When will indyref2 happen?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

With polling generally being around the 50/50 mark for 7 years, I have to agree with Albus Bulbasaur that certain factors will have a negative effect on any future indyref.  Any soft no's that could have switched will be more inclined to vote for the status quo, and anyway the Snp have had 7 years to convince them to change to yes, so are there any soft no's left? Maybe there wouldn't be had campaigning for Independence stopped in 2020. 
I don't think there will be an Indyref in 2023 or for quite a while yet, nor am I sure I want one.  There is a danger that if Nicola Sturgeon feels she has to hold a referendum then what concessions will be made to Westminster to get them to agree the section 30 request.  We could end up with a very dangerous situation where a referendum actually harms Scotland.  
I have no confidence whatsoever in this Snp/green government to negotiate anything, let alone the terms of an Independence referendum.  They were useless in negotiations for Scotwind where we got £28 per GW compared to the £470 per GW that New York got for a smaller area.  Poverty in Scotland has increased since 2014, not improved.  2015 polling showed a landslide election victory for the Snp and Nicola Sturgeon said a vote for Snp not a vote for Independence, where 56/59 mps were elected and a huge rise in membership, and a majority in both parliaments. 
Add to that pausing campaigning in 2020 due to covid.  Everyone was at home, what better time to prepare a campaign.  The Scottish energy company that members overwhelmingly voted for that is now off the table, that would be real handy right now.  The Snp dont listen to their members. 
Not to mention the ferries debacle.  Or the ongoing political covid response. And the constant blaming Westminster for everything that is wrong, where if they had the balls they could have done something about it earlier.  
And voting Alba won't change it.  I will though because the Snp have become too centralised and I have no other options.  
We have been left at the quayside, watching the Indy ship sail off into the sunset.  

Yeah what folk should have done is vote for an Alba party full of bigots, moonhowlers and headed by fat, sweaty creep.

[emoji23]

[BFTD]

44 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

Yeah what folk should have done is vote for an Alba party full of bigots, moonhowlers and headed by fat, sweaty creep.

TBF, we knew he was fat and sweaty back when he was relevant too.

Feeling particularly fat and sweaty myself today, so I'm inclined to stick up for my fellow deviants.

[KingRocketman II]

On 25/03/2022 at 11:21, Albus Bulbasaur said:

.... you wouldn't want to describe the majority of the populace as knuckle dragging idiots surely. 

I knew this chavvy guy who said he was voting for Yes and when I asked him why he said "am Scottish" 

Inhabitant of country voting for self-determination for that country because he happens to live in/be from that country. Mind boggling stuff. 

[Kenneth840]

1 hour ago, Day of the Lords said:

Yeah what folk should have done is vote for an Alba party full of bigots, moonhowlers and headed by fat, sweaty creep.

Alba is not full of bigots etc.  That is only how they are portrayed by the media.  Check out their website and you will see how they are trying to help people, especially people on lower income.  As your work deals with claiming to help people  I understand your anger at the uselessness of the things you have to do.  

But you have to apportion some of the blame to the Scottish Government too.  

 

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by Kenneth840

[Albus Bulbasaur]

8 minutes ago, KingRocketman II said:

Inhabitant of country voting for self-determination for that country because he happens to live in/be from that country. Mind boggling stuff. 

If your reasoning for supporting Scottish Independence is solely because you're Scottish then I'm going to say you're very dim. 

Quite why this would be considered contentious is beyond me. 

Do you support Brexit because you're British?

Edited March 26, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[BFTD]

Shame all their members want to talk about is genitals, really.

[KingRocketman II]

4 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

If your reasoning for supporting Scottish Independence is solely because you're Scottish then I'm going to say you're very dim. 

Quite why this would be considered contentious is beyond me. 

Do you support Brexit because you're British?

[Kenneth840]

2 hours ago, Kenneth840 said:

 

With polling generally being around the 50/50 mark for 7 years, I have to agree with Albus Bulbasaur that certain factors will have a negative effect on any future indyref.  Any soft no's that could have switched will be more inclined to vote for the status quo, and anyway the Snp have had 7 years to convince them to change to yes, so are there any soft no's left? Maybe there wouldn't be had campaigning for Independence stopped in 2020. 

I don't think there will be an Indyref in 2023 or for quite a while yet, nor am I sure I want one.  There is a danger that if Nicola Sturgeon feels she has to hold a referendum then what concessions will be made to Westminster to get them to agree the section 30 request.  We could end up with a very dangerous situation where a referendum actually harms Scotland.  

I have no confidence whatsoever in this Snp/green government to negotiate anything, let alone the terms of an Independence referendum.  They were useless in negotiations for Scotwind where we got £28 per GW compared to the £470 per GW that New York got for a smaller area.  Poverty in Scotland has increased since 2014, not improved.  2015 polling showed a landslide election victory for the Snp and Nicola Sturgeon said a vote for Snp not a vote for Independence, where 56/59 mps were elected and a huge rise in membership, and a majority in both parliaments. 

Add to that pausing campaigning in 2020 due to covid.  Everyone was at home, what better time to prepare a campaign.  The Scottish energy company that members overwhelmingly voted for that is now off the table, that would be real handy right now.  The Snp dont listen to their members. 

Not to mention the ferries debacle.  Or the ongoing political covid response. And the constant blaming Westminster for everything that is wrong, where if they had the balls they could have done something about it earlier.  

And voting Alba won't change it.  I will though because the Snp have become too centralised and I have no other options.  

We have been left at the quayside, watching the Indy ship sail off into the sunset.  

 

[Goomba]

On 20/03/2022 at 20:47, lichtgilphead said:

 

In response to Lichtgilphead's post on 20/03.  The quote function doesn't capture the lot so I've just copy/pasted the last points.

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.

Of course it's possible to look back up the thread, and contrary to your claim no one has to guess what I mean.  I've told them what I mean, which was Sturgeon's timetable.  No need for anyone to be a 'f*cking mindreader' (charming)

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.

Obviously I'm not disputing that over 7 years have passed and can do arithmetic just fine (again, charming).  The government have not defined at least 7 years as a political generation at all.  They've defined it as a political generation, purely in the GFA, which has zero to do with Scotland breaking away from the rest of the country.  Also, a majority in the NI Assembly supporting a border poll is not the condition that has to be met.  It's about it appearing likely that a majority would vote in favour of the United Ireland in a referendum.  That's the condition.

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

My argument was framed just fine.  Bit weird how you keep bringing another poster into this btw.. maybe it's a deflection tactic or something.

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

Yep, and I never said there was.  Hardly the basis for another referendum though, especially when you take into account that the polling figures were generous to the Yes vote compared to the actual result in 2014.  Plus, No have mostly been in front anyway.

 

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.

There were several No leads during that period.  Hard lines.

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.  

They had dodgy, loaded, leading questions prior to the penultimate 'Do you want Scotland to be an Independent Country?'  I'm not about to spend ages going into the polls to check, but I remember analysing them at the time.  The 29th November poll is what I described as an outlier, not the run of 30 odd or whatever, and it is, by the very definition of the term.

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

Yes, I do.

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

Wrong again.  If you know of something from the UN that contradicts then fire away, but the burden of proof is on you.  If you can't find it, then I'm afraid that my stance aligns.

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.

A Tory mandate is indeed a mandate to resist another referendum.  Deciding referenda is not a devolved issue, so the devolved assembly results matter not a jot.  Very sneaky of you to go by the list vote and not the constituency vote too   Anyway, what does this have to do with the Thatcher scenario?  Policy has changed since Thatcher, but the basic procedures of Parliament haven't.. well not in the context you mean anyway.

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

When you actually look at the figures, it was 55.3 to 44.7, which is a 10.6% gap.  We can safely round that up to 11%, not 10%   Nats told some galling lies and made false promises.

The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent - Lie  Unfortunately not.  It's now permanent.

Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU - Lie.  No guarantee was ever given that voting No would mean we'd be locked into the EU forever.  We knew the EU referendum was on the horizon.  Separation would indeed have taken us out of the EU, so the claim was correct.

Westminster will not take any powers away from the Scottish Parliament without Holyrood's consent - Lie  What power has Westminster taken away from the devolved assembly then?

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  The examples are false though, unless you provide the goods for the 3rd one, which I highly doubt.  The devolved assembly simply has no power to decide referenda, so the supposed manifesto for IndyRef2 holds no weight. 

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.

That's correct, they've run on it before.  2019 and 2017.  The Tories always say it for the devolved assembly elections too.  Your inclusion of the word 'have' was indeed sneaky.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Yes, the fact that this was the case in 2014.  It was up to Parliament to allow it.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Same as above

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Same as above

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?  What don't you get?

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.

Nope, what it means is that Sturgeon is stringing her voters along.  There will be no referendum arranged in 2023 - mark my words.  Fancy a wager?

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.

I've given evidence for the points that merit it.  Now it's over to you to stop the smokescreens and mirrors and start playing with a straight bat.

[DublinMagyar]

In response to Lichtgilphead's post on 20/03.  The quote function doesn't capture the lot so I've just copy/pasted the last points.

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.

Of course it's possible to look back up the thread, and contrary to your claim no one has to guess what I mean.  I've told them what I mean, which was Sturgeon's timetable.  No need for anyone to be a 'f*cking mindreader' (charming)

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.

Obviously I'm not disputing that over 7 years have passed and can do arithmetic just fine (again, charming).  The government have not defined at least 7 years as a political generation at all.  They've defined it as a political generation, purely in the GFA, which has zero to do with Scotland breaking away from the rest of the country.  Also, a majority in the NI Assembly supporting a border poll is not the condition that has to be met.  It's about it appearing likely that a majority would vote in favour of the United Ireland in a referendum.  That's the condition.

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

My argument was framed just fine.  Bit weird how you keep bringing another poster into this btw.. maybe it's a deflection tactic or something.

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

Yep, and I never said there was.  Hardly the basis for another referendum though, especially when you take into account that the polling figures were generous to the Yes vote compared to the actual result in 2014.  Plus, No have mostly been in front anyway.

 

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.

There were several No leads during that period.  Hard lines.

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.  

They had dodgy, loaded, leading questions prior to the penultimate 'Do you want Scotland to be an Independent Country?'  I'm not about to spend ages going into the polls to check, but I remember analysing them at the time.  The 29th November poll is what I described as an outlier, not the run of 30 odd or whatever, and it is, by the very definition of the term.

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

Yes, I do.

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

Wrong again.  If you know of something from the UN that contradicts then fire away, but the burden of proof is on you.  If you can't find it, then I'm afraid that my stance aligns.

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.

A Tory mandate is indeed a mandate to resist another referendum.  Deciding referenda is not a devolved issue, so the devolved assembly results matter not a jot.  Very sneaky of you to go by the list vote and not the constituency vote too [emoji6]  Anyway, what does this have to do with the Thatcher scenario?  Policy has changed since Thatcher, but the basic procedures of Parliament haven't.. well not in the context you mean anyway.

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

When you actually look at the figures, it was 55.3 to 44.7, which is a 10.6% gap.  We can safely round that up to 11%, not 10% [emoji2]  Nats told some galling lies and made false promises.

The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent - Lie  Unfortunately not.  It's now permanent.

Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU - Lie.  No guarantee was ever given that voting No would mean we'd be locked into the EU forever.  We knew the EU referendum was on the horizon.  Separation would indeed have taken us out of the EU, so the claim was correct.

Westminster will not take any powers away from the Scottish Parliament without Holyrood's consent - Lie  What power has Westminster taken away from the devolved assembly then?

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  The examples are false though, unless you provide the goods for the 3rd one, which I highly doubt.  The devolved assembly simply has no power to decide referenda, so the supposed manifesto for IndyRef2 holds no weight. 

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.

That's correct, they've run on it before.  2019 and 2017.  The Tories always say it for the devolved assembly elections too.  Your inclusion of the word 'have' was indeed sneaky.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Yes, the fact that this was the case in 2014.  It was up to Parliament to allow it.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Same as above

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Same as above

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?  What don't you get?

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.

Nope, what it means is that Sturgeon is stringing her voters along.  There will be no referendum arranged in 2023 - mark my words.  Fancy a wager?

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.

I've given evidence for the points that merit it.  Now it's over to you to stop the smokescreens and mirrors and start playing with a straight bat.

You, are thick as f**k

[Goomba]

6 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said:

27 minutes ago, Goomba said:

In response to Lichtgilphead's post on 20/03.  The quote function doesn't capture the lot so I've just copy/pasted the last points.

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.

Of course it's possible to look back up the thread, and contrary to your claim no one has to guess what I mean.  I've told them what I mean, which was Sturgeon's timetable.  No need for anyone to be a 'f*cking mindreader' (charming)

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.

Obviously I'm not disputing that over 7 years have passed and can do arithmetic just fine (again, charming).  The government have not defined at least 7 years as a political generation at all.  They've defined it as a political generation, purely in the GFA, which has zero to do with Scotland breaking away from the rest of the country.  Also, a majority in the NI Assembly supporting a border poll is not the condition that has to be met.  It's about it appearing likely that a majority would vote in favour of the United Ireland in a referendum.  That's the condition.

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

My argument was framed just fine.  Bit weird how you keep bringing another poster into this btw.. maybe it's a deflection tactic or something.

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

Yep, and I never said there was.  Hardly the basis for another referendum though, especially when you take into account that the polling figures were generous to the Yes vote compared to the actual result in 2014.  Plus, No have mostly been in front anyway.

 

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.

There were several No leads during that period.  Hard lines.

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.  

They had dodgy, loaded, leading questions prior to the penultimate 'Do you want Scotland to be an Independent Country?'  I'm not about to spend ages going into the polls to check, but I remember analysing them at the time.  The 29th November poll is what I described as an outlier, not the run of 30 odd or whatever, and it is, by the very definition of the term.

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

Yes, I do.

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

Wrong again.  If you know of something from the UN that contradicts then fire away, but the burden of proof is on you.  If you can't find it, then I'm afraid that my stance aligns.

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.

A Tory mandate is indeed a mandate to resist another referendum.  Deciding referenda is not a devolved issue, so the devolved assembly results matter not a jot.  Very sneaky of you to go by the list vote and not the constituency vote too   Anyway, what does this have to do with the Thatcher scenario?  Policy has changed since Thatcher, but the basic procedures of Parliament haven't.. well not in the context you mean anyway.

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

When you actually look at the figures, it was 55.3 to 44.7, which is a 10.6% gap.  We can safely round that up to 11%, not 10%   Nats told some galling lies and made false promises.

The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent - Lie  Unfortunately not.  It's now permanent.

Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU - Lie.  No guarantee was ever given that voting No would mean we'd be locked into the EU forever.  We knew the EU referendum was on the horizon.  Separation would indeed have taken us out of the EU, so the claim was correct.

Westminster will not take any powers away from the Scottish Parliament without Holyrood's consent - Lie  What power has Westminster taken away from the devolved assembly then?

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  The examples are false though, unless you provide the goods for the 3rd one, which I highly doubt.  The devolved assembly simply has no power to decide referenda, so the supposed manifesto for IndyRef2 holds no weight. 

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.

That's correct, they've run on it before.  2019 and 2017.  The Tories always say it for the devolved assembly elections too.  Your inclusion of the word 'have' was indeed sneaky.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Yes, the fact that this was the case in 2014.  It was up to Parliament to allow it.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Same as above

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Same as above

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?  What don't you get?

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.

Nope, what it means is that Sturgeon is stringing her voters along.  There will be no referendum arranged in 2023 - mark my words.  Fancy a wager?

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.

I've given evidence for the points that merit it.  Now it's over to you to stop the smokescreens and mirrors and start playing with a straight bat.

You, are thick as f**k

#YouYesYet

[BFTD]

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

2 hours ago, Goomba said:

In response to Lichtgilphead's post on 20/03.  The quote function doesn't capture the lot so I've just copy/pasted the last points.

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.

Of course it's possible to look back up the thread, and contrary to your claim no one has to guess what I mean.  I've told them what I mean, which was Sturgeon's timetable.  No need for anyone to be a 'f*cking mindreader' (charming)

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.

Obviously I'm not disputing that over 7 years have passed and can do arithmetic just fine (again, charming).  The government have not defined at least 7 years as a political generation at all.  They've defined it as a political generation, purely in the GFA, which has zero to do with Scotland breaking away from the rest of the country.  Also, a majority in the NI Assembly supporting a border poll is not the condition that has to be met.  It's about it appearing likely that a majority would vote in favour of the United Ireland in a referendum.  That's the condition.

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

My argument was framed just fine.  Bit weird how you keep bringing another poster into this btw.. maybe it's a deflection tactic or something.

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

Yep, and I never said there was.  Hardly the basis for another referendum though, especially when you take into account that the polling figures were generous to the Yes vote compared to the actual result in 2014.  Plus, No have mostly been in front anyway.

 

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.

There were several No leads during that period.  Hard lines.

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.  

They had dodgy, loaded, leading questions prior to the penultimate 'Do you want Scotland to be an Independent Country?'  I'm not about to spend ages going into the polls to check, but I remember analysing them at the time.  The 29th November poll is what I described as an outlier, not the run of 30 odd or whatever, and it is, by the very definition of the term.

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

Yes, I do.

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

Wrong again.  If you know of something from the UN that contradicts then fire away, but the burden of proof is on you.  If you can't find it, then I'm afraid that my stance aligns.

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.

A Tory mandate is indeed a mandate to resist another referendum.  Deciding referenda is not a devolved issue, so the devolved assembly results matter not a jot.  Very sneaky of you to go by the list vote and not the constituency vote too   Anyway, what does this have to do with the Thatcher scenario?  Policy has changed since Thatcher, but the basic procedures of Parliament haven't.. well not in the context you mean anyway.

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

When you actually look at the figures, it was 55.3 to 44.7, which is a 10.6% gap.  We can safely round that up to 11%, not 10%   Nats told some galling lies and made false promises.

The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent - Lie  Unfortunately not.  It's now permanent.

Voting No is the only way to stay in the EU - Lie.  No guarantee was ever given that voting No would mean we'd be locked into the EU forever.  We knew the EU referendum was on the horizon.  Separation would indeed have taken us out of the EU, so the claim was correct.

Westminster will not take any powers away from the Scottish Parliament without Holyrood's consent - Lie  What power has Westminster taken away from the devolved assembly then?

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  The examples are false though, unless you provide the goods for the 3rd one, which I highly doubt.  The devolved assembly simply has no power to decide referenda, so the supposed manifesto for IndyRef2 holds no weight. 

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.

That's correct, they've run on it before.  2019 and 2017.  The Tories always say it for the devolved assembly elections too.  Your inclusion of the word 'have' was indeed sneaky.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Yes, the fact that this was the case in 2014.  It was up to Parliament to allow it.

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Same as above

Can you provide some evidence to back up this view?  Same as above

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?  What don't you get?

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.

Nope, what it means is that Sturgeon is stringing her voters along.  There will be no referendum arranged in 2023 - mark my words.  Fancy a wager?

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.

I've given evidence for the points that merit it.  Now it's over to you to stop the smokescreens and mirrors and start playing with a straight bat.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Alba is not full of bigots etc.  That is only how they are portrayed by the media.  Check out their website and you will see how they are trying to help people, especially people on lower income.  As your work deals with claiming to help people  I understand your anger at the uselessness of the things you have to do.  
But you have to apportion some of the blame to the Scottish Government too.  
 
 

1. Has Alex Arthur been expelled yet?
2. What, specifically do Alba do to help people? (Other than a 5 point plan they'll never be near power enough to enact. I've probably done more to help folk myself in the last year than Salmonds merry band of losers.
3. 1.66% [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[Duries Air Freshener]

8 hours ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Bit harsh on Lichtgilphead and Goomba.

If you don't like reading their debate then feel free to skip by it.

[Mark Connolly]

3 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

 

 

1. Has Alex Arthur been expelled yet?
2. What, specifically do Alba do to help people? (Other than a 5 point plan they'll never be near power enough to enact. I've probably done more to help folk myself in the last year than Salmonds merry band of losers.
3. 1.66%

TBF, when he said they aren't full of bigots, I think he meant that there is plenty of room for more

[williemillersmoustache]

I'm sure the content is as irrelevant to Goomba as it is to the rest of us and the debate on independence. This is just more unionist kerb stone art and the next overly long, rambling, incoherent riposte will be in blue. 

Rumbled. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Look how uncomfortable they all get when someone has the patience to actually tackle their silly nonsense. 

Lots of hilarious jokes but not one person willing to argue the content? 

[DMCs]

4 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

I'm sure the content is as irrelevant to Goomba as it is to the rest of us and the debate on independence. This is just more unionist kerb stone art and the next overly long, rambling, incoherent riposte will be in blue. 

Rumbled. 

Rumbled by who? Certainly not by you anyway as you're as thick as pig shit let's be honest

[Benjamin_Nevis]

It must just be coincidence that it's only Rangers fans and various other yoon losers creating alias after alias to relentlessly troll the Politics forum of a football messageboard. It's such an empty existence, no wonder they're mostly fucking jakes.