When will indyref2 happen?

[dirty dingus]

8 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Not just Gove. Paul Sweeney, the hopefully soon to be ousted labour mp was on TV last week calling the independence movement sectarian. His Conservative pal sitting opposite in the studio nodding in agreement. It's obviously a new strategic angle worked out by red and blue tories.

Despicable.

So Gove(singer of the Sash) thinks were all anti protestant, does Sweeney(whack a Sturgeon) believe we're all anti-catholic?

Paul Sweeney MP‏Verified account @PaulJSweeney

Anti-Irish racism and anti-Catholic hatred, just like other forms of prejudice, exists in Scotland. I was on the receiving end of it over the summer after condemning the bigoted assault on Father White. We need to face up to it and deal with it as a society now. #AFightForAllOfUs

 

[pandarilla]

Demographics Survey
Have a read at the linked report. 
I doubt it's got anything to do with the War or post war welfare reforms given that there were only around 40,000 Scots alive in 2014 that would have even had the faintest infant memory of the Second World War. And the extent of the nationalist straw clutching becomes clear when you consider that the No majority in 2014 was just over 380,000. You're going to have to wish a hell of a lot of "No" voters dead before you are ever likely to see independence through that route. 
The fact is the more you have to lose the less likely you are to vote for Scottish Independence. if Nationalists want to enhance their chances of achieving Scottish Independence they are going to have to convince No voters that they will be financially better off - and the SNP have already damaged their credibility massively on that score with the White Paper promises of massive oil tax revenues when reality has proved almost exactly the opposite. 

Firstly, it literally says in that survey that those earning over 30,000 were evenly split between yes and no. So tell me again how you jumped to the conclusion about having more to lose?

It also confirms the data about older people, which you still claim to be 'wishing people dead'. Do you not recognise that as an issue or are you still going to jump around angrily about yes voters as savages?

Also, the older you are, the closer connection you have to the war. It doesn't have to be their own memories - but as much perception as anything else. That was my point. If you don't accept that then I'm not sure what we're doing. I find those people (of those that I know) have a much stronger attachment to a positive idea of Britain. I have no issue with that.

But yes, there are other big issues that yes have to overcome. I'm surprised you're on about oil though. It appears that reports of the death of the North sea were premature. It's quite clearly going to be a factor - although certainly not the main economic one (which many no voters would like to believe).

[renton]

7 hours ago, Malky3 said:

Demographics Survey

Have a read at the linked report. 

I doubt it's got anything to do with the War or post war welfare reforms given that there were only around 40,000 Scots alive in 2014 that would have even had the faintest infant memory of the Second World War. And the extent of the nationalist straw clutching becomes clear when you consider that the No majority in 2014 was just over 380,000. You're going to have to wish a hell of a lot of "No" voters dead before you are ever likely to see independence through that route. 

The fact is the more you have to lose the less likely you are to vote for Scottish Independence. if Nationalists want to enhance their chances of achieving Scottish Independence they are going to have to convince No voters that they will be financially better off - and the SNP have already damaged their credibility massively on that score with the White Paper promises of massive oil tax revenues when reality has proved almost exactly the opposite. 

The actual link to the study itself is here: https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/scottishreferendumstudy/files/2015/03/Scottish-Referendum-Study-27-March-2015.pdf

Note that, on the age breakdowns, the numbers are similar, but no the same as those illustrated in the BBC result:

Note the discrepancy with the illustration from the BBC website, I tend to go with what is published on the academic website.

However, it's when we look at the other demographic breakdowns that we see we cannot look at the result purely, or possibly even majorly in terms of the age old "people become more conservative" argument.

Look at the nationality one first:

Scots born, Scots resident voted in favour of Indy, other UK was nearly 3 to 1 against, and outside UK (i.e. EU born) was nearly 60/40 against.  Men were far more for the idea than women were, Catholics and Atheists voted for,  Protestant and Church of England against, the latter by a factor of 4 to 1.

If we concentrate on the rUK born vs Scots born cohorts, assuming both groups have the same age spread in both groups, and assuming the same rational response within each age group then we cannot make the argument that the difference was down to the conservative economics of advancing age. It may of course be that the age spread was not equal, that the rUK population of Scotland is predominantly very old, and wealthy. We cannot rule that out without detailed census data, but it doesn't wholly chime with the likely profiles of people working here. It is also the case that even if the rUK population was overwhelmingly pension age, their pensions would've been protected by the existing UK state, and independent of the re-emergent Scottish state, so their financial risk would be minimised regardless. More likely that there was simply a cultural argument at work there.

Another interesting point to examine is on the age demographics, where the proportion of No vote continues upwards past the point of pension age, presumably when you are at your most financial risk. This in itself is undermined by the fact that there is no significant bump in No votes at the ages when most people become parents or house owners. 

Significant for me is the cross over point at 40-49. In 2014, that meant people who were kids or teenagers around the time of the 79 election. 

Thus for me there is a pretty simple cultural, historical trend here. The changes wrought by the de-industrialisation (whether you think it necessary or not) and the demise of what had been the post war settlement in favour of monetarist, neo-liberal economics (whether you think it necessary or not) meant that how people have tended to view the State changed with it. The older you are, the closer you are to the generation who fought the war, who revelled in all things British and when Scotland really was referred to as 'North Britain' on maps. After '79 you have a far different approach to Britain emerging, something only heightened in younger generations who grew up with devolution. That process normalised the idea in younger voters minds of Scotland making it's own decisions. That's the back breaker for Unionism, not the generational cross point that occurs in 2023 when it's expected more than 400,000 old folk will have pegged it. 

We are simply ploughing through a process whereby romanticism with Britain fades away to be replaced, ironically, with a fairly transactional view of Britain amidst a Scottish political scene that has already semi detached itself.

Lastly, the whole idea that people get more conservative and risk averse is probably way overstated. It's less that people become more conservative with time and rather than succeeding generations become more progressive while older ones stand still. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by renton

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, Stellaboz said:

How much more shit do some people have to see for them to even consider that Indy might just be a viable option?

I feel that Boris could one day machine gun down everyone in Parliament, declare himself General Bojo and still some would be like "yeah that's a fine idea".

They'd be providing themselves as meat shields for the Boris Johnson armory to prevent them law enforcing terrorists from taking him out.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I met Paul Sweeney on holiday a long time before he became a Labour MP.

An unlikeable opportunistic arsehole of the first degree.

[jimmy boo]

What does 'yoon' mean? It comes across as a bit cringy.

[Bairnardo]

What does 'yoon' mean? It comes across as a bit cringy.

The gold standard poster here, in terms of what name calling is acceptable.

[welshbairn]

I liked it when onanist was spell corrected to unionist.

[Falcor Roar]

18 hours ago, Malky3 said:

Eh? Inclusive, unless you were one of the 55% majority of Scots who voted no. The same campaigners screamed "traitor", "quisling" and all manner of other abuse telling fellow Scots to "f**k off to England" 

 

So the English YES campaigners that I encountered in Edinburgh called you a quisling - even though you've no idea specifically who i'm talking about. 

I don't think you're the full shilling so i'll steer clear of engaging you any further thanks. 

[Granny Danger]

What is Plan B if Nicola Sturgeon ask for permission to hold an Independence Referendum and it is not granted?

[Cerberus]

Things the English and Jock Yoons prefer to Scottish Independence -

Austerity
Killing off the NHS
Soft Brexit
Hard Brexit
Corbyn
A Labour Government

[Malky3]

3 hours ago, Falcor Roar said:

So the English YES campaigners that I encountered in Edinburgh called you a quisling - even though you've no idea specifically who i'm talking about. 

I don't think you're the full shilling so i'll steer clear of engaging you any further thanks. 

Oh sorry - was it only English Yes campaigners who were being inclusive. My bad. I didn't understand what you meant. I thought you were talking about the drivelling Scottish lunatics that were chasing Jim Murphy around the country screaming at him and kicking over his tables. 

[Bairnardo]

Oh sorry - was it only English Yes campaigners who were being inclusive. My bad. I didn't understand what you meant. I thought you were talking about the drivelling Scottish lunatics that were chasing Jim Murphy around the country screaming at him and kicking over his tables. 

^^^

[Malky3]

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

What is Plan B if Nicola Sturgeon ask for permission to hold an Independence Referendum and it is not granted?

Hopefully an illegal referendum and Sturgeon and her ilk locked in a cell for 20+ years for misusing public funds. 

[Malky3]

2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

^^^

Is that your pic? 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

What is Plan B if Nicola Sturgeon ask for permission to hold an Independence Referendum and it is not granted?

One possibility.

Sturgeon resigns as First Minister.

Parliament would then have 28 days to agree to a new FM - if they don't there would be fresh Scottish Elections.

SNP and Greens stand on an IndyRef2 platform.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, MixuFixit said:

That's a top to bottom terrible plan

What’s your solution?

[Granny Danger]

Just now, MixuFixit said:

Wait for the Tories to lose the next election and reassess.

I’m working on the basis that by the time NS asks for permission to hold a Referendum a GE will already have taken place with the next one not to maybe 2024.

 

[git-intae-thum]

1 hour ago, MixuFixit said:

Wait for the Tories to lose the next election and reassess.

The strength of the "let's get Brexit done" vote down South means this is not going to happen...... unfortunately for the UK.

It's a gift for the cause of independence though

I actually think time is on our side. The polls have started shifting to show majority support for independence....slowly but steadily.

I understand folk wanting independence asap, however the giving Westminster enough rope strategy is working very well. 

Better waiting a few years and having a resounding clear undeniable mandate and therefore clear majority for yes, than having a narrow win or worse defeat that really likely would kill it for a generation

[pandarilla]

The strength of the "let's get Brexit done" vote down South means this is not going to happen...... unfortunately for the UK.
It's a gift for the cause of independence though
I actually think time is on our side. The polls have started shifting to show majority support for independence....slowly but steadily.
I understand folk wanting independence asap, however the giving Westminster enough rope strategy is working very well. 
Better waiting a few years and having a resounding clear undeniable mandate and therefore clear majority for yes, than having a narrow win or worse defeat that really likely would kill it for a generation

Absolutely this. We have to play this smart and not shoot our load.