When will indyref2 happen?

[BTFD]

1 hour ago, Jedi said:

But if they do vote for it ('if' the SNP did indeed enter the GE saying clear majority of MP's this time, negotiations start), what happens in your scenario where the Court overrules that?

After squirming on UDI for so long, that's the final thing that Kenneth doesn't want to admit, and for good reason.

[Kenneth840]

10 hours ago, Jedi said:

But if they do vote for it ('if' the SNP did indeed enter the GE saying clear majority of MP's this time, negotiations start), what happens in your scenario where the Court overrules that?

We seem to have hit a buffer, again, no Tory govt is going to agree to a Ref, can't hold a 'wildcat' one as it would never be recognised, enter the GE clear majority of MP's...Tories use the court to overturn it. 

Do we go to the UN next?

When the UK supreme court (which I believe breaches the treaty of union in itself) overules the Scottish governments and peoples decision to dissolve the treaty of union then i believe that will confirm for all to see that we are a colony of England.  Then we appeal to the UN as a colony and seek the right to self determination under article 1 which I believe would be our right. 

As the UK is a member of the UN security council and also recognised Kosovo independence I believe they would have to accept our right to self determination under UN rules that they are a signatory to. 

[Guest Jedi]

Don't disagree that it would potentially have to go all the way to the UN...could be looking at some time for that to all go through though...

GE first, in 2 and a half years time, so probably mid-late 2024

Then...go to the Supreme Court probably a year of back and forth late 2025

Then the UN another year of wrangling 2026

Then, potentially the start of negotiations...could be another 2 years, so 28.

So, in all, at least 6 years from now.....that is a long time (in politics) for the SNP to retain popularity, having, by then been in govt for 18 years.

[Guest Jedi]

Even with the latest shenanigans, the most recent polling is tied at 44% for both Yes and No, with 8% undecided. Would surely expect a commanding Yes lead in light of Westminster's current situation, but still too close to call.

Think the SNP need to lay out a clear strategy for the public now. Of course NS has said 'intend to hold a Ref next year', but she is doing so, knowing that the answer will be No. Needs to be a 'in the event of Westminster saying No, we propose moving to x, next'

[Soapy FFC]

Does this mean Liz Truss would support another referendum?

 

[Clown Job]

4 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

Does this mean Liz Truss would support another referendum?

 

* T&C apply - Offer excludes Scotland & Wales 

[strichener]

On 06/02/2022 at 09:08, Jedi said:

Don't disagree that it would potentially have to go all the way to the UN...could be looking at some time for that to all go through though...

GE first, in 2 and a half years time, so probably mid-late 2024

Then...go to the Supreme Court probably a year of back and forth late 2025

Then the UN another year of wrangling 2026

Then, potentially the start of negotiations...could be another 2 years, so 28.

So, in all, at least 6 years from now.....that is a long time (in politics) for the SNP to retain popularity, having, by then been in govt for 18 years.

Aye but the EU would have us in a couple of weeks after any vote which will undoubtedly persuade the UN.

[sophia]

6 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The SNP will have some work rebuilding the trust lost amongst many of us with their control freakery over covid and a range of other issues.

I think you'll find that your good self and your acolytes on the c thread are statistical insignificant, not just on p&b but nationally also. I have to put it to you in blunt terms that your flagellation doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

Also, the range of other issues?

I'd be interested to know.

Should you wish to  reply with objective verifications, I would appreciate it if you would do so whilst avoiding the use of the infantile "mammy" or similar epithets.

[sophia]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

If you think 40-50% of voters is a statistical insignificance then there's not much point discussing it further.

That's quite apart from the issue of securing another referendum again in the first place.

Still not heard any ideas about how that's going to be achieved.

That's on top of the SNP having no serious answers to ANY of the questions which led to their failure to win in 2014.

The reason there are no answers coming from Sturgeon on anything is because they have no answers to give.

They're simply hoping that 9 months of flag waving will win next time.

Listen, they might be right. Good luck with that strategy. I voted for it last time but won't be doing so next time and I'm not alone.

A compelling vision of where they want to take Scotland with independence is going to be the bare minimum they'll need to present to have any chance of winning next time - if there even IS a next time. I'm not sure why asking for that is seen as unreasonable.

I'm so terribly sorry, you seem to have confused my request for verification of trust lost in a range of issues with bluster.

In terms on an indy vote and in broad terms 45% will not be moved come what may, so the target is the 5-10%, not the 40-50% you claim. One would have thought that you'd have grasped these sorts of numbers after two years of staring at stats in the c thread.

Perhaps someone as brilliant as Nicola is aiming to win the key cohort with a simplistic message involving nationalism but since they aren't nationalists, I rather think not.

[sophia]

25 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

What target? I made no claims about any targets. 

I said that I share the views of about 50% of the Scottish population.

You called that insignificant. I disagree.

You appear to be smoking something herbal so I'll leave it there. 

No range of issues then?

[tirso]

This thread doesn't matter as the UK govt have decided it's irrelevant what the target is or any of your opinion.  

 

Let that settle in before typing paragraphs about pros, cons and targets.  Your opinion doesn't matter.  That goes for Oakshelf and it goes for pro-Independents.  The liberty to change your mind  with arguments good or bad is of no relevance. 

 

Doesn't matter what 2, 3, 4, 5 million citizens of Scotland think on the matter, it's upto one person in 10 downing street or a Labour MP for an English constituency maneuvering.

 

Is that right?  You decide but if we ever get the chance and I don't expect it anytime soon, i'll be voting Yes.  

 

 

[Guest Jedi]

If they don't get either a Ref (not going to happen), or a push for a majority of MP's starting negotiations off the back of the next GE, its done.

What would the SNP position at the next Scottish election be in that scenario?...vote for us and we will have a mandate for a Ref? By that time looking to win their 8th (eight!) straight election (GE/Scot)  in a row. Even the most hardened Independence supporter by that stage would surely say 'what is the point'?

The window is between now and just after the next GE, or it ain't happening imo.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Jedi

[Guest Jedi]

Good points. I suppose that it has been difficult in some respects for Sturgeon....she knows that Westminster will continually so No to any Ref request, and at the same time she believes that this will shore up and also boost support for Independence.

However, it hasn't, as, essentially the Yes vote, despite being in the lead on several occasions, has never sustained that 60% margin, needed to be sure of winning.

As you say, by constantly promising a Ref 'soon', 'next year', soon...honestly', 'we have drawn up plans' etc, the SNP have handed the power of the Ref as well as its timing firmly back to Westminster.

Those at the top of the SNP must surely know that the clock is really ticking though...as said-how will they be able to approach the next Scottish Election? Give us our 8th win in a row, and we really, really promise this time, that there will be a Ref next year? Why, what makes it different to the last 8 times you said that?

Edited February 10, 2022 by Jedi

[sophia]

1 hour ago, Jedi said:

Good points. I suppose that it has been difficult in some respects for Sturgeon....she knows that Westminster will continually so No to any Ref request, and at the same time she believes that this will shore up and also boost support for Independence.

However, it hasn't, as, essentially the Yes vote, despite being in the lead on several occasions, has never sustained that 60% margin, needed to be sure of winning.

As you say, by constantly promising a Ref 'soon', 'next year', soon...honestly', 'we have drawn up plans' etc, the SNP have handed the power of the Ref as well as its timing firmly back to Westminster.

Those at the top of the SNP must surely know that the clock is really ticking though...as said-how will they be able to approach the next Scottish Election? Give us our 8th win in a row, and we really, really promise this time, that there will be a Ref next year? Why, what makes it different to the last 8 times you said that?

I like your post and but for the surfeit of commas in your second paragraph, I might well have chosen to vote it positively.

As for the referendum timing, given brexit and covid, not to mention the Edinburgh and London elections, I'm at a loss as to when it could've been realistically scheduled.

Of course this is to discount the inevitable defeat a too-soon repeat ref would have delivered.

 

[Kenneth840]

On 07/02/2022 at 21:37, oaksoft said:

Faffing around  over the wording of the question won't make any difference at all.

If the SNP genuinely want to hold and win IndyRef2 they need to start answering all the reasonable questions which have been asked of them regarding things like currency, pensions, the EU, borders, trade and everything else.

To still be unable to provide solid, easily defended and winning arguments on any of these fundamental issues after all these years and in particular having already been attacked and humped on them in the 2014 vote is unbelievable.

Voting Yes in 2014 was a vote from the heart and it clearly wasn't enough.

To go into another IndyRef thinking you can just wave the flag again is a dreadful strategy.

The SNP will have some work rebuilding the trust lost amongst many of us with their control freakery over covid and a range of other issues.

I agree with you on the last 4 paragraphs, but not the first. The question has to change to make the union the contentious issue. 

The Snp have had 7 years to make the case for independence and have done nothing about answering many peoples questions.  Their lack of preparation is undeniable. I have lost trust in them. 

[Kenneth840]

On 08/02/2022 at 21:07, Jedi said:

If they don't get either a Ref (not going to happen), or a push for a majority of MP's starting negotiations off the back of the next GE, its done.

What would the SNP position at the next Scottish election be in that scenario?...vote for us and we will have a mandate for a Ref? By that time looking to win their 8th (eight!) straight election (GE/Scot)  in a row. Even the most hardened Independence supporter by that stage would surely say 'what is the point'?

The window is between now and just after the next GE, or it ain't happening imo.

The referendum on the current terms (section 30) is the last thing that any Scottish nationalist should want as it will only be a repeat of 2014.  

Has to be a plebiscite general election. 

[Kenneth840]

On 08/02/2022 at 23:09, oaksoft said:

The time to have done this would have been to wait a reasonable amount of time after 2014 to show we respected the result. At least 10 to 15 years.

By being too aggressive and too dismissive of No voters and rushing for an IndyRef2, the Yes side has lost control of the timing of the process and as you say there is now a rapidly closing window which is completely out of the hands of the SNP.

By then being incapable of delivering the IndyRef2 they have repeatedly promised, they will have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and it will kill independence stone dead.

They should have thought all of that through thoroughly before mouthing off and making promises they couldn't reasonably keep and as we've repeatedly seen over the last few years, the SNP talk first and think second.

Ego and arrogance is what will kill this.

It's an entirely self-inflicted wound.

Nope.  The time to have declared independence would have been 2015 when we had 56 out of 59 Snp mps at Westminster. This was when we realised that the "vow" had been broken and English votes for English laws was brought in in the day after the Indy vote.  We had an overwhelming SCOTTISH majority of MPs elected and the treaty of union should have been dissolved at that point. 

[BigDoddyKane]

Just get independence over with is what im thinking nowadays, bored to feck with it, just get it done and lets just be a normal independent country blaming ourselves for all the shite instead of anyone else

Edited February 12, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[Stellaboz]

If Covid hadn't happened I genuinely think we'd be seeing it come to fruition soon.

[Kenneth840]

24 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The problem with your point about the wording of the question is that it treats people like idiots and that really isn't a smart way to try and win large numbers of people to Yes IMO.

Now people may BE idiots. But telling them you think they are is a bad move.

What is wrong from changing the question to "Should Scotland dissolve the treaty of union"  from "Should Scotland be an Independent Country" 

In what way is this treating people like idiots?  I will give you an out here, the Snp should have been explaining how we could leave a voluntary union the past 7 years. 

I think I get what you are saying, most people don't understand that the treaty of union is voluntary.