When will indyref2 happen?

[Theyellowbox]

7 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

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.

I'm not sure what someone's race would have to do with it, but I do appreciate it may not be popular in England, but equally, does the bog standard English person really want Scotland in the UK? I'd say they couldn't care less frankly. I also don't think there is much of a Unionist base in Labour anymore in Scotland. In fact, the rump that remains if Labour in Scotland may be the only Labour Unionists left, with probably a sizable chunk of what was Labour now making up a fairly sizable chunk of the SNP voters.

100% agree of the psychology of only being able to flog a dead horse for so long, which is why I think the unions time is up...

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Very sad to report that the facts and logic guy is an undemocratic baby.

[Scott Steiner]

19 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

I'm not sure what someone's race would have to do with it, but I do appreciate it may not be popular in England, but equally, does the bog standard English person really want Scotland in the UK? I'd say they couldn't care less frankly. I also don't think there is much of a Unionist base in Labour anymore in Scotland. In fact, the rump that remains if Labour in Scotland may be the only Labour Unionists left, with probably a sizable chunk of what was Labour now making up a fairly sizable chunk of the SNP voters.

100% agree of the psychology of only being able to flog a dead horse for so long, which is why I think the unions time is up...

The indigenous population will a greater sense of nationhood and/or emotional connection to the country IMO, so will be more likely to care about part of it being broken away.

I'd say most English people will want us to remain.

I'd say the remaining Labour voters are nearly ALL Unionist.

Quote

100% agree of the psychology of only being able to flog a dead horse for so long, which is why I think the unions time is up...

 Touche!

[renton]

30 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

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.

It was undermined from the get go. A commission that was only ever going to pass the minimum agreeable by everyone, instead of a coherent strategy for exactly what devolution was supposed to achieve. Instead of a settlement that might have turned down the heat on nationalist sentiment, you got a short term fix designed to get them over the hump of the referendum.

As for the second bit, nah... you bake in some instability but not nearly as much as a single one off vote, and you actually generate more business confidence by having an agreed mechanism that everyone knows the rules to, while allowing parliament more space to legislate for stuff beyond constitutional gridlock.

[Scott Steiner]

3 minutes ago, renton said:

It was undermined from the get go. A commission that was only ever going to pass the minimum agreeable by everyone, instead of a coherent strategy for exactly what devolution was supposed to achieve. Instead of a settlement that might have turned down the heat on nationalist sentiment, you got a short term fix designed to get them over the hump of the referendum.

As for the second bit, nah... you bake in some instability but not nearly as much as a single one off vote, and you actually generate more business confidence by having an agreed mechanism that everyone knows the rules to, while allowing parliament more space to legislate for stuff beyond constitutional gridlock.

But Holyrood got more powers, so surely there's been further devolution?  Also, how has there been no respect?

[Soapy FFC]

7 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

The indigenous population will a greater sense of nationhood and/or emotional connection to the country IMO, so will be more likely to care about part of it being broken away.

I'd say most English people will want us to remain.

I'd say the remaining Labour voters are nearly ALL Unionist.

 Touche!

You've just made the case for Scottish Independence.

[renton]

Just now, Scott Steiner said:

But Holyrood got more powers, so surely there's been further devolution?  Also, how has there been no respect?

Is to miss the point. Respect for the institution would be implied by making sure there was a clear aim for why and how it is meant to operate and then making sure it has the necessary powers and competence to do so.

You can't start talking about Devo Max, most powerful devolved legislature in the world and then water it down to begrudgingly given it control over some parts of income tax.

[Scott Steiner]

3 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

You've just made the case for Scottish Independence.

How so, Mr Soapington?

[Scott Steiner]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

Is to miss the point. Respect for the institution would be implied by making sure there was a clear aim for why and how it is meant to operate and then making sure it has the necessary powers and competence to do so.

You can't start talking about Devo Max, most powerful devolved legislature in the world and then water it down to begrudgingly given it control over some parts of income tax.

Disagree min.  I think the Smith Commission was a respectful way to do it.  If you disagree with the outcome then surely the finger of blame should be pointed to the SNP who signed on to it?

[welshbairn]

A modern economy without borrowing powers is devolved only in name. We have less room for independent decision making than New York.

Edited December 29, 2021 by welshbairn

[renton]

4 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Disagree min.  I think the Smith Commission was a respectful way to do it.  If you disagree with the outcome then surely the finger of blame should be pointed to the SNP who signed on to it?

The blame lies with those who promised Devo Max, and then went about making sure the Commission was watered down to nothing.

[ICTJohnboy]

Just now, renton said:

The blame lies with those who promised Devo Max, and then went about making sure the Commission was watered down to nothing.

 

That Commission was set up by David Cameron and it had Annabel Goldie on it, ffs.

No doubt if we're ever offered another commission on devolution, Ruth Davidson will be sitting on it.

[Theyellowbox]

33 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

The indigenous population will a greater sense of nationhood and/or emotional connection to the country IMO, so will be more likely to care about part of it being broken away.

I'd say most English people will want us to remain.

Well, that would only be true for UK born and bred, but that also includes many generations of non white people and there is millions of white non 'indigenous' people. I think what you are trying to say is that multi generational brits are more likely to want to keep all of the UK together and that may be true, although I'd argue that many are not bothered enough about it to really take a massive interest. Especially when you consider that one of the key arguments is that Scotland benefits financially from westminster. Flip that and the argument for many English becomes that they are being financially impaired by Scotlsnd bring in the union. Now, neither is quite true, but for the majority it is the perception. From an English joe public perspective, what do they see Scotland as adding to the union?

It's about as much of an interest to English people as we have as to what goes on in Wales. A vague understanding of the politics, but unless you have family there or frequently visit, then don't care that much.

I'd say the opposition from some in England is sort of linked to your first point re indigenousness of the population. People do not inherently like change unless they are the ones changing things. To a 70 year old pensioner in say Bolton, their street, neighbourhood and to a wider extent country will not feel remotely like they remember as a kid. So things like Brexit appeal, as does the idea of halting other change such as the breakup of the UK. I think where we ALL fail people in that position is by not listening to their sometimes legitimate concerns and fears and also through the misinformation/spin and lies told throughout the UK. Often fear of retakes reality and when people play on that no one wins. Bringing that back to the independence debate,there will be people fearful of change and fearful of the status quo. Politicians and actavists of all stripes need to remember that and act in appropriate ways. We will not all die of hunger and have utter chaos whatever way any vote would go. 

[welshbairn]

2 hours 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.

 

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

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.

It was New Caledonia, a series of three referenda about 2 years apart. France forced the third one through early which caused a boycott by the Yes contingent who wanted it held after the pandemic and not so close to the French general election, so the future could be rowdy.

[Zern]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

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.

The UK government sees a period of 7 years as an acceptable amount of time between border polls.

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, Scott Steiner said:

How so, Mr Soapington?

I see you’ve added annoying to tedious in your repertoire. The joys.

[Scott Steiner]

18 minutes ago, Zern said:

The UK government sees a period of 7 years as an acceptable amount of time between border polls.

Not at all.

I believe this only applies to a border poll for Northern Ireland, and even then it's only if there's public support for one over a sustainable period.

[NotThePars]

4 hours 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. 

The Tories are clearly sitting back and hoping the independence movement tears itself apart through a lack of substantial movement. There's no benefit in risking a referendum so soon for them.

[Soapy FFC]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

I see you’ve added annoying to tedious in your repertoire. The joys.

And given the auto-signature on his posts, could you also add pretentious, self-conceited, and vainglorious?

[Antlion]

14 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

And given the auto-signature on his posts, could you also add pretentious, self-conceited, and vainglorious?

I’m spared that by the mobile app - but it would be in keeping with his previous iterations, which have always been “look at me, talk about me, me, me!”