Albus Bulbasaur
-
Posts
1,465 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Albus Bulbasaur
-
-
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.
0 -
Why do people that want to enact a massive change on society believe that the people that are content are the ones who need to do the convincing?
The argument for staying in the Union can be a shrug of the shoulders until the Yes side actually come up with anything substantial that amounts to more than birthday caird pish.
I honestly find it remarkable they're trying to wing it so badly, they've clearly taken lessons from Brexit. Rather than having answers for sincere massive questions they're just going to go off of trying to appeal to the flag shaggers and inward looking da types.
1 -
I doubt there will actually be one but as I'm not fuelled by insecure identity issues I'll vote No for the second time of asking.
0 -
8 minutes ago, renton said:
Well, no the 'safety' of each path is therefore contingent on the probability of each leading to your death. Flip a coin on engaging with Sturgeon now and losing or alternately burying the Yes movement, or letting them win election after election while they tar you with 'anti-democrat' stoke up some real genuine greivance and you will end up fighting a referendum eventually and probably under pretty foregone conclusions as far as WM goes.
So far as it goes, there will be a second referendum so long as Yes votes can command better than 45% of votes in GEs and Holyrood elections. That is, if WM actually want Scotland to be a part of 'Our Glorious And Providential Union of Greatness' or just a gridlocked mess that no PM can actually control. Therefore, my point is that disengagement might be a good strategy in the short term -that 'short' period might only reasonably carry over one parliamentary term.
Bruh this isn't Final Destination ffs.
0 -
1 minute ago, renton said:
My question is - what is your 'safe path'?
Not something I've put too much thought to, as I have said it was an analogy regarding why you shouldn't take risks due to over confidence. For goodwill before I enjoy the rest of my day offline if option A is to risk something and option B is to avoid the risk then at that moment option B is safer. Of course long term this option B safe path could lead to your bloody death later down the line but at the immediate point of choosing not to jump you're safer than you are mid jump.
I'm going to avoid analogies from now on.
0 -
1 minute ago, welshbairn said:
There's nothing safe about getting dragged into pariah status by a government intent on ignoring its international obligations on multiple issues and ripping up advantageous trade agreements. If the ship's sinking it's often safer to jump.
Aye but there's blood thirsty great white sharks circling the boat and you've got a gash on your leg whereas Sir Keir is on the horizon furiously rowing towards you.
0 -
1 minute ago, 101 said:
How is this an election bid, Labour have had a miserable time in the last 2 elections in Scotland so can see why they want to avoid another one just now but I'm not sure anyone reads independence as an election bid.
And perhaps if Nanfy was serious about resolving the issues in the NHS she would be campaigning to get us back in the EU so we can attract staff from the EU again.
It's an election bid because as Nicola said herself these are the terms she will fight the general election over if she fails at getting a S30.
If she was confident she'd get a section 30 or win the SC case she wouldn't already be setting out their stall for the next GE. She's understandably setting up her position to fight yet another GE after failing to have an actual referendum. At best it's contingency planning.
0 -
2 minutes ago, renton said:
I'm not sure it is.
What exactly is your 'longer, safer path' again?
Sure seemed like it considering you didn't really combat anything I said rather just added more detail to the issue.
What we're doing now is a bit boring, like the other day when you misread a post and then failed to reply when shown what you had been mistaken with.
For clarity my analogy is regarding the idea you would take a risk when you don't have to. Sure you can argue it's naive long term but in my analogy the "safe path" is still at the moment safer than a risky jump.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:
Its not my problem though. It is all of our problem.
It's not about winning a vote or not, it's the democratic route to a vote and your (albeit understandable) inability to set out the democratic route for you, me and everyone else in Scotland to exercise democracy should be as much of a concern to you as me.
Flip the argument, if say Labour was elected and decided Scotland should leave the UK and as a unionist you had no way to have a vote and Scotland returned 50+ Conservative MP's demanding yo stay in the union, you would rightfully ask what is the route to not make it happen and as a democrat I'd be tight beside you asking the same, even if I disagreed on what the end outcome should be.
I disagree with your framing tbh. I'm content with the situation and believe there's a democratic route through the democratically elected MPs at Westminster.
I think we probably agree people perhaps should care more but the general public probably care more about Love Island than flights to Rwanda so I can't say I'm surprised every day normal people aren't fussed about the finer details of parliament and sovereignty.
I've said previously campaigns regarding PR and movements pointing out particular grievances in the system as a slow burn approach is more palatable than the emotionally lead screeching grievance approach we have at the moment.
0 -
2 minutes ago, renton said:
Prior to the existence of Holyrood it was often touted by those at Westminster as the mechanism by which they might negotiate independence.
If the current Westminster parties refuse to engage, they'll end up getting cuffed, and the next Prime Minister will have to say No, and then Sturgeon will just roll into the Holyrood election on the same platform and likely win that one too, and that'll just keep stoking up resentment on both sides up North - Indy folk who will just keep counting up the various democratic mandates being ignored and some Unionists who will feel the pressure of not being able to get any traction in domestic politics beyond the constitutional question.
Disengagement, therefore might be a good short term strategy but simply defers the issue - engagement, though higher risk at least buys the potentiality of burying the Indy movement. This is a prize that is worth WM's time - unless of course they genuinely treat Scotland as a problem that can be safely ignored, rather than a functional constituent nation within their state. If WM ever want to really get a grip on governing Scotland again, they need to break the SNP and the wider Indy movement.
Thats a long way of saying you agree with my post.
-1 -
7 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:
Again, for zillionth time, it's a weird sort of democracy that enshrines something the losing side said and no current government cam bind the hands of a future one.
APART FROM IN THIS ONE SINGLE INSTANCE BECAUSE REASONS
The once in a generation argument is fucking desperate and indicative of a lack of testicular fortitude or belief in being able to argue the case for the union.
If there was a codified interval, fine. But there isn't so there's no basis to put any weight on this issue.
I'm any case 9 years is a perfectly reasonable number, they've been 3 UK general elections, 3 PMs (probably will be 4) 2 Scottish elections and 2 fundamental rewritings of the devolved settlement, one without consent and there will be a 3rd before October 23.
A generation, several in my opinion, has passed. There is a cast iron mandate, confirmed multiple times and it does supporters of the Union no favours to pretend otherwise. It would probably be a better idea to start putting together your arguments for the Union and put away the specious offensive dribbley pish about Scotland having the right to self determination is "Above its station."
You lacking the testicular fortitude to quote me and then try and show my words as out of context does you no favours.
The SNP saying that voting for them is a definitive way to enact Independence is above its station as they evidently don't have the power. Feel free to quote this if they win the SC case.
0 -
20 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:
Interesting example, that. The trouble with it is, the path is guarded by a vile troll ten times your size who says "you can't use it".
My analogy was regarding Unionists choosing to have a referendum just because they're confident they'd win, it wasn't aimed at Indy supporters who are frustrated.
0 -
6 minutes ago, renton said:
That's not the plan. The idea is that some kind of GE win (whether base don vote share, or number of seats) should trigger negotiations on independence. Not that it should trigger another request for a S30 for another referendum.
The idea is flawed and unrealistic imo. I can't see Labour or Tories agreeing to this idea.
3 minutes ago, Zern said:De facto referendum, start quaking when the SNP withdraw their MPs from Westminster and pass a motion for UDI.
I live in the Borders so UDI would be hilarious imo.
2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:Only you cannot. I'm not sure you grasp the problem. It's up to Westminster to grant one, regardless of what Scotland wants or votes for. The only alternative I can see is that SNP or other pro independence parties stand in seats outside Scotland and win those (they would never) to form a full UK govt, which clearly would never happen.
I'm not clear on how this issue isn't one that unionists can grasp. I'm not particularly keen on SNP and while likely to vote yes in any vote, not 100% convinced, but what does concern me and a great many is this undemocratic nature. Maybe people who are pro union would like the opportunity to put this to bed once and for all? If I was the UK govt, I'd want the vote ASAP and kill off the SNP now.
Oh no you're wrong I fully grasp what your problem is with the constitutional set up. I understand your frustrations and why you think more people should be concerned by this, as addressed previously it's quite evident that a lot of people are indifferent and this big perceived injustice just isn't really one the majority of Scottish people feel bothered about on a day to day basis.
Having a referendum just because you're confident you'd win would be foolish. You don't jump across a gorge with a death drop just because you're confident you would make it if there's a longer safe path around the side.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Zern said:
It is a plan though. With several steps. At the last they will finally become the thing they've been called all these years; a one issue party.
Just like how the Tories only stand for 1 thing in Scotland, the NO TO INDYREF2 party.
The grand plan is to have a General Election and moan when WM doesn't grant a section 30. When do i start quaking in my boots?
1 minute ago, Left Back said:That's the point you're missing. Why is the answer no?
After the last indyref a clearly defined trigger should have been put in place defining the requirements to invoke a new Section 30. Granted they'd all probably still be arguing to this day what the trigger should be but I'm not aware of any attempt by either side to codify it.
I'm not missing any point, WM will have a multitude of reasons which they've said numerous times, "once in a generation" seems to be one of their main ones, they've recently been citing pro Indy parties elected to Holyrood and the way the vote splits in percentages as another.
I sincerely think this particular argument would have weight and support if they hadn't literally granted the powers less than a decade ago. That makes it very difficult to argue that WM are being unreasonable to most people.
Can agree somewhat on your last part though. That's hardly the fault of Unionists though.
0 -
6 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:
But that's not the democratic route. In 2014, it was 'granted' by Westminster as it was recognised there was enough of a mandate, but legally, it didn't need to be done.
You could have ever single person vote for pro independence parties in every election in Scotland and the UK government doesn't have to allow a referendum, political pressure or not.
Regardless on anyone's view as to whether Scotland should be independent or not the question. If it relies on goodwill of others and not a clear democratic route, then it's not democratic.
This is also what we've been saying since 2014. You can democratically get WM to grant one right enough.
Funny how some people don't mind the SNP lying about this continously to gain votes though. That's where the Alba Das have my sympathy.
0 -
Just now, Zern said:
The fact that the Lord Advocate has succeeded in having this taken up by the Supreme Court demonstrates that this is far from settled law.
The First Minister is thorough, with backup plans for every eventuality. She did no come before us with 1 plan, but 3.
The offer for a section 30 remains open, to whoever occupies the PM slot between now and 19th October 2023.
Good luck with that!
Plan 1 is ask (we know the answer is no)
Plan 2 is courts (we don't know)
Plan 3 is GE (that's not a plan)
0 -
1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:
And that’s your prerogative but it becomes an argument for independence in itself.
And as it stands I don't think that argument engages or turns on enough people. Perhaps it will in the future.
I personally think losing the SC battle would be catastrophic for Indy and I think the following GE would result in them losing seats.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Zern said:
More movement?
We got a bill announced yesterday that includes an example of the ballot paper for a referendum on 19th October 2023.
We got the Lord Advocate going to the Supreme Court for clarification on the legality of holding an advisory referendum absent a section 30.
We got a further announcement for what happens in the event it all fails, and that the GE will be run on a single issue from the SNP Leader.
Lots of movement. Plenty still to come. With papers to answer specifics on monetary policy, EU membership and more.
I'd count that as movement, stating that you're going to SC over the issue is what's already been the state of play for the past 6 or 7 years... having a further GE after SC ruling against you is barely "movement" unless you're a sloth.
0 -
1 minute ago, oaksoft said:
I'll try but I'm not sure how I can make it easier.
You keep saying Sturgeon should chase a section 30 order.
We know that. We all get it.
That wasn't the question.
The question was what should she do when they refuse to give her one?
You simply repeating the line about requesting a section 30 order shows you either don't understand the question, don't have an answer or you are, as I suspect, playing silly buggers.
Well I have actually answered this already a few pages back.
In that situation you would need to convince WM directly to do so. There would not be the power at Holyrood to call a referendum, as people have stated for a long time now. You're getting wound up I don't have the answer to something Nicola or any Indy supporter has themselves. She explained this yesterday.
I understand this is enough of a reason for some people to be annoyed and feel grievance right enough.
0 -
Just now, Dons_1988 said:
Minority in your opinion.
I mean this with respect but I think it’s not that serious to you because it suits your views on the matter.
Well yeah, also backed up by previous referendums, polling and the amount of Scots that bother to vote for Indy supporting parties.
Yeah you're right on that second part, pretty obvious though, if I supported Scottish Independence I'd be just as riled up as the rest of you guys. I can see why people feel like it's serious to them and why you may believe more people should care though.
0 -
Just now, Scary Bear said:
SNP candidates standing on a single issue of independence for Scotland isn’t a hard issue to get your head around. Or at least it shouldn’t be. If they are explicitly saying that independence is all they are standing for and people vote SNP for some other unknown reason, then those people are beyond help.
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?
0 -
3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
Really?
You're not answering their questions either.
I'm not answering one question to your satisfaction... I've answered plenty of questions over the last few pages and asked plenty and had no issue. Unsurprisingly you're the outlier here.
Perhaps you need to dumb down your question for me to understand you great big brained debate lord you.
0 -
Just now, Dons_1988 said:
So I get that, but that depends on who England elect and a whole load of politics in between.
Do you not see the serious issue here? I know you don’t want Scottish independence but there’s a fundamental point that Scotland has no democratic route out of the union if it wants it. That’s a real problem, whether you support it or not.
I see that it's serious to a minority group of the population.
If enough people cared or wanted Indy then we'd see more movement on the issue, as it stands people aren't that fussed, what I personally think is neither here nor there really, I've already expressed i understand and I'm sympathetic towards those that do support Indy. Especially people that didn't have a say in 2014, the Yes campaign should've answered the questions that lost them the referendum a lot better.
0 -
Just now, oaksoft said:
You're actually answering a different question to the one I'm asking and you've deliberately ignored the moving goalposts argument but I'll leave it at that. For whatever reason, you're not debating in good faith.
Just as an aside, the British have form for digging their heels in and denying countries a legitimate right to decide for themselves whether they should be independent or not. From India to Ireland and everywhere in between, you might want to ask yourself what happens when countries get repeatedly denied in this regard. When you consider that, you'll have the reason why it's crucial to respect democracy regardless of whether or not you agree with the thing being asked of you.
Certainly managing with everyone else fine. Probably says something more about your style of debating or discussing issues with people and your need to try and be superior online champ.
0
When will indyref2 happen?
in The Politics Forum
Posted
Aye apparantly he repeated it a few times so he must have got a bit carried away. Sensible for them to retract it though.