.
 

Then upon the result of that hold another election based on full manifesto.

If this were agreed in advance and absolutely not in any way able to be abused (eg; SNP don’t go ahead with the second election cause they got great numbers), then it might work.

Sounds just about impossible though.

[Antlion]

3 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

Democracy works when it doesn't require those who win elections to "seethe" or, more worryingly, " take to streets".

This demonstrates why the mechanism for this needs to be clarified soon. Once it reaches the stage of "seethe" or "taking to streets" we could be in a situation that is difficult to reverse from.

Whilst we may not be there yet, the continuing denial of democracy does risk this spilling into the situation you mention. No-one on any side wants that.

I’m not sure about the last bit. I think there are pockets of UK Nationalism that would welcome the chance to Northern-Irish-up Scottish politics and portray independence supporters as dangerous, insurgent IRA paramilitaries. Hell, they’ve already started doing it.

[Brother Blades]

3 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said:

I guess they could call an election at Holyrood on that basis of a single policy.
 

Then upon the result of that hold another election based on full manifesto.

If this were agreed in advance and absolutely not in any way able to be abused (eg; SNP don’t go ahead with the second election cause they got great numbers), then it might work.

Sounds just about impossible though.

This would be my preferred course. It removes the dilution of MSM talking mainly about the English based parties & policies, it would mean that Scottish coverage would really have to be about one issue. 
I think that the other parties would need to attack the SNP on this one issue. It would need the support of the greens & probably Alba to issue the same 1 issue manifesto on the understanding that the FM would immediately resign to cause another election where every party can put proper policy to the electorate. 

[Thane of Cawdor]

10 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/23/the-guardian-view-on-scotland-and-the-constitution-a-crisis-is-brewing

here's their editorial from a few days back.

You're right. Good that the Guardian recognises the "democrat deficit" but will that be more widely recognised and acknowledged? In my simplistic view this issue is completely black and white and "an affront to democracy" is not a good look for any democratic government/society.

Ms Sturgeon intends to demonstrate such demand for separation that a Westminster government using its constitutional power of obstruction would appear to be in egregious violation of democratic principle. If unionists do not want to be caught in that position, they need something more than a legal veto over a referendum. They need the political arguments that can win one.

[scottsdad]

I simply cannot see the SNP campaigning on a single issue, and herein lies the problem. If they do then it is clean - a vote for us is a vote for independence. End of.

But then they are utterly open to attack by the parties and the media. What is your policy on x, y or z? Why won't you give an answer to any questions other than this? What about the cost of living/Brexit/climate crisis etc? And so on. Not sustainable, in reality.

So they will publish a full manifesto and this is where we move away from the de facto referendum.

Take an extreme example. Let's say they produce a manifesto with two policies. Independence, and the legalisation of bare knuckle boxing (say). Now, say that I am a voter and I couldn't care less about independence but I love bare knuckle boxing. I want it taught in schools, I want it as the national sport. No other party is offering to legalise it, so I'll vote SNP based on this and not on independence.

My vote for the SNP has not been a vote for Yes (as in an actual referendum). So this is not a de facto referendum.

I might be wrong; they might go balls out and make it a single issue. I'd love it if they did. But I cannot see it.

[Double Jack D]

16 minutes ago, Antlion said:

I’m not sure about the last bit. I think there are pockets of UK Nationalism that would welcome the chance to Northern-Irish-up Scottish politics and portray independence supporters as dangerous, insurgent IRA paramilitaries. Hell, they’ve already started doing it.

Fair point, wouldn't disagree.

[Brother Blades]

3 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

I simply cannot see the SNP campaigning on a single issue, and herein lies the problem. If they do then it is clean - a vote for us is a vote for independence. End of.

But then they are utterly open to attack by the parties and the media. What is your policy on x, y or z? Why won't you give an answer to any questions other than this? What about the cost of living/Brexit/climate crisis etc? And so on. Not sustainable, in reality.

So they will publish a full manifesto and this is where we move away from the de facto referendum.

Take an extreme example. Let's say they produce a manifesto with two policies. Independence, and the legalisation of bare knuckle boxing (say). Now, say that I am a voter and I couldn't care less about independence but I love bare knuckle boxing. I want it taught in schools, I want it as the national sport. No other party is offering to legalise it, so I'll vote SNP based on this and not on independence.

My vote for the SNP has not been a vote for Yes (as in an actual referendum). So this is not a de facto referendum.

I might be wrong; they might go balls out and make it a single issue. I'd love it if they did. But I cannot see it.

@Abdul_Latif has made a good suggestion to combat exactly this. 

[Thistle_do_nicely]

20 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said:

I guess they could call an election at Holyrood on that basis of a single policy.
 

Then upon the result of that hold another election based on full manifesto.

If this were agreed in advance and absolutely not in any way able to be abused (eg; SNP don’t go ahead with the second election cause they got great numbers), then it might work.

Sounds just about impossible though.

 

1 minute ago, Brother Blades said:

@Abdul_Latif has made a good suggestion to combat exactly this. 

I get it, but even that sounds a bit inefficient (speaking as someone that's firmly Yes), would rather it was a standard election paper but also add on the question as worded in the 2014 referendum too separately.

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

I simply cannot see the SNP campaigning on a single issue, and herein lies the problem. If they do then it is clean - a vote for us is a vote for independence. End of.

But then they are utterly open to attack by the parties and the media. What is your policy on x, y or z? Why won't you give an answer to any questions other than this? What about the cost of living/Brexit/climate crisis etc? And so on. Not sustainable, in reality.

So they will publish a full manifesto and this is where we move away from the de facto referendum.

Take an extreme example. Let's say they produce a manifesto with two policies. Independence, and the legalisation of bare knuckle boxing (say). Now, say that I am a voter and I couldn't care less about independence but I love bare knuckle boxing. I want it taught in schools, I want it as the national sport. No other party is offering to legalise it, so I'll vote SNP based on this and not on independence.

My vote for the SNP has not been a vote for Yes (as in an actual referendum). So this is not a de facto referendum.

I might be wrong; they might go balls out and make it a single issue. I'd love it if they did. But I cannot see it.

Wouldn’t this be true of any party? You might have voted for, say, the Liberal Democrats (I know, right?) on the basis of their opposition to tuition fees yet not have supported their policy on, say, fox hunting. You don’t get to pick and choose which bits of their manifesto they then enact (or don’t).

At any rate, this is again falling into the trap of playing nice (and playing along) with the UK system, as though this were a business-as-usual GE coming up. If I were the SNP I’d take advantage of every dirty trick possible to disrupt the next election and prevent it from proceeding as they usually do. Westminster has told us that playing nice and following their time honoured approach avails us nothing. f**k them.

[Granny Danger]

47 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

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.

Nope.  A vote for any party that is in favour of Independence counts towards the 50%.

[scottsdad]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Nope.  A vote for any party that is in favour of Independence counts towards the 50%.

As per my earlier comments about parties with more than one policy: if the other parties (Green, Alba, etc) had single-issue manifestos, then yes. If not, no.

[Antlion]

23 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

As per my earlier comments about parties with more than one policy: if the other parties (Green, Alba, etc) had single-issue manifestos, then yes. If not, no.

The reverse here applies too - we couldn’t know that people voting for, say, Labour - on the basis of some unicorn or other they promise - don’t nevertheless support independence. And you can get Labour will promise the moon.

There’s no obvious way around this other than controlling the narrative in Scotland (which the SNP can’t really do). A GE on independence could only work if the prior campaign is heavily - even solely - focused on independence versus the UK nationalism. 

The question might better be: what does the SNP do if it achieves a strong showing of MPs, whether over 50% or under? Do they continue trooping to Westminster to form an insignificant minority? They’ve done this dutifully for years and got nothing by it. Do they attempt to obstruct the operations of the English Parliament rather than going along with them? 

Edited November 25, 2022 by Antlion

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I guess they could call an election at Holyrood on that basis of a single policy.
 
Then upon the result of that hold another election based on full manifesto.
If this were agreed in advance and absolutely not in any way able to be abused (eg; SNP don’t go ahead with the second election cause they got great numbers), then it might work.
Sounds just about impossible though.

It's fairly easy to get an emergency Scottish election.

FM resigns - if the post is not filled within 28 days there would be fresh Scottish elections.

That would be better than a de facto GE strategy as it would be fully focused on Scotland plus the SNP/Greens would have complete control over the timing of the election.

[PossilYM]

2 hours ago, betting competition said:

In 1918 Sinn Fein got 46.9% of the vote in Ireland

Did that include candidates that stood unopposed?

[PossilYM]

3 hours 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.

Plan C no problem but never in a month of Sundays should have the figure of 50+1 been mentioned.

In a multi party election scenario that's an almost impossible figure to come up with.

As Thatcher said all those years ago, get a majority of MPs.

 

[Guest Jedi]

There is no question that if the SNP do stand on a single ticket, and win 50.1% of the vote in Scotland, that the Scottish govt then has the right to negotiate the terms of Independence.

Whether the other parties try to keep the campaign on all the other issues (and they will)..green energy, public services, housing, immigration, defence, cost of living etc, doesn't matter 'if' the SNP secure that 50.1% for the first time ever in an election.

If they don't, as said I presume it simply rolls over to the Holyrood election and the same tactic is employed again..single ticket by SNP, Greens and Alba..if they secure over 50% negotiate..if not..onto the next GE.

Even Margaret Thatcher agreed that a majority of SNP MPs in a Westminster election was sufficient (all be it that was when they regularly returned 2 or 3 MPs so was a safe bet).

[Bad Wolf]

2 hours 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 21^st 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 21^st century population.

I'm attempting to watch rather uninspiring football, so am also not digging too deep, but off the top of my head Scotland in 1707 was indeed as you describe it - a country whose "government" consisted of the monarch, the aristocracy, the landed gentry, and the occasional arriviste who got a tiny slice of the cake by prostituting himself to the aforesaid; all of whom liked a bribe almost as much as Sepp Blatter.

 

It may have been sort of democratic by the standards of the time, but 99% of the population had no say in the union and the 1% can not unreasonably be described as sellouts at best and traitors at worst. The English government was precisely the same, of course, and their peons had no say in the matter either. Ultimately, the union can be described as having no legitimate basis in 21st century law. Which is my opinion as someone who isn't a lawyer, but turn it around - if 18th century law is still applicable today then we surely can reinstate slavery if we wish.