Scottish Parliamentary Elections May 2021

[Monkey Tennis]

8 hours ago, Lex said:

 

Well you’ve kind of got the point there. Westminster could agree to another referendum, but what’s the best case scenario for unionists if that happens?
The best case scenario is that we win convincingly (again) and that just puts us right back into the situation we are just now. That situation being a load of separatists calling for an independence referendum. Only difference is this time they’re asking for Indyref3 instead of indyref2.
So, what’s the point in having one? The separatists have already shown that they won’t accept the result if they lose. Are we actually supposed to believe that it would be different second time round? Of course it wouldn’t be. Would you give up on it if you lost twice?
The dream will never die speeches will be rewritten and spoken the morning after and #indyref3 will be the next twitter trend.
Therefore unionists in Westminster and here have two options. Either we forever indulge neverendum separatists (until they win a referendum, in which case that will be the issue closed in their eyes) or shut them down.
We both know which of those options they’re going to choose.

 

Quite the democrat, aren't you?

[Lex]

Nice to see you back! I hope things are going well.
I think your answer is deflection though.  The longer you play the Paisley "NO" card, the longer Johnson plays to the gallery, the longer he makes an arse of things well- it's not looking good for the union, eh?
You're worried. Lex is worried. Johnson is worried. 
We see you.

Again, you’re slowly getting there. Unionists cannot win a second referendum. We either get the most votes (again) and the status quo of repeated demands from nationalists for another referendum is maintained, or independence.
Nationalists can’t lose. Either they get the least votes and they can keep asking for another shot or independence.
I mean, if there was an Indyref2 campaign in 2023, do you think wee Nic is going to stand infront of all those ‘once in a generation’ placards again? Maybe with a *unless there’s a political change in the future or we win a majority in 2026* addendum underneath. Or *this time, we mean it*
There is zero chance of unionists indulging the nationalists like this again. Therefore, there will be no legally binding second referendum. It will be allowed to drag through the courts ad nauseam and any wild cat referendum will be boycotted by large swathes of unionists who obviously won’t respect the result.

[Wee Bully]

3 minutes ago, Lex said:

 

Again, you’re slowly getting there. Unionists cannot win a second referendum. We either get the most votes (again) and the status quo of repeated demands from nationalists for another referendum is maintained, or independence.
Nationalists can’t lose. Either they get the least votes and they can keep asking for another shot or independence.
I mean, if there was an Indyref2 campaign in 2023, do you think wee Nic is going to stand infront of all those ‘once in a generation’ placards again? Maybe with a *unless there’s a political change in the future or we win a majority in 2026* addendum underneath. Or *this time, we mean it*
There is zero chance of unionists indulging the nationalists like this again. Therefore, there will be no legally binding second referendum. It will be allowed to drag through the courts ad nauseam and any wild cat referendum will be boycotted by large swathes of unionists who obviously won’t respect the result.

 

What’s the democratic route to another vote then?

[Lex]

What’s the democratic route to another vote then?

The same as in 2014. Get a referendum bill voted through by Holyrood and Westminster.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Clearly Lex is trolling and getting a higher than merited number of bites, however there are still a depressingly high number of unionists too thick to understand that the Pro Indy parties are only in a position to legit ask for another one as a direct result of being elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment to seek one in the event of specific changes in circumstances, which went on to occur.

Maybe Lex is genuinely stupid. Who knows [emoji23]

[LongTimeLurker]

7 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Cameron is Scottish?

His father was from Huntly originally.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

5 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

His father was from Huntly originally.

Time to replace the H with a C.

[Granny Danger]

One short of an outright majority, increase seat numbers, increase share of vote and all in the face of tactical voting.  All after 14 years in government.

Oh, and a clear and significant pro-Independence majority in Holyrood.

 

[Caledonian1]

5 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

The owning of personal slaves was banned in Scotland in 1778-229 years before abolition of the trade.

This followed the case of James Knight, a slave who won his freedom when the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled Scotland could not support slavery.

This important precedent didn’t mean all slaves were freed, but did mean no person in Scotland could beheld by law as a slave, which wasn’t the case in England.

https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/article/section/history-of-slavery/scotland-and-slavery/

yes, I think you are right there......I recall being in Paris, it was the morning after the amazing victory over France {McFadden screamer} when the news came through........our group were all delighted that slavery had finally in other countries.....what a trip

Edited May 9, 2021 by Caledonian1

[LongTimeLurker]

5 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

The owning of personal slaves was banned in Scotland in 1778-229 years before abolition of the trade....

Miners were still in serfdom until 1799.

[BigDoddyKane]

Id think the important thing is to have indy2 and win it. Independence wont be off the table if its a No vote but I dont think there will be much appetite for another referendum for some time after that. 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by BigDoddyKane

[Dan Steele]

6 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

 

Scotland globalised and industrialised slavery on the back of our delightful union with England.

Are you really going to argue with this?

This trait of Unionists always looking backwards to what was, either the mythic Golden Age or the less palatable stuff, to prop up the status quo is quite telling. Quite happy to be on the side of those who look forward to the future and being part of an independent country that won't be stained by the current right-wing drift of the UK's current government.

I am happy to see you back, but disappointed by the lack of your trademark 'tartan gonk'!

[Florentine_Pogen]

Colonialism I'll grant you - and put that down to we Jocks.
Falkirk made Britannia Rule the Waves by dint of the carronade.  The single greatest contribution to our islands' storied history.

Ooh, a Horatio Hornblower fan boy.

[Richie]

Something that irks me because I seldom see it properly challenged, is the idea that another referendum would be hideously divisive and damaging.  

Yep, it's a transparent and easy straw to clutch at because there isn't a particularly positive case for the Union that can/has been put forward.
Similarly the introduction of terms like "seperatist".
People will obviously argue over the issue, that's the nature of politics, but there hasn't been any particular civil disruption.
Its an individual's problem if they can't accept another viewpoint without melting down.

As you say, its one of a few things that should be called out.

[Salt n Vinegar]

9 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

12 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Well, that's that.  72 pro indy seats and Raith gub the Pars.  Could have bern better, but time to get the beers out. 
See youse on the barricades! 
Slàinte! 

Dundee gubbing Raith?

One day at a time.  I was dubious about Raith's chances yesterday but it was a weird day.  Watching the BBC politics programme on telly, watching the tablet for the P&B election banter and keeping an eye on Bet365 for Raith v the Pars.  And they say men can't multi-task... 

[NUMBER 7]

51 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

One short of an outright majority, increase seat numbers, increase share of vote and all in the face of tactical voting.  All after 14 years in government.

Oh, and a clear and significant pro-Independence majority in Holyrood.

 

 

The number of seats are an irrelevance. It’s the numbers voting one way or another that is important.

Still only 32% of the electorate voted for Pro Indy parties.  The 36% that didn’t vote and in past Scottish elections that has been nearer 50% that didn’t vote can’t just be forgotten if Independence became a reality.

 

[Donathan]

What’s the democratic route to another vote then?

One to be voted for in the parliament that is sovereign over such matters (Westminster)

I see two ways that could happen:

1. A UK government is elected on a manifesto that includes a pledge of Scottish independence (not happening)

2. The SNP manage to leverage a referendum as a concession in a hung Parliament scenario (more likely)

Simply put, as long as this remains a reserved power then the entire UK electorate is sovereign over Scotland (and England/Wales/NI). Westminster would need to vote a referendum for one to be held legally.

[101]

It's weird that the Tories are pushing the line that independence isn't in the competence of the parliament, they clearly think people are thick enough to forget the UK Government writing to the European commission to ask to leave. If this is their great plan then they really are useless defenders of the Union.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

15 minutes ago, NUMBER 7 said:

 

The number of seats are an irrelevance. It’s the numbers voting one way or another that is important.

Still only 32% of the electorate voted for Pro Indy parties.  The 36% that didn’t vote and in past Scottish elections that has been nearer 50% that didn’t vote can’t just be forgotten if Independence became a reality.

 

Yoon semantics as you desperately look for a straw to grab at. 

By any definition of the Scottish electoral system, the SNP/Greens have won an overwhelming majority to pursue an Indyref2 at a time of their choosing. 

Suck it up. 

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

30 minutes ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

This trait of Unionists always looking backwards to what was, either the mythic Golden Age or the less palatable stuff, to prop up the status quo is quite telling. Quite happy to be on the side of those who look forward to the future and being part of an independent country that won't be stained by the current right-wing drift of the UK's current government.

I am happy to see you back, but disappointed by the lack of your trademark 'tartan gonk'!

He’s not looking backwards. Just correcting the wrong assumption , often espoused on here,that we Scots were forced into colonialism by the evil English. The Scots were at the forefront of the ever expanding British Empire whether it was in Asia, Africa or the Americas. At one time I visited Jamaica regularly and the number of people with Scottish names is quite remarkable.

The East India Company had a strong Scottish influence. Yes, Scotland was very much to the fore in the Empire, which, by the way brought many benefits to the colonised countries. If everything was so bad, why would they be in the Commonwealth?

We were colonised by the Romans but they brought many benefits. Just part of world civilisation.

Can’t understand why so many people think we need to go around apologising for things which happened, and were considered normal, centuries ago?