When will indyref2 happen?

[Jacksgranda]

10 hours ago, strichener said:

That would have been a large "bribe to the DUP".  I know, I know.

Straight into Arlene's retirement fund, no doubt

[Scott Steiner]

9 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

The issue of Westminster continually refusing a S.30 because they know they will lose.......and in turn Scottish based britnats likely to boycott any Holyrood only organised referendum, creates a clear issue for democracy in Scotland.  

Maybe for the future we should look to the past for inspiration as a way of expressing democratic will.

Something like a new national covenant....but with a modern twist.

Digital signatures not in a book...but each a part of a Blockchain. Something that is clear and transparent to the interested observer and irrefutable as an expression of will. Just a thought.

 

Absolutely.  Us Yoons realise that the devolved assembly does not have the power to decide referendums, so will indeed boycott to delegitimise any such charade.  Another referendum on something so major so soon would be ridiculous.

The only way a referendum on partition can take place is if parliament allows it.  This should not happen in the forseeable future.

The sense of entitlement from many Nats is through the roof.  You shouldn't just get to keep trying until you get the answer you want.

[renton]

2 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Absolutely.  Us Yoons realise that the devolved assembly does not have the power to decide referendums, so will indeed boycott to delegitimise any such charade.  Another referendum on something so major so soon would be ridiculous.

The only way a referendum on partition can take place is if parliament allows it.  This should not happen in the forseeable future.

The sense of entitlement from many Nats is through the roof.  You shouldn't just get to keep trying until you get the answer you want.

Likely 10 years since the last one before the next one, and also what does the period of time actually have to do with it?

[Soapy FFC]

24 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Absolutely.  Us Yoons realise that the devolved assembly does not have the power to decide referendums, so will indeed boycott to delegitimise any such charade.  Another referendum on something so major so soon would be ridiculous.

The only way a referendum on partition can take place is if parliament allows it.  This should not happen in the forseeable future.

The sense of entitlement from many Nats is through the roof.  You shouldn't just get to keep trying until you get the answer you want.

The only way a referendum on partition can take place is if the English parliament allows it.  This should not happen in the forseeable future.

The sense of entitlement from one country over another is through the roof. 

[Theyellowbox]

25 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Absolutely.  Us Yoons realise that the devolved assembly does not have the power to decide referendums, so will indeed boycott to delegitimise any such charade.  Another referendum on something so major so soon would be ridiculous.

The only way a referendum on partition can take place is if parliament allows it.  This should not happen in the forseeable future.

The sense of entitlement from many Nats is through the roof.  You shouldn't just get to keep trying until you get the answer you want.

If unionists really want to kill independence off, the best way to do it would be to grant a referendum now and campaign like hell FOR the union (as opposed to why not independence) and there is a good chance they'd succeed. The longer and more stubborn the even 'granting' of a referendum goes on, the more solid the case for independence becomes. There is an argument that Sturgeon would prefer the latter as right now it is 50/50 and she knows it needs to be more 60/40 for independence going into a referendum campaign.

I'd say that if the current government continues to refuse, the higher the liklihood that Labour come in with some kind of offer to Scots along the lines of 'vote for us and get a 2nd referendum' although would campaign against it. On that scenario SNP would be happy and Labour would be happy as would take the view that a strong progressive Westminster government would be enough the suppress thoughts on independence. (I'm not sure it would). 

If and when there is a 2nd referendum takes place, it MUST be included in any clause that another one can not take place for a fixed period, I.e 30 years or something. That way people are clear on what their choice is. Independence supporters would know that now is their only time, unionists would know that this settles the issue for a long period and everyone can put the debate to rest for now and whatever the result, focus on bettering Scotland. 

I am pro independence and want a referendum ASAP, but equally, the constant constitutional debating from all parties is stifling Scotland. Let's just get to it and decide one way or the other. Failure to do do will be harmful and the debate is not going away otherwise. 

[renton]

Actually, the problem with "one off" or special referendums is how it allows one or both sides to tip the balance with a grand gesture, or a single message... not unlike any other general election but without the correcting mechanism of being able to hold that side to account later.

So, in 2014 the Unionists threw a last minute bribe at us, made big promises about respect, Davo Max and the like. Then as soon as threat averted, all that was dropped.

We still haven't had our 350 million for the NHS from 2016, and no prospect of correcting that either.

Indeed, far from having single votes widely spaced, where volatile opinion could alter significantly a nations course for decades I would have annual or biannual votes on things like Scottish independence or EU membership.

However, in the same way that a single quarter of contraction is not a recession, a single vote for change is not a settled will in this scenario. You would organise and have the vote on a regular basis, say every two years. If you get two votes for change in a row then the government of the day, regardless of it's ideology would then be duty bound to negotiate independence.

That way, you introduce a constant mechanism by which the constitutional question can be exercised, you take away some of the volatility of "big promises" and also allow the status quo a backstop to alter its behaviour or course in order to reverse the trend of the vote, and by and large take away party politics from the question.

Edited December 29, 2021 by renton

[welshbairn]

29 minutes ago, renton said:

Actually, the problem with "one off" or special referendums is how it allows one or both sides to tip the balance with a grand gesture, or a single message... not unlike any other general election but without the correcting mechanism of being able to hold that side to account later.

So, in 2014 the Unionists threw a last minute bribe at us, made big promises about respect, Davo Max and the like. Then as soon as threat averted, all that was dropped.

We still haven't had our 350 million for the NHS from 2016, and no prospect of correcting that either.

Indeed, far from having single votes widely spaced, where volatile opinion could alter significantly a nations course for decades I would have annual or biannual votes on things like Scottish independence or EU membership.

However, in the same way that a single quarter of contraction is not a recession, a single vote for change is not a settled will in this scenario. You would organise and have the vote on a regular basis, say every two years. If you get two votes for change in a row then the government of the day, regardless of it's ideology would then be duty bound to negotiate independence.

That way, you introduce a constant mechanism by which the constitutional question can be exercised, you take away some of the volatility of "big promises" and also allow the status quo a backstop to alter its behaviour or course in order to reverse the trend of the vote, and by and large take away party politics from the question.

There was some place recently using that system, thought it was Bougainville's secession from Papua New Guinea but I think I'm getting it mixed up with somewhere else.

[Dons_1988]

1 hour ago, Scott Steiner said:

The sense of entitlement from many Nats is through the roof.  You shouldn't just get to keep trying until you get the answer you want.

The SNP could hold every seat in holy rood, every Scottish seat in Westminster and polling could be at 98% for a yes vote and Boris and co would still make this argument. 

[Scott Steiner]

1 hour ago, renton said:

Likely 10 years since the last one before the next one, and also what does the period of time actually have to do with it?

Because a time period that isn't long delegitimises the decision made.

[Scott Steiner]

1 hour ago, Soapy FFC said:

The only way a referendum on partition can take place is if the English parliament allows it.  This should not happen in the forseeable future.

The sense of entitlement from one country over another is through the roof. 

I'm afraid there's no English parliament.

[Antlion]

Just now, Scott Steiner said:

I'm afraid there's no English parliament.

Apart from the one in England, which governs England, and which has traditions and customs which are uniquely English and long predate the parliament’s increased control over over nations. 

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Because a time period that isn't long delegitimises the decision made.

We had General Elections in 2015, 2017 and 2019 even though they're supposedly meant to be 5 years apart. I'd say every 10 years would be quite reasonable to determine content with the Union.

[Granny Danger]

58 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

 

 

If and when there is a 2nd referendum takes place, it MUST be included in any clause that another one can not take place for a fixed period, I.e 30 years or something. That way people are clear on what their choice is. Independence supporters would know that now is their only time, unionists would know that this settles the issue for a long period and everyone can put the debate to rest for now and whatever the result, focus on bettering Scotland. 

 

Absolutely stupid statement.  No Parliament can (or should) have the power to legislate beyond the period for which they are elected.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Granny Danger

[Scott Steiner]

50 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

If unionists really want to kill independence off, the best way to do it would be to grant a referendum now and campaign like hell FOR the union (as opposed to why not independence) and there is a good chance they'd succeed. The longer and more stubborn the even 'granting' of a referendum goes on, the more solid the case for independence becomes. There is an argument that Sturgeon would prefer the latter as right now it is 50/50 and she knows it needs to be more 60/40 for independence going into a referendum campaign.

I'd say that if the current government continues to refuse, the higher the liklihood that Labour come in with some kind of offer to Scots along the lines of 'vote for us and get a 2nd referendum' although would campaign against it. On that scenario SNP would be happy and Labour would be happy as would take the view that a strong progressive Westminster government would be enough the suppress thoughts on independence. (I'm not sure it would). 

If and when there is a 2nd referendum takes place, it MUST be included in any clause that another one can not take place for a fixed period, I.e 30 years or something. That way people are clear on what their choice is. Independence supporters would know that now is their only time, unionists would know that this settles the issue for a long period and everyone can put the debate to rest for now and whatever the result, focus on bettering Scotland. 

I am pro independence and want a referendum ASAP, but equally, the constant constitutional debating from all parties is stifling Scotland. Let's just get to it and decide one way or the other. Failure to do do will be harmful and the debate is not going away otherwise. 

It's not about killing it off though YB, it's about doing what's right.

I can't see Labour advocating a 2nd referendum at all.. this is wishful thinking IMO.  It'd be a vote-loser in England as well as up here.  SNP voters wouldn't suddenly just switch to Labour and their own Unionist base would suddenly evaporate.  Why would the working class white English voters they're trying to win back vote for a party who wants another referendum on breaking off part of the country?

The 30 year clause is a decent idea although I'd argue it should be longer, but why not just aim for that now?  We made the decision, being told it was a once in a generation/lifetime opportunity and it was supposed to settled.  I think the debate will indeed go away eventually.  There's something in human psychology in which we can only keep flogging a dead horse for so long.

[strichener]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Absolutely stupid statement.  No Parliament can (or should) have the power to legislate beyond the period for which they are elected.

Why not?  This happens already, the Government of the day introduces legislation that last beyond their time in power.  Membership of unions and entering into treaties or trade agreements, commercial agreements and things like the RHI, solar and wind feed in tariffs.

Following you logic there could be nothing committed to for longer than the remaining time in government which would bring the country to a standstill.  Absolutely bonkers.

[Theyellowbox]

7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Absolutely stupid statement.  No Parliament can (or should) have the power to legislate beyond the period for which they are elected.

I'd agree in principle normally, but you have to have some kind of fixed term whereby the question should not be asked, otherwise we will be in a constant cycle of constitutional debates, regardless of which way the vote would go. Say for example in 5 years after independence there is a slight majority to re unite with rest of UK, do we go through the same thing all over again. Of course, you could also add something barring a material change such as Brexit...

[D Angelo Barksdale]

If enough people want a vote on an issue, or there's a majority of elected officials, elected specifically to hold a certain vote, then there should be a vote.

I'm afraid that anyone arguing against this is a baby who is scared of losing.

[Scott Steiner]

1 hour ago, renton said:

Actually, the problem with "one off" or special referendums is how it allows one or both sides to tip the balance with a grand gesture, or a single message... not unlike any other general election but without the correcting mechanism of being able to hold that side to account later.

So, in 2014 the Unionists threw a last minute bribe at us, made big promises about respect, Davo Max and the like. Then as soon as threat averted, all that was dropped.

We still haven't had our 350 million for the NHS from 2016, and no prospect of correcting that either.

Indeed, far from having single votes widely spaced, where volatile opinion could alter significantly a nations course for decades I would have annual or biannual votes on things like Scottish independence or EU membership.

However, in the same way that a single quarter of contraction is not a recession, a single vote for change is not a settled will in this scenario. You would organise and have the vote on a regular basis, say every two years. If you get two votes for change in a row then the government of the day, regardless of it's ideology would then be duty bound to negotiate independence.

That way, you introduce a constant mechanism by which the constitutional question can be exercised, you take away some of the volatility of "big promises" and also allow the status quo a backstop to alter its behaviour or course in order to reverse the trend of the vote, and by and large take away party politics from the question.

So do you not think there's been respect or further devolution?  If not, why?

Interesting idea about rolling annual/biannual votes, but I don't think it could work due to the lengthly nature of negotiations as well as it being awkward and unstable for the EU and the GU (Glorious Union) having a member potentially jumping in and out constantly.

[Antlion]

7 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

 

I can't see Labour advocating a 2nd referendum at all.. this is wishful thinking IMO.  It'd be a vote-loser in England as well as up here.  SNP voters wouldn't suddenly just switch to Labour and their own Unionist base would suddenly evaporate.  Why would the working class white English voters they're trying to win back vote for a party who wants another referendum on breaking off part of the country?

 

I thought those working class English voters were all about breaking up unions? Does the “white” make all the difference?

[Scott Steiner]

1 minute ago, Kima Greggs said:

If enough people want a vote on an issue, or there's a majority of elected officials, elected specifically to hold a certain vote, then there should be a vote.

I'm afraid that anyone arguing against this is a baby who is scared of losing.

Quite the opposite.  I'm afraid the babies are those who can't take not getting their own way so keep wanting to ask again.