Jump to content

When will indyref2 happen?


Colkitto

Indyref2  

783 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Sure seemed like it considering you didn't really combat anything I said rather just added more detail to the issue. 

What we're doing now is a bit boring, like the other day when you misread a post and then failed to reply when shown what you had been mistaken with. 

For clarity my analogy is regarding the idea you would take a risk when you don't have to. Sure you can argue it's naive long term but in my analogy the "safe path" is still at the moment safer than a risky jump. 

There's nothing safe about getting dragged into pariah status by a government intent on ignoring its international obligations on multiple issues and ripping up advantageous trade agreements. If the ship's sinking it's often safer to jump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Sure seemed like it considering you didn't really combat anything I said rather just added more detail to the issue. 

What we're doing now is a bit boring, like the other day when you misread a post and then failed to reply when shown what you had been mistaken with. 

For clarity my analogy is regarding the idea you would take a risk when you don't have to. Sure you can argue it's naive long term but in my analogy the "safe path" is still at the moment safer than a risky jump. 

My question is - what is your 'safe path'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

There's nothing safe about getting dragged into pariah status by a government intent on ignoring its international obligations on multiple issues and ripping up advantageous trade agreements. If the ship's sinking it's often safer to jump.

Aye but there's blood thirsty great white sharks circling the boat and you've got a gash on your leg whereas Sir Keir is on the horizon furiously rowing towards you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, strichener said:

^^^Simpleton found (to use your own words).

Nobody here is claiming that the SNP are bound by the "once in a generation", only that the current incumbent was one of those that made the statement on multiple occasions and that it was anything but "off the cuff".

I look forward to your next post in the Brexit thread being "Don't blame Boris, he had no control over Brexit and its implementation as it spans three parliamentary terms. 

 

Nobody here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, renton said:

My question is - what is your 'safe path'?

Not something I've put too much thought to, as I have said it was an analogy regarding why you shouldn't take risks due to over confidence. For goodwill before I enjoy the rest of my day offline if option A is to risk something and option B is to avoid the risk then at that moment option B is safer. Of course long term this option B safe path could lead to your bloody death later down the line but at the immediate point of choosing not to jump you're safer than you are mid jump. 

I'm going to avoid analogies from now on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Aye but there's blood thirsty great white sharks circling the boat and you've got a gash on your leg whereas Sir Keir is on the horizon furiously rowing towards you. 

Oh dear god.

What the hunky EU lifeguard swimming to our rescue with his antishark spray.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Aye but there's blood thirsty great white sharks circling the boat and you've got a gash on your leg whereas Sir Keir is on the horizon furiously rowing towards you. 

:lol: Very good except Keir would be rowing in circles with one oar waiting to see what the focus groups say what he should do.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Deputy PMQs, Liz Saville Roberts asked if the Tories would include in their Bill or Rights the right of self determination. His answer won't exactly be a "hold the front page moment".  Here's the exchange, from the BBC website - 

"

Plaid Cymru's Liz Saville-Roberts accused the government of contempt for the rule of law and devolution in equal measure. She took aim at Dominic Raab's draft Bill of Rights, as he is also justice secretary as well as standing in for the PM.

"They are scrapping Welsh law against our will; denying Scotland the right to choose their own future," says Saville-Roberts.

"Will he prove me wrong by enshrining self-determination in his Bill of Rights?" she asks the deputy prime minister - who announced the bill last week.

Raab replies that he believes the Bill of Rights will "strengthen our tradition of freedom" and curb abuses, as well as "injecting a bit more common sense into the system".  "

So, that's a "no" then.  They had a chance presented to them on a plate to demonstrate once and for all that the Union is a group of willing partners.  Would they grab it with both hands? As I've said before, this is no cozy club of the willing. Anyone who pretends that it is such a club hasn't been paying attention.  They aren't fooling anyone. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Nobody here?

Yeah,  I am sure your head is an empty vessel.

Which if the four posters that commented on the "off the cuff" remark @Suspect Device, @TheScarf, @Left Back and myself have made any posts claiming that the SNP cannot hold a referendum due to the "once in a generation" comment?  Take your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, strichener said:

That whole post is whataboutery.  I was responding to someone that was debunking the "off the cuff" remark.  If you can counteract that with any evidence that it was only "off the cuff" then feel free to do so.

The point isn't that politicians can change their mind.  The SNP used the "once in a generation" phrase as a political tool, a rallying call if you like.  They can't undo that and they certainly cannot level criticism at their opponents when it is thrown back at them.

it wasn't off the cuff I agree, but neither is it enshrined in legislation. You saying the comment was used as a "political tool" is subjective - as for whether it can be "undone", well it depends from what. And of course the SNP can level criticism when say the Tories throw it back at them because they can point out the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. 

To many the comment is not a big deal particularly in view of the subsequent elections and average political life-spans of politicians. The comment is a big deal to you, fair enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Not something I've put too much thought to, as I have said it was an analogy regarding why you shouldn't take risks due to over confidence. For goodwill before I enjoy the rest of my day offline if option A is to risk something and option B is to avoid the risk then at that moment option B is safer. Of course long term this option B safe path could lead to your bloody death later down the line but at the immediate point of choosing not to jump you're safer than you are mid jump. 

I'm going to avoid analogies from now on. 

Well, no the 'safety' of each path is therefore contingent on the probability of each leading to your death. Flip a coin on engaging with Sturgeon now and losing or alternately burying the Yes movement, or letting them win election after election while they tar you with 'anti-democrat' stoke up some real genuine greivance and you will end up fighting a referendum eventually and probably under pretty foregone conclusions as far as WM goes.

So far as it goes, there will be a second referendum so long as Yes votes can command better than 45% of votes in GEs and Holyrood elections. That is, if WM actually want Scotland to be a part of 'Our Glorious And Providential Union of Greatness' or just a gridlocked mess that no PM can actually control. Therefore, my point is that disengagement might be a good strategy in the short term -that 'short' period might only reasonably carry over one parliamentary term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

My analogy was regarding Unionists choosing to have a referendum just because they're confident they'd win, it wasn't aimed at Indy supporters who are frustrated. 

I appreciate that, but the overall point stands. For those of us who support independence the path might exist in theory, but if you can't use it when you want to because someone opposed to you using it is in total control of it, it might as well not be there.  It's a position that many unionists seem to think is entirely reasonable, which is why I find their stance offensive to any notion of democracy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, renton said:

Well, no the 'safety' of each path is therefore contingent on the probability of each leading to your death. Flip a coin on engaging with Sturgeon now and losing or alternately burying the Yes movement, or letting them win election after election while they tar you with 'anti-democrat' stoke up some real genuine greivance and you will end up fighting a referendum eventually and probably under pretty foregone conclusions as far as WM goes.

So far as it goes, there will be a second referendum so long as Yes votes can command better than 45% of votes in GEs and Holyrood elections. That is, if WM actually want Scotland to be a part of 'Our Glorious And Providential Union of Greatness' or just a gridlocked mess that no PM can actually control. Therefore, my point is that disengagement might be a good strategy in the short term -that 'short' period might only reasonably carry over one parliamentary term. 

Bruh this isn't Final Destination ffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, renton said:

Well, no the 'safety' of each path is therefore contingent on the probability of each leading to your death. Flip a coin on engaging with Sturgeon now and losing or alternately burying the Yes movement, or letting them win election after election while they tar you with 'anti-democrat' stoke up some real genuine greivance and you will end up fighting a referendum eventually and probably under pretty foregone conclusions as far as WM goes.

So far as it goes, there will be a second referendum so long as Yes votes can command better than 45% of votes in GEs and Holyrood elections. That is, if WM actually want Scotland to be a part of 'Our Glorious And Providential Union of Greatness' or just a gridlocked mess that no PM can actually control. Therefore, my point is that disengagement might be a good strategy in the short term -that 'short' period might only reasonably carry over one parliamentary term. 

Why this number?

There are several criteria that could be claimed to win the de facto referendum.  Off the top of my head here's a few and there's probably some more.

Win the largest number of MP's in Scotland

Have the largest share of the popular vote

Have an overall majority

Win over 50% of the popular vote

Win all the seats in Scotland

Get the votes of more than 50% of the electorate

What's your rationale of 45%?

If it gets to that and we fast forward a few years it's not an unreasonable outcome to guess the SNP would have the most number of MP's but not have an overall majority or over 50% of the popular vote.

They could claim that's winning the "referendum".  Westminster could claim otherwise and say something like "naw, referendums are done on vote numbers, not seat numbers and you don't have the numbers.  Off you pop"

Unless this is clarified  it will simply end the same as the argument about whether there is currently a mandate for a new referendum.  Any request to get Westminster to agree to any definition will likely end up in the same bin as the request for a Section 30 order, and pretty much certainly will if it's made after the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Holiday Song said:

 

I'd be voting yes, but this is a perfectly reasonable and fair post.

The one thing I do disagree with though seems to be the actual reason you'd be a no voter (if I'm reading correctly). Eight years is plenty of time for another vote with what we've seen happen since then, the Brexit part of it in particular when you consider not only how big a part EU membership was of the 2014 campaign but also that Scotland as a whole voted by quite a large margin for Remain in 2016. That is, in my opinion anyway, enough of a shift for another referendum to be acceptable.

Both views are perfectly acceptable.

For me it would have to be about 15 to 20 years between referenda but I'm open to persuasion on that.

I think I said 2030 on another post. That seems like the right sort of timescale to convince me that the original decision has been respected.

As for the Brexit vote causing a material change? Well, yes but this sort of change is just life IMO. We all knew it was a possibility regardless of what the Tories said in 2014. I'm not convinced by the argument about 62% in Scotland voting remain. Our chance to consider Scotland's vote on that issue was lost when we voted No in 2014. It's an invalid argument in that respect. People voted No knowing full well we could easily be outvoted on the EU and could end up outside the EU. They still voted No anyway.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I disagree with your framing tbh. I'm content with the situation and believe there's a democratic route through the democratically elected MPs at Westminster.  

I think we probably agree people perhaps should care more but the general public probably care more about Love Island than flights to Rwanda so I can't say I'm surprised every day normal people aren't fussed about the finer details of parliament and sovereignty.

I've said previously campaigns regarding PR and movements pointing out particular grievances in the system as a slow burn approach is more palatable than the emotionally lead screeching grievance approach we have at the moment. 

I think we both agree on the non constitutional points. If folk were more engaged, we'd all be in a better place and dare I say it, independence wouldn't really be a desire.

Where I disagree is that there is a democratic route via MP's at Westminster. If we use that argument, the fact that there is a overwhelming majority of Scottish MP's who are pro independence, then there is already that route. I maybe disagree with many when I say that the SNP MP's taking almost all the seats at Westminster is a mandate, but its about as close as you can get in a Westminster context. Only stronger options is taking the majority of seats in UK or gaining a majority of seats on a PR basis. 

I'm not sure how much clearer under the current set up you can get that the people of Scotland want to be at least asked the question. I also understand why others don't want the question to be asked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

Both views are perfectly acceptable.

For me it would have to be about 15 to 20 years between referenda but I'm open to persuasion on that.

I think I said 2030 on another post. That seems like the right sort of timescale to convince me that the original decision has been respected.

As for the Brexit vote causing a material change? Well, yes but this sort of change is just life IMO. We all knew it was a possibility regardless of what the Tories said in 2014. I'm not convinced by the argument about 62% in Scotland voting remain. Our chance to consider Scotland's vote on that issue was lost when we voted No in 2014. It's an invalid argument in that respect. People voted No knowing full well we could easily be outvoted on the E and could end up outside the EU. They still voted No anyway.

I'd be perfectly happy if the UK and Scottish government came to some kind of agreement that put limits on the timescales of referenda as long as the legal power to hold binding referenda came with it. Once every 25 years and no need for a section 30, for example. That would have been a pretty reasonable compromise in 2014. But it didn't happen, so everything's just perpetually in limbo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Why this number?

 

That's not a number for winning a de facto referendum. Merely making the point that so long as the SNP can win that level of vote, they will handily win any election they fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gordon EF said:

I'd be perfectly happy if the UK and Scottish government came to some kind of agreement that put limits on the timescales of referenda as long as the legal power to hold binding referenda came with it. Once every 25 years and no need for a section 30, for example. That would have been a pretty reasonable compromise in 2014. But it didn't happen, so everything's just perpetually in limbo.

And I have often wondered if that was a mistake on the part of Salmond.

Maybe he was so pumped at being given the section 30 order that he didn't take into account the possibility that it would take a couple of votes to secure a Yes.

That was Salmond all over though - no attention to detail and driven by impatience and a desire to write himself into the history books. A classic gambler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...