When will indyref2 happen?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 hour ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

Assuming a s.30 is denied (not certain tbf but probable) I don't think we have any particularly good options tbh. The legal route will be what the government probably go down and it will presumably fail. Then as people occasionally mention there is the tactic of refusing to cooperate with the British state - e.g the government should instruct Police Scotland not to cooperate with e.g immigration raids or not to enforce the UK law on injecting rooms etc. Then there's the parliamentary obstructionism at Westminster that people have mentioned. The SNP should do both of those things as they'd be good in and of themselves but they won't work if the goal is to annoy the Tories into providing a s.30.

Large scale civil disobedience or industrial action etc would probably be the most effective method but as the poster above said, there's basically zero recent history in Scotland for the type of thing that'd be required. And the demographic that seems most likely to spend time supporting it on forums/social media etc is unlikely to form a good basis for it.

Ultimately any unorthodox route to independence is a non-starter without completely overwhelming levels of public support imo, and we're not at that yet. The worst case scenario for May is that s.30 refusal is just another step on that road, adding a further 5% or so to the support levels, and we wind up playing an even longer game. 

The problem the party has is that it does self evidently need a "plan B" but it would be stupid to say so openly - you can't go into a negotiation making a demand but also broadcasting to your opponent what you will settle for. So I think we're in a position of needing to trust the leadership to an extent on the issue. Of course the malcontents/yes das are unwilling to do this because they don't trust Sturgeon/the leadership in general. Aside from all this the government should be making overtures towards the EU and incoming US administration etc but I think the assistance we can expect to receive from either will be minimal to non-existent.

What would your strategy be?

Agree with all of this except its my opinion the legal route would surely succeed, any judge would rule in our favour unless they had been politicised, which in this instance is a strong possibility.  The concern with that is it could take an awful long time.

[SANTAN]

25 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Agree with all of this except its my opinion the legal route would surely succeed, any judge would rule in our favour unless they had been politicised, which in this instance is a strong possibility.  The concern with that is it could take an awful long time.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

11 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I did answer your question. Like you I don't have a particular strategy but I see no problem in criticising bad ideas.

I guess if pushed my strategy would be that in a situation such as the one we'd be in where no course of action is likely to "succeed" in terms of gaining independence, the correct action to take is to do whatever will continue to build support and power until such a time as we might be in a position to succeed. For me that means forging whatever links you can with Europe and politicising and building up the power of the labour movement alongside the stuff I said in my first paragraph about taking the piss at Westminster and testing/breaking the limits of devolution.

As you say likely too much for the current SNP leadership. But then if all this comes to pass and the leadership isn't willing to be more radical then the malcontents will have basically been proven right. Having the headbanger wing of the party gaining greater influence etc wouldn't be a positive thing either for the party or for the country but it would be a near inevitability and the leadership would have only themselves to blame.

I never like to hear stuff like the headbanger wing. It means you think you are superior to these people.

However, as you point out, events are starting to look like maybe these people were right, and you were wrong. So that would really make you part of the 'headbanger wing' and them the ones who actually have a clue what they're talking about.  Might be worth considering.

[renton]

I really don't think a legal strategy based on challenging the supremacy of the UK parliament in what laughably might be called the British constitution has a particularly high percentage chance of success. 

[renton]

You also have to consider the disadvantages of a definitive ruling that doesn't go your way, and the impact that would have on the future Indy movement.

It's a big risk.

Ambiguity has advantages to both sides. For the Indy side it offers the chance to sell a referendum on the back of public support. To bounce a UK government into a referendum they might win now, instead of one later that they'd definitely lose.  

If the UK government have a definitive legal ruling in their shirt pocket, on the other hand, then bang goes any attempt at advancing the movement based on public feeling.

 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

18 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I wouldn't say I feel superior to these people, but my entire point is that they are wrong about what the current strategy should be, are putting the cart before the horse because of an inability to see the very clear reasons for the current strategy, and are wildly overoptimistic about the prospects of their own preferred strategy. I don't think they're particularly serious people, by and large. Events may force a turn towards their strategy at some point in the future but that doesn't make them any less wrong right now. 

Strictly speaking there's no way you can possibly know that to be the case, nobody can, we are waiting for events to unfold and we will find out which group was right. The actual prime minister live on TV an hour ago ruled out a referendum till 2055, so I would say its looking an awful lot like they were right and you were wrong.

And it wouldn't be the case that they would become right then and you are right now, it would be they're right now and you're wrong now, and they'll be right then and you'll still be wrong.

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I did answer your question. Like you I don't have a particular strategy but I see no problem in criticising bad ideas.

I guess if pushed my strategy would be that in a situation such as the one we'd be in where no course of action is likely to "succeed" in terms of gaining independence, the correct action to take is to do whatever will continue to build support and power until such a time as we might be in a position to succeed. For me that means forging whatever links you can with Europe and politicising and building up the power of the labour movement alongside the stuff I said in my first paragraph about taking the piss at Westminster and testing/breaking the limits of devolution.

As you say likely too much for the current SNP leadership. But then if all this comes to pass and the leadership isn't willing to be more radical then the malcontents will have basically been proven right. Having the headbanger wing of the party gaining greater influence etc wouldn't be a positive thing either for the party or for the country but it would be a near inevitability and the leadership would have only themselves to blame.

If pro-Independence parties go into the 2021 election with a clear message that a vote for them is a vote for another Referendum and receive over 50% of the votes cast then any attempt by the U.K. government to thwart that is anti-democratic.

In those circumstances I would expect the SG to pursue every legal avenue to achieve IndyRef2 however this could not be allowed to drag on indefinitely and should be accompanied by all necessary extra-Parliamentary acts.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

10 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I think you are misunderstanding me. Their strategy is wrong now but it becomes correct if and when 1) the legalistic strategy fails and 2) sufficient support is built up to demonstrate that independence is the clear will of the people and the preferred policy of proceeding through a s.30 is being thwarted by Westminster. The sequencing is a key part there. 

I thought their strategy was the legal strategy, maybe we're not talking about the same people. I'm assuming your preferred strategy is win an election and ask for a s30, that's everyone's preference, but the difference is a lot of people now don't believe that could work.  I thought that was really the dichotomy that we were discussing.

And if so those people have been thoroughly and completely proven right. A s30 is dead, a majority is the most important thing right now either way, but s30 is off the table permanently.  So people who called it a dead end have been proved right, and they were the subject of much ridicule from the mainstream of the party and the intellectual gatekeepers who consider themselves superior to these people despite being demonstrably incredibly gullible and completely wrong over this issue.

2 - has been thoroughly met already, that's where we are right now

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

And by legal route I obviously mean go to court.  Talk of a plebiscitary election just isn't realistic, a consultative referendum much more so but not enough on its own either.  It will have to go court.

[Enigma]

If the SG returned in May isn’t granted (that is to say it won’t be granted) a section 30, perhaps dissolving Holyrood and holding another election could be the way to go. Could BJ ignore yet another pro-independence majority? Probably but f**k knows, the options are pretty miserable. 

I’m starting to think our best bet of getting a referendum will be wherever NI trigger their border poll. They can’t have one then deny us one, surely?

Edited January 3, 2021 by Enigma

[DeeTillEhDeh]

If the SG returned in May isn’t granted (that is to say it won’t be granted) a section 30, perhaps dissolving Holyrood and holding another election could be the way to go. Could BJ ignore yet another pro-independence majority? Probably but f**k knows, the options are pretty miserable. 
I’m starting to think our best bet of getting a referendum will be wherever NI trigger their border poll. They can’t have one then deny us one, surely?

That is possible route.

First Minister resigns and if there is not a new First Minister elected within 28 days then there is another Scottish Parliament election.

Go on a baws-oot IndyRef2 manifesto.

[GordonS]

13 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

That is possible route.

First Minister resigns and if there is not a new First Minister elected within 28 days then there is another Scottish Parliament election.

Go on a baws-oot IndyRef2 manifesto.

Another FM would be elected though, even if from a minority party.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Another FM would be elected though, even if from a minority party.

Not necessarily - if there is no majority for any FM candidate and the post is not filled there is an Extraordinary Scottish Election.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/3

[GordonS]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Not necessarily - if there is no majority for any FM candidate and the post is not filled there is an Extraordinary Scottish Election.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/3

You need to look at Rule 11.10(7) of the Standing Order. If there are 2 candidates for FM then it is decided by simple majority. There's no requirement for an FM to get an outright majority of members.

Theoretically the Scottish Parliament could then vote no confidence in the Scottish Government, which would trigger the automatic resignation of the FM, but you'd just go through the election process again.

https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/26509.aspx

[DAFC.]

Andrew Marr giving Johnson a grilling on Independence.

[Highland Capital]

3 hours ago, Enigma said:

If the SG returned in May isn’t granted (that is to say it won’t be granted) a section 30, perhaps dissolving Holyrood and holding another election could be the way to go. Could BJ ignore yet another pro-independence majority? Probably but f**k knows, the options are pretty miserable. 

I’m starting to think our best bet of getting a referendum will be wherever NI trigger their border poll. They can’t have one then deny us one, surely?

If it were to come to that, perhaps it'd be an idea for the SNP to come to an agreement with the Greens (or the SSP or whoever else) that they'll stand aside on the list if the others refuse to stand in the constituencies. 

Or they could all merge after May's election to form a temporary 'Yes Coalition', if the SNP are a few short of a majority.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

Just now, Stinky Bone said:

So we just accept that democracy doesn't exist in Scotland then?  

Of course not, I'm just pointing out that it would take a very long time for that sort of movement to really gain ground here. Time which the movement has sure, but in the time it takes to build that there may be a set of political circumstances which allows for a section 30.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad strategy or wouldn't work. But the idea that in a short time after a section 30 was denied there would be the level of civil disobedience and protest required to truly pressurise the UK, or hold any unsanctioned referendum which has a turnout strong enough to gain international legitimacy, is completely unrealistic. 

[ICTJohnboy]

1 minute ago, Stinky Bone said:

So we just accept that democracy doesn't exist in Scotland then?  

 

That's right.

And of course just accept future PMs of the highest calibre and quality such as Boris, Theresa May, Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major and Thatcher.

What's not to like about that?

[git-intae-thum]

The "gradualist" approach has worked. It has taken us to a position where independence is now clear and consistently the preferred will of the people of Scotland. 

However the leadership of the snp need to realise that that approach and the resultant polling are a means to an end.

We are dealing with opponents who are not going to follow the rules of democracy, indeed going by Johnson's 41 years comment, will do everything they can to deny it.

This SP election has to be fought on a platform of independence. Win a majority and it's game on.

 

[BFTD]

48 minutes ago, Highland Capital said:

If it were to come to that, perhaps it'd be an idea for the SNP to come to an agreement with the Greens (or the SSP or whoever else) that they'll stand aside on the list if the others refuse to stand in the constituencies. 

Or they could all merge after May's election to form a temporary 'Yes Coalition', if the SNP are a few short of a majority.

Imagine if Scottish Labour decided to finish themselves off by joining a Tory "No Coalition".

OYF.