When will indyref2 happen?

[DAFC.]

50% + 1 is enough m9. 

[strichener]

15 minutes ago, DAFC. said:

50% + 1 is enough m9. 

As much as I agree with this, looking at the last 3 years on here with the claims that many had changed their minds over Brexit and it is only fair to gauge that opinion again then I would be very uncomfortable with anything under 55%.

[renton]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

As much as I agree with this, looking at the last 3 years on here with the claims that many had changed their minds over Brexit and it is only fair to gauge that opinion again then I would be very uncomfortable with anything under 55%.

I'd have to agree here. I'd take 50% + 1 on the day, but in order to grant sufficient legitimacy to the result I'd want something that had clear blue water between the results. 

Having said that, had they pursued a softer Brexit then "Loser's consent" might well have allowed that 52/48 result to be seen as more definitive. The '14 plan called for us to retain currency, monarchy etc. etc. so something along those lines might allow a lower winning margin to pass (i.e. not much changes right away).

[Double Jack D]

10 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

We've had the vote in 2014.

To demonstrate the need for another one, the polls have to indicate a substantial shift one way or the other.

52-48 is not substantially different from where we were 5 years ago.

60% for one side is needed to prevent the sort of nonsense we are seeing with Brexit.

Failure to get it will mean a weakened negotiating position and years and years of legal challenges and calls for re-runs.

Honestly, if we are going for independence we want a clean result to allow us to get on with things.

I don't agree  that a new vote needs a substantial shift in polling before it can be called. I would accept that Sturgeons strategy is to hold out as long as possible for that though.  However if it doesn't come and the polls stay around 50/50 then I still think there is a democratic need for another vote.

Membership of the EU was a central part of the better together argument. Given that argument has proven to be false and with Scotland being demonstrably pro EU the circumstantial change to the UK constitutional arrangement means that leaving the EU has no democratic mandate or legitimacy in Scotland. It's a very weak argument to suggest that the No vote handed that decision to the UK government given the prominence that the pro EU argument was given to securing the No vote in 2014.

With polling on indy pretty much 50-50, there simply has to be a referendum on independence to determine if a majority of Scots now favour independence given that substantial change of circumstances surrounding EU membership. Particularly if the Yes side can assure us that EU membership will happen in the event of a Yes victory. That, I concede, remains to be seen. 

I do agree that a clean result would be better but the simple fact is that 50% + 1 would be the decision. 

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

If you think that argument will win voters to Yes then go for it.

 

I suspect a lot of them have changed their minds since Boris, and to a lesser extent Theresa May.

What's wrong with Scots democratically getting to decide who governs them?

[Gaz FFC]

17 hours ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Absolutely, but couldn't the BBC Scotland c**t who interviewed Richard Leonard have queried his assertion that "Scotland does not want independence"..? That's not what the latest opinion polls are saying.

Also his statement that "We were promised the last referendum was to be a once in a generation"  failed to point out that much has changed since then. 

Leonard is a useless waste of space.

 

 

What about all the stuff voters were promised if they vote no?

Give us what we were promised prior to the referendum and we won't have another. Fair?

[ICTJohnboy]

1 minute ago, Gaz FFC said:

What about all the stuff voters were promised if they vote no?

Give us what we were promised prior to the referendum and we won't have another. Fair?

 

Like getting to remain in the EU?

If the UK Parliament could come to its senses and call Brexit off I would accept that Indyref2 could be put on hold for the time being.

I would still ultimately like to see an independent Scotland - but I agree with others who are saying they would want to see it won with a decent majority..

[AUFC90]

I honestly don't see much of a difference. No won the first time and the result was respected.

If yes wins, by whatever margin, the result should also be respected. Difference being no country has ever went back grovelling. We only need to win once.

With everything's that's happened the past 5 years it is absolutely the democratic thing to do, to have a re-run, pretty soon.

 

 

 

 

[DAFC.]

2 hours ago, Double Jack D said:

To demonstrate the need for another one, the polls have to indicate a substantial shift one way or the other.

Tosh.

Going by the latest poll, there has been an increase of 7% for Yes from the 2014 vote. That is quite a lot. It doesn't matter whether it's 50% + 1 or 52% or 55% in the polls wanting Yes, there has been a material change in Scottish politics (Brexit) and the current government have a mandate to request Indyref2 because of this.

It's ok for a Euroref2 as it was all based on lies, but not for indyref2 even though the 2014 referendum was all based on fear, scaremongering and complete lies? K den. 

[Colkitto]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

If you think that argument will win voters to Yes then go for it.

I wasn't arguing but more making the point that people change their minds. Things change and indyref1 was nearly 5 years ago.  

[NotThePars]

Maybe we can tie specific types of independence into the percentage yes wins by. 50+1 we’ll keep the queen, pound and stay in the Commonwealth. 60%+ we’re sawing off the land north of Gretna Green and moving nearer to Scandinavia.

[Paco]

I honestly don't see much of a difference. No won the first time and the result was respected.
 

Respected only in the sense Scotland hasn’t ceded from the UK unilaterally.

It’s been, even amongst the clusterfuck of Brexit, the defining question in Scottish politics ever since 2014. The Scottish Government, the party membership, and a large chunk of the population have constantly had an eye on the next one ever since the vote came in. Wouldn’t be especially healthy for five years of narrow polls, politicians hypothesising how we can get back into the UK etc in the formative years of an independent Scotland.

There’ll always be an element of that, obviously, because that’s what referenda do and WATP types will WATP. But it wouldn’t be great for it to still be the defining question of Scottish politics, with Wings equivalents yielding influence and bleating on at every turn about how we need to go back, while their loyal army of weirdos donate millions to the cause and march through the streets.

[btb]

Apparently Fluffy Mundell is leaving the dark side - can't read the full article as I'm too mean to pay for The Herald's subscription...

Quote

David Mundell: Independence majority at Holyrood in 2021 should spark referendum

 

[Malky3]

5 hours ago, Gaz FFC said:

What about all the stuff voters were promised if they vote no?

Give us what we were promised prior to the referendum and we won't have another. Fair?

And here we are back at the point where I came in on this thread. 

Round and round we go. 

Last lap I said No voters got what they wanted. We remained in the Union. There was no "other stuff" I even remotely cared about. 

This lap.......I still feel exactly the same. 

[Malky3]

3 hours ago, AUFC90 said:

I honestly don't see much of a difference. No won the first time and the result was respected.

If yes wins, by whatever margin, the result should also be respected. Difference being no country has ever went back grovelling. We only need to win once.

With everything's that's happened the past 5 years it is absolutely the democratic thing to do, to have a re-run, pretty soon.

Funnily enough this is something Jim Sillars no longer agrees with. He said that the SNP's attempt to get a second referendum on the EU Vote has let "the cat out of the bag" and that if the SNP ever did win an Independence Referendum there would have to be at least a second referendum after the terms of the divorce had been negotiated. 

Sillars might be a sidelined old grandee of the party, but his warning shows greater awareness than anything else at party central office. 

[Malky3]

3 hours ago, DAFC. said:

Tosh.

Going by the latest poll, there has been an increase of 7% for Yes from the 2014 vote. That is quite a lot. It doesn't matter whether it's 50% + 1 or 52% or 55% in the polls wanting Yes, there has been a material change in Scottish politics (Brexit) and the current government have a mandate to request Indyref2 because of this.

It's ok for a Euroref2 as it was all based on lies, but not for indyref2 even though the 2014 referendum was all based on fear, scaremongering and complete lies? K den. 

It really isn't OK for a EuroRef2, no matter how the campaign was fought. If we had to apply "truth" rules to every political election ever held we'd be re-running everything. 

Politicians lie. We all know this. The SNP were very adept liars in 2014, and they are excellent at it today too. They are certainly better at lying today than they are at governing. 

[AUFC90]

Respected only in the sense Scotland hasn’t ceded from the UK unilaterally.

It’s been, even amongst the clusterfuck of Brexit, the defining question in Scottish politics ever since 2014. The Scottish Government, the party membership, and a large chunk of the population have constantly had an eye on the next one ever since the vote came in. Wouldn’t be especially healthy for five years of narrow polls, politicians hypothesising how we can get back into the UK etc in the formative years of an independent Scotland.

There’ll always be an element of that, obviously, because that’s what referenda do and WATP types will WATP. But it wouldn’t be great for it to still be the defining question of Scottish politics, with Wings equivalents yielding influence and bleating on at every turn about how we need to go back, while their loyal army of weirdos donate millions to the cause and march through the streets.

There will always be people that will be unhappy with the result but unlike Brexit the first Indy result was respected and so should the next one.

[Paco]

There will always be people that will be unhappy with the result but unlike Brexit the first Indy result was respected and so should the next one.

I honestly don’t think the reactions have been much different at all. Indyref2 has been spoken about since the result was called, a second Brexit referendum has been much the same. Brexit is just a far more complicated issue than needing to do quite literally nothing, as per 2014.

[doulikefish]

And here we are back at the point where I came in on this thread. 
Round and round we go. 
Last lap I said No voters got what they wanted. We remained in the Union. There was no "other stuff" I even remotely cared about. 
This lap.......I still feel exactly the same. 

Yip

[BawWatchin]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Nothing. I fully support that.

I wouldn't vote Yes at the moment but I have always supported the right of the Scottish Government to make that call following an electoral mandate.

If you won't vote YES at the moment, then you'll never vote YES regardless of what happens.

You're Westminsters bitch. They own you.