When will indyref2 happen?

[BigDoddyKane]

I think its a bit early to already rule out 2023 for another indy vote, though apart from Blackford I havent read anyone else saying anything like that

It may be if the Ukraine situation continues or escalates that 2023 isnt possible but I dont think we have reached that point yet

Edited March 18, 2022 by BigDoddyKane

[williemillersmoustache]

World war 3, an impending thermonuclear apocalypse and just a margin of error change. 

Unions well fucked. 

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, Stellaboz said:

How long before you Storm off in a huff again Stormzy? 

 

Or better still, kicked off in a huff.

[Granny Danger]

On 12/03/2022 at 19:58, BFTD said:

They've no reason to exist otherwise.

Other than genital inspection, obviously.

Genital inspection is not required to realise that Alba supporters are a bunch of cocks and fannies.

[BFTD]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

Genital inspection is not required to realise that Alba supporters are a bunch of cocks and fannies.

Remember to keep a record of which is which, or they'll never let you join.

[Goomba]

These are two totally different concepts. I can only answer what you actually type. As I said above, your original quote was misinformation

'Fraid not.  I was referring to the timetable Sturgeon is still pretending to have, which is to have one next year.  If I'd said something like 'Scots don't want to ever have one' then you might have a point, but I didn't.  

-2014 was supposed to be once in a generation.

I note that you didn't bother to respond to my rebuttal. In the absence of a response, I make that two pieces of misinformation and counting

Whilst I acknowledge my rebuttal oversight, it doesn't mean I have peddled misinformation.  Nice try though!

I never said 'once in a generation' was in the Edinburgh agreement, and am afraid that Scotland didn't sign up to the Good Friday Agreement.  Anyway, what it states is that at least 7 years must pass between referendums, which should only be held if there's evidence of the people wanting a United Ireland.  Why you'd apply this GFA specific timetable to Scotland is anyone's guess, especially when it ruins your argument i.e. there's no evidence of Scots voters wanting independence anyway, but quite the contrary.

The problem is that you didn't actually say "there is no sustainable evidence of a lead" You said "There's been no sustainable evidence of support"

You're scraping the barrel with that one.  Just to be clear, when I was talking of support I meant a lead.

Support for indepedence was at around 33% in early 2014. It then rose to 45% at the first indyref. Since then, Yes has led by as much as 13%  (Oct 2020) and No has led by as much as 8% (May 2021). Obviously, I'm excluding Scotland in Union's attempts to game the system with their ridiculous biased remain/leave question.

All your doing here is backing up my assertion that there's been no sustained evidence of an Independence lead.  The opinion polls were generous on the lead up to the 2014 referendum too, so you can probably always knock a few percent off the Indy figure to get a more accurate result.

The last couple of polls (see previous link) have shown Yes & No to be level.. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Yes has led in the polls on 35 occasions, No has led on 30 occasions and there has been a tie on 8 occasions. 

The '35 occasions' were largely the result of the Independence movement churning out a shed loads of polls in a relatively short space of time.  They hardly commission any now.. because the results won't look as good.  The last two polls have shown a lead for No.

Please attempt to use more precise terminology in future. There is plenty of evidence that "breakup of the country" is  currently supported by a figure somewhere between 46% and 56.5% of Scottish voters (excluding Don't Knows) . This figure has been sustained for a full 2 years.

10/10 for your figure spinning efforts!  I'm afraid there's no sustained evidence whatsoever of Scottish voters wanting to break up the country.  There hasn't even been a poll with a Nat lead this year.. you have to go back to the outlier of 29th November 2022, which was dodgy for several reasons.  Then before that you have to go back to the start of September, which, again, was an outlier.  The sustained lead just doesn't exist.

Conclusion - reframing your original statement does not change the misinformation originally provided. That's 3 out of 3 bits of misinformation so far!

There's been no misinformation from my end.  Nice deflection attempt though.

Whilst I would agree that power devolved is power retained, I don't support devolution. The only reason that the Westminster Government allowed the limited devolution that Scotland currently has was "to kill nationalism stone dead" (George Robertson - Secretary of State for Scotland - 1995). How's that going?

It's going rather well.  You're nowhere near breaking up the country for the reasons I've outlined, and then some.  If we hadn't had devolution, then you'd probably have a stronger case!

However, your view that "people of the potential breakaway area" should have no say in any future decision relating to Scottish independence is in clear breach of the United Nations support for the right to self-determination. Indeed, many leaders of the Tory party have reaffirmed this principle, even though they haven't been consistent in their views.

My stance doesn't oppose the right to self-determination of the United Nations at all.  It aligns with it it.

According to Margaret Thatcher, Scotland only had to elect a majority of SNP MP's to gain independence. That happened, so the goalposts were moved, and we were told that it had to be confirmed through a referendum.

It's nothing to do with moving the goalposts, but in politics things change.  It would be deeply unfair if Scotland was railroaded into Separation just because of an SNP MP majority via the FPTP system, which they regularly achieve despite most voters voting for parties that don't support Independence.  Surely you don't want this either?  It would be madness.

David Cameron agreed to the referendum, and was quoted as saying: "You might want to think 'well why are we having this referendum, why take the risk?' I think it is the right thing to do for this reason. The Scottish people elected in 2011 a Scottish National party government in Edinburgh with Alex Salmond at its head. One of their policies was to have a referendum on the future of Scotland being a part of the UK.

That's correct, and Cameron was referring to 2011.  He was in no way insinuating it should happen every time the devolved assembly wants it.. in fact he has actually said the opposite.  Both him and Salmond signed the Edinburgh Agreement which would 'deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect'.

"I felt, as the prime minister of the UK, I had a choice. I could either say to them 'well you can't have your referendum, it is for us to decide whether you should have one.' I think that would have led to an almighty and disastrous battle between the Westminster parliament and the UK government and the Scottish government and the Scottish first minister. So I did what I thought was the right thing, which was to say 'you voted for a party that wants independence, you should have a referendum that is legal, that is decisive and that is fair.'"

Yep, this is beyond dispute.  'Decisive' being the key word.  The decision was made.. with a 11% gap.  It was emphatic.

So, to recap, the Tories have not always run on the promise of not holding a referendum. This has been a recent development, which breaches the UK's treaty obligations and the UN charter. 

Nice inclusion of the word 'have' here!  A word I didn't include.

Misleading count? Four out of four.

In your dreams. 

And finally

How about some evidence to back up your bald statements?

I can categorically state that all my statements have a full head of hair.

Here's one view:

1) If a power isn't reserved to the UK government, it is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament

The decision on whether to give Scots the choice of breaking away part of the country lies with parliament, not the devolved assembly.

2) Referenda are not listed within the reserved matters. Accordingly, it may be within the power of the Scottish Parliament to introduce a bill

The devolved assembly can introduce bills, but ultimate parliament decides whether to allow a referendum.

3) There are a majority of current Scottish MSP's that would support an Independence Referendum Act, so it would be likely tthat the bill would pass and become an Act

This would only be relevant if parliament decided to allow a referendum, and the Tories were elected on a mandate of keeping the status quo.

4) However, as part of the bill's procedural route, the Presiding Officer has to state whether or not he considers the bill to be within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. This view is not definitive, though. Legislative competence is a complex issue, and can ultimately be determined only by a court

It's a matter for parliament then, unless this is changed by a court case (unlikely). 

5) As the judiciary have not had this final say, no-one can be certain as to whether the Scottsih Government can pass such a bill

They can't pass it.  We can speculate as to what the result of a court case could be if one was ever held, but as it stands the matter rests with parliament.. not the devolved assembly.  Otherwise they'd just hold one (If Sturgeon really wanted it, which thankfully she doesn't)

Accordingly, that's the Yoon Grand Slam. Five misleading statements out of five attempts. A fantastic acheivement for such a novice poster who has definitely not suddenly appeared after a banhammer. Let me congratulate you, sirrah!

Grand Slam?  Gud'ane.  10/10 for effort though.

P.S. Unlike the rest of the Natterati, you actually made some half-decent points.  It's just a shame they aren't robust and don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Goomba

[williemillersmoustache]

Putting your opinions in BOLD is a remarkably poor substitute for them being correct.

Admittedly, thanks to the unwritten and ambiguous nature of the UK constitution many of the views above are arguable and indeed it would be possible for a UK government to assert them. But, that would represent a fundamental change to the nature of the UK, in particular to the one Scotland voted to stay a part of in 2014.

A few points.

No current administration can bind the hands of a future government.

While Northern Ireland is very different to Scotland it's an odd argument to make that the 7 year definition of a generation doesn't apply or isn't comparable because we haven't had a history of domestic terrorism, sectarian killings and cross border violence.    

The ability to hold a referendum on any topic, is not reserved. And therefore thanks to the model of devolution we use (anything not specifically reserved is devolved) unless the UK government chooses to legislate to do so it is within the competency of Holyrood to ask the Scottish people to express a view.

The constitution is reserved, and what occurs following a referendum on the independence question would be in the hands of the UK government. Of course it would be preferable, and this is the position of the Scottish government, for this to be agreed before a referendum but, this is neither a prerequisite nor is it a veto on the Scottish electorate being asked to express a view. 

The electorate have been asked to express a view multiple times now on whether they want a referendum, and with the means to do so available, the answer is unequivocally yes, they do.

It has been argued, by a number of unionisms top raspers like Daisley and Brian Wilson that the UK government should just legislate across Holyrood and change the devolved settlement unilaterally to make the question (of asking a question) ultra vires. This hasn't been done because despite the fact much of the UK government are awful b*****ds, not all of them are stupid. Removing any possible route to self determination would be highly counterproductive.

Goomba asserts that devolution has succeeded in killing independence, it has not. It would seem like a serious failure for unionism that not only have they not been in government in Scotland for 15 years but that support for independence is still polling around 50% and the likelihood is that they won't form a devolved administration for more than 2 decades. 

While I very much want to avoid firemen fighting police officers over ballot boxes like Catalonia without the consent or engagement of whoever is in government in Westminster, it is that sort of constitutional crisis we are headed for. Either we hold a referendum and the unionist side boycotts it, or one is held and the UK government ignores it, or they preemptively legislate to prevent it. None of which are good options for unionism. They may work in the short or immediate term but long term they would be disastrous.

With all of these things, it is very much the case of be careful what you wish for.

And it is very telling that the No side chooses to focus on what amounts to constitutional tinkering and semantics around the meaning of a generation and in the case of the post above, an entirely erroneous interpretation of the word "decisive." Rather than making the positive case for Scotland being best governed by a plurality of English votes in a FPTP system (only used elsewhere in Europe by that bastion of democracy Belarus) with a dynastic head of state rather than by the wishes of the people who actually fucking live here. Funny that.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

3 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

While I very much want to avoid firemen fighting police officers over ballot boxes like Catalonia without the consent or engagement of whoever is in government in Westminster, it is that sort of constitutional crisis we are headed for. Either we hold a referendum and the unionist side boycotts it, or one is held and the UK government ignores it, or they preemptively legislate to prevent it. None of which are good options for unionism. They may work in the short or immediate term but long term they would be disastrous.

With all of these things, it is very much the case of be careful what you wish for.

And it is very telling that the No side chooses to focus on what amounts to constitutional tinkering and semantics around the meaning of a generation and in the case of the post above, an entirely erroneous interpretation of the word "decisive." Rather than making the positive case for Scotland being best governed by a plurality of English votes in a FPTP system (only used elsewhere in Europe by that bastion of democracy Belarus) with a dynastic head of state rather than by the wishes of the people who actually fucking live here. Funny that.

This part of your post is very silly. There's no chance that Scottish government hold a referendum without Westminster consent. There isn't the appetite to have a referendum at all, let alone some dodgy one. The wool is very firmly pulled over your eyes if you think a vote for the SNP means there should be a referendum.

Could you please tell me when you think that this referendum would happen? 

Alternatively it's more likely that a referendum is not held and we remain where we are for another decade or so. A decade filled of delusional people saying "tick tock" "its inevitable" "the current tory in charge is the best thing for Scottish Independence since the last one..." 

I'd imagine once Nicola hangs up her boots the support will plummet anyway. Brexit, cost of living crisis and Ukraine have absolutely torpedoed Indy for most of the normal undecided types, now we're just left with those that can't see they were lead up the garden path. Like those Japanese soldiers stationed on remote islands believing they are still in some sort of battle. They'd do well to realise life is short and to try and reintegrate with wider society rather than embracing their fringe status on online circle jerks. 

[BigDoddyKane]

 It should have been easy to build up momentum towards an indy2 with brexit happening and the tories in charge with the most unpopular leader in Scotland for decades.

I have my doubts though as the SNP are average at best and Alba are even worse

I hope someone appears outside of both to help lead a campaign that has some positivity to it instead of the lets face it boring and a bit dull current output

[williemillersmoustache]

13 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

This part of your post is very silly. There's no chance that Scottish government hold a referendum without Westminster consent. There isn't the appetite to have a referendum at all, let alone some dodgy one. The wool is very firmly pulled over your eyes if you think a vote for the SNP means there should be a referendum.

Could you please tell me when you think that this referendum would happen? 

Alternatively it's more likely that a referendum is not held and we remain where we are for another decade or so. A decade filled of delusional people saying "tick tock" "its inevitable" "the current tory in charge is the best thing for Scottish Independence since the last one..." 

I'd imagine once Nicola hangs up her boots the support will plummet anyway. Brexit, cost of living crisis and Ukraine have absolutely torpedoed Indy for most of the normal undecided types, now we're just left with those that can't see they were lead up the garden path. Like those Japanese soldiers stationed on remote islands believing they are still in some sort of battle. They'd do well to realise life is short and to try and reintegrate with wider society rather than embracing their fringe status on online circle jerks. 

These are slavers. Sub-daily mail comments section slavers. 

12 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

 It should have been easy to build up momentum towards an indy2 with brexit happening and the tories in charge with the most unpopular leader in Scotland for decades.

I have my doubts though as the SNP are average at best and Alba are even worse

I hope someone appears outside of both to help lead a campaign that has some positivity to it instead of the lets face it boring and a bit dull current output

It is interesting but there isn't anyone else to do it. These has also been the worst public health crisis in a century to deal with but, it does feel like whatever is happening, Brexit, cost of living, Ukraine is just a reason not to get the f**k on with it. When of course the opposite is true. These things make independence more important and more necessary, not less so. 

Even now you see the arsehole press describing Boris as a war prime minister, meaning partying through the pandemic and whoring himself and his office to Russian money is actually fine. I mean Jesus f**k, what a grubby little tinpot backwater this is. 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

It's heading for the courts, after that who knows.

[lichtgilphead]

On 18/03/2022 at 20:32, Goomba said:

These are two totally different concepts. I can only answer what you actually type. As I said above, your original quote was misinformation

'Fraid not.  I was referring to the timetable Sturgeon is still pretending to have, which is to have one next year.  If I'd said something like 'Scots don't want to ever have one' then you might have a point, but I didn't.  

You do realise that it's possible to look back up the thread? You specifically said "It's been obvious from the start that no 2nd referendum will take place for the following reasons: - Scots don't want one" you then added some further reasons, but made no mention of "Nicola Sturgeon" or "next year" anywhere in your post. 

One thing that you appear to have in common with the late unlamented Stormzy is that other posters apparently have to guess what you were meaning. If a post is about Nicola's plan to have a referendum next year, then point that out in your original post. We're not f*cking mindreaders.

-2014 was supposed to be once in a generation.

I note that you didn't bother to respond to my rebuttal. In the absence of a response, I make that two pieces of misinformation and counting

Whilst I acknowledge my rebuttal oversight, it doesn't mean I have peddled misinformation.  Nice try though!

I never said 'once in a generation' was in the Edinburgh agreement, and am afraid that Scotland didn't sign up to the Good Friday Agreement.  Anyway, what it states is that at least 7 years must pass between referendums, which should only be held if there's evidence of the people wanting a United Ireland.  Why you'd apply this GFA specific timetable to Scotland is anyone's guess, especially when it ruins your argument i.e. there's no evidence of Scots voters wanting independence anyway, but quite the contrary.

Erm, Scotland (as a current part of the UK) did sign up to the GFA. At least 7 years passed since September 2014 in September 2021 (don't you do arithmetic?) My point is that the UK government have defined (at least) 7 years as a political generation in one part of the UK - why is this not applicable elsewhere in the same nation state?

Your point about "evidence of the people wanting a united ireland" is risible. One of the ways that this condition would be satisfied would be if parties that supported a referendum won a majority in an election to the NI Assembly. It may have escaped your notice that there is currently a majority of MSP's in favour of a referendum at Holyrood . You've also already conceded the point that polls show that a majority if Scots want a further referendum within a specific timeframe.

The problem is that you didn't actually say "there is no sustainable evidence of a lead" You said "There's been no sustainable evidence of support"

You're scraping the barrel with that one.  Just to be clear, when I was talking of support I meant a lead.

It's not my fault that you can't frame your arguments in a coherent manner. As I state above, this reminds me of Stormzy's tantrums when he was corrected and then claimed to have been misunderstood

Support for indepedence was at around 33% in early 2014. It then rose to 45% at the first indyref. Since then, Yes has led by as much as 13%  (Oct 2020) and No has led by as much as 8% (May 2021). Obviously, I'm excluding Scotland in Union's attempts to game the system with their ridiculous biased remain/leave question.

All your doing here is backing up my assertion that there's been no sustained evidence of an Independence lead.  The opinion polls were generous on the lead up to the 2014 referendum too, so you can probably always knock a few percent off the Indy figure to get a more accurate result.

Similarly, of course, there's been no sustaned evidence of a Yoon lead in the last couple of years. Both sides appear to be at around 50% +/- 5% in the majority of polls

The last couple of polls (see previous link) have shown Yes & No to be level.. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Yes has led in the polls on 35 occasions, No has led on 30 occasions and there has been a tie on 8 occasions. 

The '35 occasions' were largely the result of the Independence movement churning out a shed loads of polls in a relatively short space of time.  They hardly commission any now.. because the results won't look as good.  The last two polls have shown a lead for No.

The'35 occasions" were between 5th June 2020 and 29th November 2021. That's a week short of 18 months. The polls were commissioned by: Scot Goes Pop. Business for Scotland, The Sunday Times, The Times, Savanta ComRes, Survation,  JL Partners, Progress Scotland, STV, YouGov, The Scotsman, ITV News, Hanbury Strategy, DC Thomson, The Herald, The Daily Express, Sky News, & Believe in Scotland. As far as I am aware, only 4 of these are part of "the independence movement", and they used the standard polling question and had their polling done by respected polling companies.

The fact that DC Thomson & the Daily Express are on that list blows your argument out of the water.

Can you explain why you consider a poll run by Panelbase on behalf of Scot Goes Pop to be tainted when a Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times (which asks the same question less than a month later) is not?   

Finally, I would agree that the current 2 most recent polls show a No majority, but I would point out that these figures came out after my previous post. My figures were correct at the time of posting.

Please attempt to use more precise terminology in future. There is plenty of evidence that "breakup of the country" is  currently supported by a figure somewhere between 46% and 56.5% of Scottish voters (excluding Don't Knows) . This figure has been sustained for a full 2 years.

10/10 for your figure spinning efforts!  I'm afraid there's no sustained evidence whatsoever of Scottish voters wanting to break up the country.  There hasn't even been a poll with a Nat lead this year.. you have to go back to the outlier of 29th November 2022, which was dodgy for several reasons.  Then before that you have to go back to the start of September, which, again, was an outlier.  The sustained lead just doesn't exist.

I'll respond to this point when you provide some analysis of why you consider these specific polls to be "dodgy for several reasons" and "an outlier". Your bare assertions are not worthy of response. I'm also interested that you choose to ignore the 2 polls in December & January that showed both Yes & No on 50% (excluding don't knows)

You also have to remember that we are not as yet into the campaigning period for IndyRef2. The lies from the No side are unlikely to work again.   

Conclusion - reframing your original statement does not change the misinformation originally provided. That's 3 out of 3 bits of misinformation so far!

There's been no misinformation from my end.  Nice deflection attempt though.

In your misinformed opinion, of course

Whilst I would agree that power devolved is power retained, I don't support devolution. The only reason that the Westminster Government allowed the limited devolution that Scotland currently has was "to kill nationalism stone dead" (George Robertson - Secretary of State for Scotland - 1995). How's that going?

It's going rather well.  You're nowhere near breaking up the country for the reasons I've outlined, and then some.  If we hadn't had devolution, then you'd probably have a stronger case!

Whilst Scotland has not as yet achieved independence, do you really think that nationalism is "stone dead"? You're deluded.

However, your view that "people of the potential breakaway area" should have no say in any future decision relating to Scottish independence is in clear breach of the United Nations support for the right to self-determination. Indeed, many leaders of the Tory party have reaffirmed this principle, even though they haven't been consistent in their views.

My stance doesn't oppose the right to self-determination of the United Nations at all.  It aligns with it it.

Another bald statement with no evidence to back it up. Yawn.

According to Margaret Thatcher, Scotland only had to elect a majority of SNP MP's to gain independence. That happened, so the goalposts were moved, and we were told that it had to be confirmed through a referendum.

It's nothing to do with moving the goalposts, but in politics things change.  It would be deeply unfair if Scotland was railroaded into Separation just because of an SNP MP majority via the FPTP system, which they regularly achieve despite most voters voting for parties that don't support Independence.  Surely you don't want this either?  It would be madness.

We all know that FPTP is undemocratic, but it's only a couple of posts since you were talking about the Tory majority at Westminster being a mandate to resist a referendum. The tories got 43.6% at that election, yet have an 80 seat majority. However, at the last Scottish Parliament Elections, 50.1% voted for SNP, Greens or Alba on the list. That's far more proportional than FPTP, and is a majority.

David Cameron agreed to the referendum, and was quoted as saying: "You might want to think 'well why are we having this referendum, why take the risk?' I think it is the right thing to do for this reason. The Scottish people elected in 2011 a Scottish National party government in Edinburgh with Alex Salmond at its head. One of their policies was to have a referendum on the future of Scotland being a part of the UK.

That's correct, and Cameron was referring to 2011.  He was in no way insinuating it should happen every time the devolved assembly wants it.. in fact he has actually said the opposite.  Both him and Salmond signed the Edinburgh Agreement which would 'deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect'.

"I felt, as the prime minister of the UK, I had a choice. I could either say to them 'well you can't have your referendum, it is for us to decide whether you should have one.' I think that would have led to an almighty and disastrous battle between the Westminster parliament and the UK government and the Scottish government and the Scottish first minister. So I did what I thought was the right thing, which was to say 'you voted for a party that wants independence, you should have a referendum that is legal, that is decisive and that is fair.'"

Yep, this is beyond dispute.  'Decisive' being the key word.  The decision was made.. with a 11% gap.  It was emphatic.

It's usually expressed as 55/45. That's less than you claim. However, to get that majority, lies were told & promises made

The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent - Lie

Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU - Lie

Westminster will not take any powers away from the Scottish Parliament without Holyrood's consent - Lie

I could give more examples, but these three alone are enough to show that No voters were sold a lie. Things have changed, and as I pointed out before, the current Scottish Parliament has a majority specifically elected on a manifesto for Indyref 2

So, to recap, the Tories have not always run on the promise of not holding a referendum. This has been a recent development, which breaches the UK's treaty obligations and the UN charter. 

Nice inclusion of the word 'have' here!  A word I didn't include.

You said "The Tories always run on the promise of not holding one" Whilst that doesn't include the word "have", it implies that they have run on the "No 2nd referendum" manifesto promise before. Please provide evidence to back up your claim.

And finally

How about some evidence to back up your bald statements?

I can categorically state that all my statements have a full head of hair.

Is this an example of rapier-like Yoon wit? Oh my sides!

Here's one view:

1) If a power isn't reserved to the UK government, it is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament

The decision on whether to give Scots the choice of breaking away part of the country lies with parliament, not the devolved assembly.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?

2) Referenda are not listed within the reserved matters. Accordingly, it may be within the power of the Scottish Parliament to introduce a bill

The devolved assembly can introduce bills, but ultimate parliament decides whether to allow a referendum.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?

3) There are a majority of current Scottish MSP's that would support an Independence Referendum Act, so it would be likely tthat the bill would pass and become an Act

This would only be relevant if parliament decided to allow a referendum, and the Tories were elected on a mandate of keeping the status quo.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?

4) However, as part of the bill's procedural route, the Presiding Officer has to state whether or not he considers the bill to be within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. This view is not definitive, though. Legislative competence is a complex issue, and can ultimately be determined only by a court

It's a matter for parliament then, unless this is changed by a court case (unlikely). 

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make here. Your answer to my statement makes no sense  at all. Perhaps you might want to clarify your answer?

5) As the judiciary have not had this final say, no-one can be certain as to whether the Scottsih Government can pass such a bill

They can't pass it.  We can speculate as to what the result of a court case could be if one was ever held, but as it stands the matter rests with parliament.. not the devolved assembly.  Otherwise they'd just hold one (If Sturgeon really wanted it, which thankfully she doesn't)

 

At this time, the SNP's stated policy is to arrange a referendum in late 2023. Obviously, this means that they believe they have the power to do so with or without Westminster permission. The rest of your reply (re Sturgeon) is pure unsupported speculation.

P.S. Unlike the rest of the Natterati, you actually made some half-decent points.  It's just a shame they aren't robust and don't stand up to scrutiny.

As I suggest above, your scrutiny appears to be to regurgitate your unsupported beliefs. Please supply some evidence to back up these claims (if you can). If you can't., I suggest that you give up.

 

[git-intae-thum]

The longer this goes on....the more ridiculous the British nationalist justifications for denying basic democracy become.

They don't half tie themselves in some knots.

 

[Antlion]

15 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

The longer this goes on....the more ridiculous the British nationalist justifications for denying basic democracy become.

They don't half tie themselves in some knots.

 

It seems to pretty much boil down to “we got the answer we wanted in 2014 and will take no notice of anything that’s happened since or might happen in the future WE ARRA PEEPO NO SURRENDERrrR #SNpout”.

[Detournement]

12 hours ago, Antlion said:

It seems to pretty much boil down to “we got the answer we wanted in 2014 and will take no notice of anything that’s happened since or might happen in the future WE ARRA PEEPO NO SURRENDERrrR #SNpout”.

The primary hinderance to Indyref2 is Wee Nicola. 

Blaming unionists when there is an Indy majority in Holyrood who haven't brought legislation forward at any point in the past 5 years is pure cope. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Detournement

[Antlion]

19 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The primary hinderance to Indyref2 is Wee Nicola. 

Blaming unionists when there is an Indy majority in Holyrood who haven't brought legislation forward at any point in the past 5 years is pure cope. 

I’m sorry - I realise blaming right-wing politicians and their supporters for anything is anathema to you.

[Detournement]

6 minutes ago, Antlion said:

I’m sorry - I realise blaming right-wing politicians and their supporters for anything is anathema to you.

How is it the fault of anyone else but the SNP that they have went cold on independence?

[Albus Bulbasaur]

14 hours ago, Antlion said:

It seems to pretty much boil down to “we got the answer we wanted in 2014 and will take no notice of anything that’s happened since or might happen in the future WE ARRA PEEPO NO SURRENDERrrR #SNpout”.

What's happened since that changes the constitutional arrangement? 

It seems like you and your fellow Nationalists are the ones that don't take much notice of how the rest of the country feels. Your posts are a good example of creative writing and it's nice that you enjoy yourself but you're a little bit out of sync with the rest of Scotland. 

[Antlion]

18 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

What's happened since that changes the constitutional arrangement? 

It seems like you and your fellow Nationalists are the ones that don't take much notice of how the rest of the country feels. Your posts are a good example of creative writing and it's nice that you enjoy yourself but you're a little bit out of sync with the rest of Scotland. 

I wish your various post-ban identities were even half as creative. One - just one - that wasn’t a hideous Scrappy Doo-like troll would be great. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

6 minutes ago, Antlion said:

I wish your various post-ban identities were even half as creative. One - just one - that wasn’t a hideous Scrappy Doo-like troll would be great. 

Again some nice creative writing. That cartoon reference was hilarious. Keep up the good work champ. 

Do you f**k with colouring books? 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur