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

1 minute ago, 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.

We are in a similar position as we were pre 2014, there is the option for negotiation but it is Westminster that is currently failing to live up to that this time around. The court, i hope, will take a full view and render a decision that a referendum would be legal, but not binding. It would then go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 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.

A fixed period would favour Westminster. Neglect Scotland for 20 years then throw money at for 5 to get over the line, cheap at the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

A fixed period would favour Westminster. Neglect Scotland for 20 years then throw money at for 5 to get over the line, cheap at the price.

Obviously. That's what WM get out of it. What the SG get out of it is that undisputable legal power to hold a referendum once the buffer period is up. That's what a compromise is.

I'm not saying it's a situation that exclusively favours the pro-independence side. I just think that it's broadly fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yes side warned of the risk to our place in the EU in the UK, the No side denied it and made it a central plank of their campaign.

This doesn't negate the EU argument for a referendum it cements it. 

You don't hold against the losing side the claims they made which turned out to be true when they show the winning side to have been wrong. That's totally upside down, back to front, inside out and bollocks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes 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 EU and could end up outside the EU. They still voted No anyway.

That's horseshit btw, at least in the sense that there was widespread awareness of any such thing.

I seem to recall Ruth Davidson, in the run up to the referendum, going to great pains at one of the televised indyref things to tell people there was no chance that the Tories would win the 2015 GE outright and that therefore there would be NO Brexit vote, far less a Leave result.

Some folk might still have watched that and went "well, I don't trust her so it could happen" but to suggest that the population at large went into soothsayer mode and knew "full well" that we might be outvoted on the EU when it wasn't at all certain to the casual voter that there would even BE a vote is purest revisionism. Not least because it was thought around that time that Labour were going to win the 2015 GE (and even that they would win the Scotland-wide part of that vote and THAT didn't happen as many people would have predicted either; unless you're going to tell us that everyone knew there were going to be 56 SNP MPs as well).

Edited by Eddie Hitler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

That's horseshit btw, at least in the sense that there was widespread awareness of any such thing.

 

Then I'm afraid that is on the SNP for failing to make that case.

As it happens, the SNP were very vocal about remaining in the EU not being a given.

They lost the argument on it at the time. That's the way it goes I'm afraid.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Then I'm afraid that is on the SNP for failing to make that case.

As it happens, the SNP were very vocal about remaining in the EU not being a given.

They lost the argument on it at the time. That's the way it goes I'm afraid.

So what would constitute a material change in your eyes? 

You don't think a quite drastic change in foreign policy approach (voted down here) is a big thing? 

What would be?

Or are you just wedded to the idea that you personally have decided how long there should be between votes and that's that, other folks' policy preferences etc just don't matter (even when they were the majority view within Scotland)? Whatever happens until your personally decreed amount of time has passed is "just the way it goes"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Of course, I grasped it as soon as it was said. 

They would still need a section 30 though and what I think you might not be grasping is this GE would be of no difference technically speaking than any of the ones we've had previously no matter what Nicola says. Can you seriously see a scenario where SNP lose the SC and then win a GE and try and take Scotland out of the UK? 

Nicola Sturgeon (and I) know that even if the SNP win the majority of seats, and possibly even 51% of the votes at the General Election, this won’t provide independence.

However, it would be confirmation that the majority of people in Scotland want independence. Then when the (reckless) Toaries refuse a Section 30 order it has them refusing to acknowledge the will of the Scottish people to be an independent nation. 

Of course some people in Scotland have now suffered through 12 years of Tory government, and may think the best way to get rid of them is to vote Labour and hope enough people in England in key seats do the same. Who can tell what people will be thinking in 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

Nicola Sturgeon (and I) know that even if the SNP win the majority of seats, and possibly even 51% of the votes at the General Election, this won’t provide independence.

However, it would be confirmation that the majority of people in Scotland want independence. Then when the (reckless) Toaries refuse a Section 30 order it has them refusing to acknowledge the will of the Scottish people to be an independent nation. 

Of course some people in Scotland have now suffered through 12 years of Tory government, and may think the best way to get rid of them is to vote Labour and hope enough people in England in key seats do the same. Who can tell what people will be thinking in 2024.

Lmao no it wouldn't no matter how you and Nicola try and spin a general election. We would be voting for MPs to serve us at Westminster.

What's it going to say on your ballot? 

I see John Swinney has said that a majority of seats would lead to starting the process (whatever that actually means) so that's 30MPs needed. It's actually kinda sad to see them going out like this. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Lmao no it wouldn't no matter how you and Nicola try and spin a general election. We would be voting for MPs to serve us at Westminster.

What's it going to say on your ballot? 

I see John Swinney has said that a majority of seats would lead to starting the process (whatever that actually means) so that's 30MPs needed. It's actually kinda sad to see them going out like this. 

 

That's since been contradicted and retracted.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/29/john-swinney-sows-confusion-over-snp-claims-on-independence-mandate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

So what would constitute a material change in your eyes? 

You don't think a quite drastic change in foreign policy approach (voted down here) is a big thing? 

What would be?

Or are you just wedded to the idea that you personally have decided how long there should be between votes and that's that, other folks' policy preferences etc just don't matter (even when they were the majority view within Scotland)? Whatever happens until your personally decreed amount of time has passed is "just the way it goes"?

 

A material change in the way we live? Leaving the EU.

A big thing? Sure. Never said otherwise.

A material change which justified not respecting the last referendum result? Not in my opinion.

Other people's opinions don't matter? Nope. I'm expressing my view. Others are entitled to differ. That's what forums are for.

Whatever happens until 2030 is "just the way it is"? Yes. 2014 sucked but that's how democracy works. We voted No. That's the end of it IMO.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

Aye apparantly he repeated it a few times so he must have got a bit carried away. Sensible for them to retract it though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the No side wanted respecting the result to mean everyone has to stfu for 30 years or whatever they should have written these things down in a prospectus before the vote. As it is everything other than not leaving the UK and becoming independent is respecting the result. 

If they wanted it to mean more than that they should have written it down. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

If the No side wanted respecting the result to mean everyone has to stfu for 30 years or whatever they should have written these things down in a prospectus before the vote. As it is everything other than not leaving the UK and becoming independent is respecting the result. 

If they wanted it to mean more than that they should have written it down. 

 

I respect the last referendum so much that i want another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

We are better together because we want access to your resources 

Not exactly surprising from the guy who doesn’t believe in human rights, economic or social rights mind you

I’m shocked by that!  Raab was asked a question and told the truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

A material change in the way we live? Leaving the EU.

A big thing? Sure. Never said otherwise.

A material change which justified not respecting the last referendum result? Not in my opinion.

Other people's opinions don't matter? Nope. I'm expressing my view. Others are entitled to differ. That's what forums are for.

Whatever happens until 2030 is "just the way it is"? Yes. 2014 sucked but that's how democracy works. We voted No. That's the end of it IMO.

It used to be the SNP's line that they wanted polls to show 60% support for independence over a sustained period before having another referendum (Herald link).  Even as someone that thinks independence would be an unmitigated shitshow akin to Brexit on steroids, I always felt that was a fair position.  If the people of Scotland consistently say that this is what they want, then I don't think it would be fair to disallow another vote.  It's safe to say we're nowhere near that point at present.  Despite a historically unpopular Tory government led by someone that most Scots understandably find comparable to Satan, opinion polls continue to show a majority of people would opt for the status quo.  Of the 23 opinion polls taken in the last 12 months,  3 have shown a lead for independence while 18 have shown a lead for the union.  Indeed, 2 of those 3 'yes' polls were taken by Ipsos Mori whose methodology for whatever reason seems to tilt in that direction (yes, there will be others that tilt the other way) - but even they showed a narrow lead for the no side in their most recent poll.

Neither does there appear to be any sizable appetite among the broader population for a referendum over the next 12 months.  Each of the 7 polls that have asked this question since 2021 have shown that only around 17-25% of Scots actually want another vote in that timescale.  This might not reflect the echo chamber on this forum, but it does seem like a majority of Scots either don't want a referendum or are quite happy kicking the can down the road for a few more years at least.

As for the 2024 general election somehow becoming a de facto independence vote.... no it isn't.  The other parties don't have to play by the SNP's rules.  I'll be voting for the candidate and party that I think will best govern the country.  It's not a referendum just because Sturgeon says it is.  This is the person that when asked who a voter that wanted her to remain as FM but didn't want a second referendum should vote for said 'vote for me'.... and then proceeded to take every single vote she received as a 'mandate' for said referendum. 

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...