When will indyref2 happen?

[Cowden Cowboy]

2 hours 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.

Nobody has denied democracy you just haven’t got what you want.  There is a democratic uk govt which already agreed to a referendum in 2014.  Thus the democratic route is to persuade it to agree once again.  The Supreme Court ruled it was a reserved matter which was already self evident.  

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

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? 

No apparently the ‘logic’ is that if you vote for a pro-Independence party then it only counts in favour of a de facto referendum if their standing on one policy, however if you vote for a pro-Unionist party then you’re automatically voting against a referendum.

If I’d known academia was so easy I wouldn’t have wasted my life making money!
 

 

 

No, wait…

[Cowden Cowboy]

48 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

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.

The union does have legitimate basis in law, slavery doesn’t as it was abolished.  The people democratically have had many years now to look to amend historic laws.  

[Cowden Cowboy]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

No apparently the ‘logic’ is that if you vote for a pro-Independence party then it only counts in favour of a de facto referendum if their standing on one policy, however if you vote for a pro-Unionist party then you’re automatically voting against a referendum.

If I’d known academia was so easy I wouldn’t have wasted my life making money!
 

 

 

No, wait…

Makes no sense to me 

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Makes no sense to me 

I can live with that.

[Billy Jean King]

Nobody has denied democracy you just haven’t got what you want.  There is a democratic uk govt which already agreed to a referendum in 2014.  Thus the democratic route is to persuade it to agree once again.  The Supreme Court ruled it was a reserved matter which was already self evident.  

As a matter of interest, what, in your own personal opinion, would persuade the parliament in Westminster to grant Scotland another referendum ?

[Cowden Cowboy]

Don’t know - maybe Time,  clear evidence of hardcore strong majority support for it over time, persuasion of influential and sensible MPs from other parties that asking the public again is appropriate, an evaluation of the pros and cons for both parties which shows advantages, less strident anti-English doggedness and a willingness to compromise with others.  Just thinking aloud really I don’t have a manifesto.  

[Salt n Vinegar]

48 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

The union does have legitimate basis in law, slavery doesn’t as it was abolished.  The people democratically have had many years now to look to amend historic laws.  

I realise that I could be accused of slight bias, but one part of legislation I'd look at amending would be the list of reserved matters in Schedule 5 of the 1998 Scotland Act so that the mother(etc) of Parliaments couldn't just stick its fingers in its ears and shout "lalalalala" after every election held in Scotland. 

[Antlion]

5 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Don’t know - maybe Time,  clear evidence of hardcore strong majority support for it over time, persuasion of influential and sensible MPs from other parties that asking the public again is appropriate, an evaluation of the pros and cons for both parties which shows advantages, less strident anti-English doggedness and a willingness to compromise with others.  Just thinking aloud really I don’t have a manifesto.  

Would have been simpler to just say, “nothing - hoping Scots will just go back into their box quietly and without a fuss”.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Don’t know - maybe Time,  clear evidence of hardcore strong majority support for it over time, persuasion of influential and sensible MPs from other parties that asking the public again is appropriate, an evaluation of the pros and cons for both parties which shows advantages, less strident anti-English doggedness and a willingness to compromise with others.  Just thinking aloud really I don’t have a manifesto.  

You don't know because the reality is there isn't a democratic route.

The decision is purely that of the UK PM not even the UK Parliament.

The only realistic route is a de facto referendum via elections, preferably Scottish Parliament elections, to avoid any blurring of the electorate's opinions.

[Cowden Cowboy]

1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

You don't know because the reality is there isn't a democratic route.

The decision is purely that of the UK PM not even the UK Parliament.

The only realistic route is a de facto referendum via elections, preferably Scottish Parliament elections, to avoid any blurring of the electorates opinions.

Well you have just affirmed then that the de facto route suggested isn’t a democratic route

[Cowden Cowboy]

3 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Would have been simpler to just say, “nothing - hoping Scots will just go back into their box quietly and without a fuss”.

Simpler but less accurate or reasoned - 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Well you have just affirmed then that the de facto route suggested isn’t a democratic route

It's the only possibility to shame the fuckers into accepting there should be a referendum.

And it's certainly more democratic than leaving it to the whim of someone who has zero mandate from the electorate.

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Simpler but less accurate or reasoned - 

I’m not sure how “don’t know” followed by a claim that we should let “influential” anti-Scottish UK nationalists (who?) decide whether we can or can’t even question the UK is particularly accurate or reasoned.

[Cowden Cowboy]

4 minutes ago, Antlion said:

I’m not sure how “don’t know” followed by a claim that we should let “influential” anti-Scottish UK nationalists (who?) decide whether we can or can’t even question the UK is particularly accurate or reasoned.

Ach well I believe in persuasion you believe in ranting - each to his own

[Antlion]

Just now, Cowden Cowboy said:

Ach well I believe in persuasion you believe in ranting - each to his own

Persuading people to turn back to a UK which actively denying them what they vote for? Or persuading us that we’re stridently “anti English” for daring not to accept our place as a minority region?

[Cowden Cowboy]

 

6 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Persuading people to turn back to a UK which actively denying them what they vote for? Or persuading us that we’re stridently “anti English” for daring not to accept our place as a minority region?

Your ranting again - not persuading me or anyone else 

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

 

Your ranting again - not persuading me or anyone else 

I’m not trying to persuade you any more than you’re trying to persuade me (and I’m not convinced you speak for anyone but yourself).

You’ve made your feelings quite clear: you don’t appear to want Scots to be allowed a vote on Scotland’s future, and your means of preventing one is, unless I’m reading you wrong, to throw up roadblocks, delay, and put your faith in the likes of Douglas Ross, Anas Sarwar, Keir Starmer, and Rishi Sunak to maintain those roadblocks and continue delaying.

I’m sure anyone reading who’s interested in Scottish independence can see that the UK Nat position - delay a referendum at all costs and invent artificial periods of polling - is only useful in showing us what to avoid doing.

[Cowden Cowboy]

Just now, Antlion said:

I’m not trying to persuade you any more than you’re trying to persuade me (and I’m not convinced you speak for anyone but yourself).

You’ve made your feelings quite clear: you don’t appear to want Scots to be allowed a vote on Scotland’s future, and your means of preventing one is, unless I’m reading you wrong, to throw up roadblocks, delay, and put your faith in the likes of Douglas Ross, Anas Sarwar, Keir Starmer, and Rishi Sunak to maintain those roadblocks and continue delaying.

I’m sure anyone reading who’s interested in Scottish independence can see that the UK Nat position - delay a referendum at all costs and invent artificial periods of polling - is only useful in showing us what to avoid doing.

Not a UK Nat but actually someone open to sensible persuasion.  Not convinced by Scot Nats - no time for Ross or Sunak.  Sarwar made no impression on me - don’t mind Starmer but maybe that’s because I am probably a left of centre liberal.  

[Antlion]

3 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Not a UK Nat but actually someone open to sensible persuasion.  Not convinced by Scot Nats - no time for Ross or Sunak.  Sarwar made no impression on me - don’t mind Starmer but maybe that’s because I am probably a left of centre liberal.  

Who, then, are these “influential and sensible MPs from other parties” that Scotland should be schmoozing in the hope that they’ll allow us to get what we’ve democratically expressed a desire for? Michael Fabricant? Nadine Dorries?

Edited November 25, 2022 by Antlion