The 2021 election and a mandate for Indyref2.

[NotThePars]

Hence why everyone who supports independence should get out and vote for a pro independence party, making their stance untenable.

Untenable to who? Who specifically that needs to be convinced is going to be convinced by a vote share argument that isn’t already convinced by a majority of MPs, a majority of MSPs, or legislation passed by Holyrood?

[jakedee]

Untenable to who? Who specifically that needs to be convinced is going to be convinced by a vote share argument that isn’t already convinced by a majority of MPs, a majority of MSPs, or legislation passed by Holyrood?

If they can continue to state that more than 50% of Scots do not support independence, then the Scottish Govt. cannot begin to court international sympathy to their cause, putting pressure on the UK Govt to allow the right of self determination.
Surely if all parameters show that the majority of Scots support independence,then their position becomes untenable internationally.

[Highland Capital]

1 hour ago, Erih Shtrep said:

  In 2015 when the SNP swept the board they polled 49.7% technically not enough for a mandate.  

If you believe that independence belongs solely to the SNP.  If the SNP get a majority - that's a mandate.  If the Greens got a majority - that would be a mandate.  If the pro-independence parties get a majority - that's a mandate.  It's funny how the SNP superfans love to go on and on about how independence is bigger than their party, except when it comes to election time.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Highland Capital

[invergowrie arab]

5 hours ago, Highland Capital said:

It's my understanding that the SNP are going to be including the constituency candidates on the list as well this time.  They didn't do it last time.

Yes they did

[Highland Capital]

1 minute ago, invergowrie arab said:

Yes they did

Not up here they didn't.  Ewing stood in Inverness & Nairn but wasn't on the Highlands & Islands list.  Maree Todd was elected as she was first on the list.

[jakedee]

If you believe that independence belongs solely to the SNP.  If the SNP get a majority - that's a mandate.  If the Greens got a majority - that would be a mandate.  If the pro-independence parties get a majority - that's a mandate.  It's funny how the SNP superfans love to go on and on about how independence is bigger than their party, except when it comes to election time.

Who would you recommend independence supporters vote for if not the SNP/Greens ?

[invergowrie arab]

Just now, Highland Capital said:

Not up here they didn't.  Ewing stood in Inverness & Nairn but wasn't on the Highlands & Islands list.  Maree Todd was elected as she was first on the list.

High profile candidates have always been on the list. Obviouslt nobody guves a f**k if Ewing is emptied.

They aren't standing all candidates on list this time either

[Highland Capital]

4 minutes ago, jakedee said:

Who would you recommend independence supporters vote for if not the SNP/Greens ?

Depends who's running in your area.  I might hold my nose and vote for Ewing again but if there's a Green/SSP/pro-independence independent standing the chances of me voting for him would be much slimmer.

Of course in some areas the SNP candidate will be the best one anyway.  If Drew Hendry was running here instead of being at Westminster, he'd be 99.99% likely to get my vote regardless of who else was standing.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Highland Capital

[Erih Shtrep]

25 minutes ago, Highland Capital said:

If you believe that independence belongs solely to the SNP.  If the SNP get a majority - that's a mandate.  If the Greens got a majority - that would be a mandate.  If the pro-independence parties get a majority - that's a mandate.  It's funny how the SNP superfans love to go on and on about how independence is bigger than their party, except when it comes to election time.

Point accepted.   I'm certainly not a SNP fanboy and I'll be voting SNP/Green.   

But you know Boris will use the "Majority of seats, not the majority of votes"  line and I don't want to give him a hook he can wriggle off.  

[John Lambies Doos]

Must be utterly horrible to be a No voter.   

Where you genuinely hope Scotland fails at things.   It could be hospital waiting times,  school performance, covid deaths.   

 
Here’s what actually happened and why the treaty came about:     (All of this is readily available in Scottish history books. I would recommend Scotland’s Story by Tom Steel, where (pages 143 to 148) refer particularly to the Actions of William of Orange in respect of the Darien Company and demonstrate how, by his aggression against Scotland he almost succeeded in bankrupting us.) During the period prior to 1695, all overseas colonies were designated English and trade was restricted to English Merchant Companies. Scottish Merchants were not allowed to trade with them, despite the fact that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom, (although without a United Government), and despite the fact that it was mainly Scottish explorers who opened the English colonies up for colonisation. In 1695 the Scottish Merchants petitioned King William of Orange and were granted his Royal Assent for “The Scottish Africa and India Company”, which would be allowed to trade with the colonies. Immediately the English East India Company reduced its charges making it impossible for the new Scots Company to compete. The Scots were forced to look for an alternative. They decided on a scheme to run mule trains between a port on the Pacific and another on the Caribbean, across the Isthmus of Panama using land that they thought, had not been colonised by any other country. (This was disputed by Spain who claimed it as theirs.) Effectively this would greatly reduce the travelling time between China, India and Scotland and save massively on shipping costs. In 1698 the Scots changed the Company name to “The Darien Company” and opened it for investment. Many English Merchants, who were now receiving much less in bonuses from the East India Company’s reduced rates, withdrew their money from it and invested in the Scottish Company. The Scots raised £400,000.00 in only 2 weeks! That’s £40 million in today’s money! The English House of Lords complained to King William of Orange, who reneged on his Royal Consent and withdrew it. He threatened the English Merchants with being charged with treason if they didn’t withdraw their money from the Scottish Company and re-invest it in the English Company. They withdrew their money. William also prevented European investors from taking part by making it known that any investment in the Scottish company would be treated as an act of aggression and they would respond. (Spain today?) Scotland went ahead on its own. £300,000.00 was raised by public subscription and two “Dutchmen Heavy Cargo Ships” were bought from Holland. 1200 settlers with supplies were sent to Darien Land. William of Orange immediately sent the English Navy to blockade the Caribbean colonies thereby denying the Scots access or assistance. The Spanish Navy joined the English and between them they prevented food and medical supplies reaching the Scottish base. During a skirmish one of the two Scots boats was attacked and sunk. The Scottish settlers were forced to leave, and travelled home via New York. Of the original 1200 settlers, some 800 never made it back home. There is no record to show how many died in Darien Land, or on the journey to New York, or on the way back across the Atlantic. Disease was a significant factor but the assertion that the failure was entirely Scotland’s fault due to a bad choice of site, and the subsequent illness, is not well founded. It’s more likely the deliberate action of the English Parliament and King William, by means of the English Naval blockade, caused its failure, and nearly bankrupted Scotland. Although the venture cost Scotland between ¹/3 and ½ its National Assets, it wasn’t bankrupt and continued to trade successfully for the next 7 years.

That orange b*stard really was a c**t, and to think some morons, who call themselves Scottish, still worship him.

[NotThePars]

11 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said:

Point accepted.   I'm certainly not a SNP fanboy and I'll be voting SNP/Green.   

But you know Boris will use the "Majority of seats, not the majority of votes"  line and I don't want to give him a hook he can wriggle off.  

And if the SNP get a majority of votes then Boris will say "the turnout was 55% and 27.5% doesn't constitute a majority for independence or another divisive referendum. See you in 2054." You are not going to By Your Logic this government into conceding a mandate unless they want to, or are forced to. They have zero shame.

 

[John Lambies Doos]

And if the SNP get a majority of votes then Boris will say "the turnout was 55% and 27.5% doesn't constitute a majority for independence or another divisive referendum. See you in 2054." You are not going to By Your Logic this government into conceding a mandate unless they want to, or are forced to. They have zero shame.
 

Please don't spoil your vote, you're better than that...

[Erih Shtrep]

3 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

And if the SNP get a majority of votes then Boris will say "the turnout was 55% and 27.5% doesn't constitute a majority for independence or another divisive referendum. See you in 2054." You are not going to By Your Logic this government into conceding a mandate unless they want to, or are forced to. They have zero shame.

 

For many (myself included) the SNP are drinking in the last chance saloon.   Acceptance of a good night at the polls and no action won't be tolerated and there will need to be action and if this is dragged through the courts you have a far stronger position if you have the majority of votes cast.    You of course can do as you please with your vote but I'd like you to hold your nose and back the SNP one final time.  

[git-intae-thum]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

And if the SNP get a majority of votes then Boris will say "the turnout was 55% and 27.5% doesn't constitute a majority for independence or another divisive referendum. See you in 2054." You are not going to By Your Logic this government into conceding a mandate unless they want to, or are forced to. They have zero shame.

 

....you have accurately summarised the one big flaw in the gradualist Sturgeonite approach. She has given the enemy the initiative. Something her predecessor never allowed.

This is really a make or break election for the SNP leadership with regards their continuing ability to retain the wider pro indy vote.

 

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

1 hour ago, git-intae-thum said:

....you have accurately summarised the one big flaw in the gradualist Sturgeonite approach. She has given the enemy the initiative. Something her predecessor never allowed.

It's only a flaw if there's a viable alternative means of achieving independence, which it's fairly clear there isn't. The independence movement could really use a dose of reality that it won't be happening for quite a while. 

And yes that is undemocratic blah blah blah but as I've said before if anyone thinks there's going to be mass civil unrest in Scotland as a result I've some magic beans to sell you 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

....you have accurately summarised the one big flaw in the gradualist Sturgeonite approach. She has given the enemy the initiative. Something her predecessor never allowed.
This is really a make or break election for the SNP leadership with regards their continuing ability to retain the wider pro indy vote.
 

Salmond did tonnes for the independence movement but to paint him as someone who always got it right strategically is utter nonsense.

The mess he got into over currency in the last referendum campaign - being bested by Alistair Darling of all people really was not good.

I think Sturgeon is doing the right thing to build support for independence - a lot of those who support has shifted won't be instinctively as hard on the issue as you are - like it or not trust has to be won.

Remember only a year ago Yes was not leading - 20+ polls later with Yes leading - she and the SNP must be doing something right.

Yes, there needs to be a plan B - but you don't tell your enemy that plan - and you certainly should not potentially close off a bargaining chip by launching back of a postage stamp legal challenges.

[git-intae-thum]

1 minute ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

It's only a flaw if there's a viable alternative means of achieving independence, which it's fairly clear there isn't. The independence movement could really use a dose of reality that it won't be happening for quite a while. 

And yes that is undemocratic blah blah blah but as I've said before if anyone thinks there's going to be mass civil unrest in Scotland as a result I've some magic beans to sell you 

Oh...well...back in the box then Scotland....   Shut up an eat yer cereal

If another democratic mandate is ignored by Westminster (I agree it is an outrage).......and more importantly, the SNP do nothing, a couple of things are very possible.

-The SNP under its current guise will lose the support of a good whack of the wider indy movement (including me). This down to leadership inaction and voter disillusionment. Certainly this would ensure no further snp majorities. It could even allow unionist coalitions back into gov What a legacy that would be.

-A split could very well result and and a new harder line independence party emerge.

- SNP membership is currently dropping. This trend would only increase. Party finances are already a worry. A continuing haemorrhaging of membership will put real pressure on party resources and again, then the Sturgeon leadership.

If Westminster continue the dictatorial tone then, the SNP leadership are going to have to think big to prevent the above very real possibilities.

They will have to be much more vocal and forthright in taking the fight to Westminster through all political, legal and even diplomatic channels. If this leads to increased political strife with the Westminster gov then so be it. Let's remember that the Westminster gov has very little support in Scotland. It certainly has  no democratic mandate to carry on as it does. In any modern supposedly democratic country that is a state of affairs that can never last.

By highlighting to the majority of Scotland how little Westminster respects their democracy it can only increase independence support. The question is whether Ms Sturgeon has the stomach for that fight tbh. Especially after her s.30 strategy will have been shown up as a dead end.

As I said in an earlier post, I really feel this next parliamentary term will be the last chance....not for independence.....but certainly for a Sturgeon led gradualist SNP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

14 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Oh...well...back in the box then Scotland....   Shut up an eat yer cereal

If another democratic mandate is ignored by Westminster (I agree it is an outrage).......and more importantly, the SNP do nothing, a couple of things are very possible.

-The SNP under its current guise will lose the support of a good whack of the wider indy movement (including me). This down to leadership inaction and voter disillusionment. Certainly this would ensure no further snp majorities. It could even allow unionist coalitions back into gov What a legacy that would be.

-A split could very well result and and a new harder line independence party emerge.

- SNP membership is currently dropping. This trend would only increase. Party finances are already a worry. A continuing haemorrhaging of membership will put real pressure on party resources and again, then the Sturgeon leadership.

If Westminster continue the dictatorial tone then, the SNP leadership are going to have to think big to prevent the above very real possibilities.

They will have to be much more vocal and forthright in taking the fight to Westminster through all political, legal and even diplomatic channels. If this leads to increased political strife with the Westminster gov then so be it. Let's remember that the Westminster gov has very little support in Scotland. It certainly has  no democratic mandate to carry on as it does. In any modern supposedly democratic country that is a state of affairs that can never last.

By highlighting to the majority of Scotland how little Westminster respects their democracy it can only increase independence support. The question is whether Ms Sturgeon has the stomach for that fight tbh. Especially after her s.30 strategy will have been shown up as a dead end.

As I said in an earlier post, I really feel this next parliamentary term will be the last chance....not for independence.....but certainly for a Sturgeon led gradualist SNP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be clear I'm pro independence, and I don't really see anything you're saying here which contradicts what I'm saying. A lot of ifs buts and maybes but nothing concrete to suggest there's any non gradualist policy which is likely to work. Obviously you can be upset about it but not much point in lashing out at people pointing out the fairly obvious that independence isn't gonna be happening in the immediate future regardless of approach. I'm happy to make a £20 charity bet that when it does it'll be through a referendum agreed with the UK rather than any of the more fanciful notions. 

[Erih Shtrep]

1 hour ago, git-intae-thum said:

Oh...well...back in the box then Scotland....   Shut up an eat yer cereal

If another democratic mandate is ignored by Westminster (I agree it is an outrage).......and more importantly, the SNP do nothing, a couple of things are very possible.

-The SNP under its current guise will lose the support of a good whack of the wider indy movement (including me). This down to leadership inaction and voter disillusionment. Certainly this would ensure no further snp majorities. It could even allow unionist coalitions back into gov What a legacy that would be.

-A split could very well result and and a new harder line independence party emerge.

- SNP membership is currently dropping. This trend would only increase. Party finances are already a worry. A continuing haemorrhaging of membership will put real pressure on party resources and again, then the Sturgeon leadership.

If Westminster continue the dictatorial tone then, the SNP leadership are going to have to think big to prevent the above very real possibilities.

They will have to be much more vocal and forthright in taking the fight to Westminster through all political, legal and even diplomatic channels. If this leads to increased political strife with the Westminster gov then so be it. Let's remember that the Westminster gov has very little support in Scotland. It certainly has  no democratic mandate to carry on as it does. In any modern supposedly democratic country that is a state of affairs that can never last.

By highlighting to the majority of Scotland how little Westminster respects their democracy it can only increase independence support. The question is whether Ms Sturgeon has the stomach for that fight tbh. Especially after her s.30 strategy will have been shown up as a dead end.

As I said in an earlier post, I really feel this next parliamentary term will be the last chance....not for independence.....but certainly for a Sturgeon led gradualist SNP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sturgeon understands politics better than you or that wings idiot.  

[git-intae-thum]

19 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Tories straight up said they wanted to make a huge thing out of bickering within the yes movement to support their plan to just ride it out and, well, *gestures at the politics sub*

No infighting here. I would much rather the SNP remain united. However it would be daft not to acknowledge that there are various faultlines running through the party at the moment. The major one being the strategy over the route to rederendum/independence. My post was very much about putting out what I think could happen,should the leadership continue to allow the perception to fester that they are not really pushing for independence. For a huge wedge of the membership and voter base that is the key issue. If it deserts the SNP, the leadership are toast....and so will indy be for at least a while, whilst the movement reorganises.

7 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

To be clear I'm pro independence, and I don't really see anything you're saying here which contradicts what I'm saying. A lot of ifs buts and maybes but nothing concrete to suggest there's any non gradualist policy which is likely to work. Obviously you can be upset about it but not much point in lashing out at people pointing out the fairly obvious that independence isn't gonna be happening in the immediate future regardless of approach. I'm happy to make a £20 charity bet that when it does it'll be through a referendum agreed with the UK rather than any of the more fanciful notions. 

I agree that a legally sanctioned referendum endorsed by both governments is the optimum option. No arguments.... so even if I was a gambling man, I would have to decline your bet

But let's not be too hasty. Categorically ruling other ideas out, removes cards from our hand....not Westminster's.

Despite the fact that all these different factions seem to have appeared in the last couple of years, pushing their own minority agendas, the one thing that you would hope unites all is the push for independence. After this election and this horrible covid thing is out the road, that has to be the main focus for scotgov in the next parliament. They have to put up more of a fight. It's the only way I can see to keep it all on the road.