Albus Bulbasaur
-
Posts
1,465 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Albus Bulbasaur
-
-
1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:
So therein lies the original question, what is the democratic (i.e. the people of Scotland) route to independence if voting SNP on a clear mandate for a referendum doesn’t give them ‘powers above their station’ and a Westminster government has no inclination to allow a vote?
They would need to change the mind of Westminster in this scenario. That's where the power lies. Get Labour or the Tories or whoever else to promise a Scottish referendum and get elected.
I think some people seriously overestimate what Holyrood and devolution actually means.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:
Have they acknowledged granting one in the future? You’re being slightly generous there as they could easily be ambiguous indefinitely as to what would trigger it. I’m very sceptical that they’ve made this acknowledgment in good faith.
The point is that unless the SC rules otherwise then it’s entirely in their gift to grant one based on no definitive trigger points. So theoretically the SNP could win 99% of a 100% voter turnout and they still wouldn’t be obliged to do anything.
Im not really sure what you’re getting at with wales but it may well be beneficial to have clearer guidelines about what would trigger a devolved government to have the power to hold a referendum.
SC might show that devolved governments don't have the power to do so which is what has been argued to death since the start of devolution.
I've said this at every turn where people believe voting SNP is somehow going to give them powers above their station.
I'd agree it would be best for all countries in the UK to have clear framework for what would need to happen for Independence so without that i can understand such grievances. Unfortunately for you I believe this is a minority grievance and if it was genuinely at least half the country bothered by it then I'd imagine you'd see movement on the issue.
-1 -
Lisa Nandy hitting the nail on the head as per usual.
-2 -
Just now, BigDoddyKane said:
I think the aim is that this adds the pressure to get an Indyref
Oh aye if course I get that but imo it's just bluster, especially after the event of an unfavourable SC ruling.
We'd still be in the same boat.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:
If the Scottish Government are not granted the power to hold a referendum, then it’s the best they can do to demonstrate that a majority of people in Scotland want independence.
I don't think anyone could reasonably argue with certainty that SNP winning a GE would mean Scotland wants independence even if the SNP try and frame it that way, like they've done previously multiple times.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:
They are refusing though. Even if the arbitrary mandate you mention was achieved, they’re not bound to grant one.
If the Supreme Court rules there’s no way for them to call a referendum without a section 30, you’re essentially saying Westminster have the power to deny Scot’s the opportunity to leave the union indefinitely, which means it’s not a democratic union and that is quite serious.
They're not indefinitely refusing one though, they've granted one less than a decade ago and they've repeatedly pointed to reasons why they don't feel one needs to be granted at this time whilst acknowledging one may be granted in the future.
The SC ruling shall certainly be interesting. I'm sure they'll adequately explain the legality behind their decision.
Out of curiosity what do you think is the appropriate mechanism for Wales to gain independence?
0 -
2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:
What's the democratic route to you giving Stormzy his dog and couch back?
25 greenies.
0 -
Just now, oaksoft said:
You're still not answering the question.
And that last paragraph highlights the problem.
The SNP were told to win a General Election. Which they did.
Then they were told to win at Holyrood. Which they did.
Now they are being fobbed off with pish about winning 50% in an election when the Tories had a Brexit referendum with 35% of the vote at a General Election. If the SNP did achieve 50%, no doubt the goalposts would be shifted again.
The SNP have done everything asked of them. If you truly believe in democracy you'll agree there is no justification in withholding that order whether you agree with a referendum being held right now or not. It's unreasonable to deny them it.
If you don't have an answer that's fair enough but the original question still stands. What is the democratic route for the SNP when the Tories are simply refusing to allow a Section 30 order after the SNP have won a clear democratic mandate to obtain one?
I've answered your question...
They're not "simply refusing" to grant one as they don't feel like their is a clear mandate for one, this is what will be contested in court. This argument would hold weight if the Tories hadn't granted one less than a decade ago...
-3 -
1 minute ago, Crùbag said:
Er, they have done.
Evidently not.
0 -
6 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:
That's not what I asked though. What democratic route can Scotland take? Scottish MP's cannot form a UK government and therefore grant a section 30, so what democratic route is there?
They can take the democratic route of getting a section 30 granted like they did in 2014....
-3 -
1 minute ago, oaksoft said:
To be fair, that's not answering the question which was asked of you.
If Westminster simply refuse under any circumstances to issue a section 30 order, what is the democratic route to an independence referendum? The SNP have in fairness done everything demanded of them in terms of electoral mandates etc.
It is an answer as to the democratic process, acquiring a section 30 is part of that process. Unilaterally declaring a GE as an Indy ref is not the answer to the democratic process.
Well considering they've already accepted one less than a decade ago and have said they would do in the future I don't think framing anything as "refuse under any circumstance" is accurate.
The democratic route is acquiring a section 30, usually by political pressure, I'd say there's a few ways they can show this going forward, presently the fact pro Indy parties get under 50% of the vote is an area they would probably need to improve on.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:
So maybe you can answer the big question then, what is the democratic route to a referendum? Not whether we should be independent or not, but just the route to the asking of the question?
The question has been answered multiple times.
In fact Nicola herself mentioned it multiple times yesterday, you need a section 30 from Westminster unless the SC judges otherwise.
0 -
Just now, Scary Bear said:
‘Something’ is stating that it’s a single issue. Previously, back in the mists of time in the ‘90s, the Tories who were in power at that time, said that if people wanted independence they could just vote for it. That’s because they never foresaw the SNP getting the majority of MPs in Scotland. Then they changed their tune.
The SNP explicitly saying that the 2024 General Election (in terms of Scotland) is a de facto vote for independence at least shows that if they get a majority of votes it is purely on the independence issue. Could backfire on them I suppose, as I don’t think many people will be hugely impressed with what the SNP MPs have achieved since 2015. I was planning to vote Labour in the hope of getting the Tories out.
The SNP saying it's a single issue GE doesn't change anything about the mandate, mechanisms or impact of the GE. They'd be exactly where they are now.
They pretty much campaign every GE on this single issue anyway. Nicola says so isn't going to unlock this issue, it's empty rhetoric, why would other MPs play along with this ridiculous game. Local MPs will try and win their seats and promote local issues and vote winning subjects no matter what Nicola tells her worshippers.
0 -
I was once tripping out my skull on magic mushrooms when a pigeon flew straight into a wall right in front of me.
1 -
9 hours ago, Scary Bear said:
At least Nicola went on the offensive for once. Telling the (reckless) Toaries that if they don’t allow a referendum the SNP will run for the 2024 General Election on a ‘vote yes for independence’ platform and turn it into a de facto referendum is a move. Not sure how successful it’ll be in achieving independence. Possibly not very, but it’s something at least.
You guys are easily bought.
"Something" being the fact that the SNP will take part in a GE like they regularly do.
0 -
1 minute ago, Richie said:
That's where I am with things.
Throw in Ukraine/Defence, Covid/Vaccine procurement etc will be used.As a Unionist I know people would love it if I was raging or losing the head and admittedly I might be if I was in anyway worried we would lose the argument but right now I'm comfortable and enjoying this false dawn.
Let's skip this foreplay segment and get straight into the gritty detail which the SNP so far don't seem to want to do.
They're good at throwing red meat and endorsing loonies but when it comes to the forthcoming debate they've produced nothing of value. We are still in the same 2014 debate position. After a decade you might have expected slightly more...
-2 -
-
4 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:
Hate to give the game away or paint this in primary colour crayon for you but every avenue in the pursuit of a vote is win win. If no s30 and SC rules against a consultative referendum this will make a fundamental change to the constitutional make up of the UK. It will stop being a voluntary union where the question can be avoided with "now is not the time" to an established position that "now can never be the time."
It will kill the union in concept and reality before any vote in Scotland takes place.
Did I accidentally venture onto reddit?
This is absolute neckbeard fan fiction.
-1 -
9 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:
They've had all afternoon and most of the evening to recover from the shock of being out manoeuvred and all they've got is "publicity stunt" "can down the road" and the ramblings of a household solvent addicted old racist who thinks this is in some way similar to the creation of Pakistan.
Yeah Nicola Sturgeon on the telly demanding a referendum as she's done for the past decade is really not what anyone without an entrenched position would consider out manoeuvring the opposition.
If her side wins the courts battle then she would have done so but right now it's just posture.
The main blockage in the Indy vision is the inability to discuss or improve any of the arguments that lost them the last referendum.
As I said before it all so far seems very Brexity and "trust me" politics without a slither of a convincing argument being presented. The lack of confidence in the willingness to present a positive Indy case is extremely telling right now.
0 -
37 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:
There is no ace.
Today was a masterclass in kicking the can down the road. Said with conviction and aplomb.
Sturgeon has extended her time in office and the daft wee NatWits have more opportunities to garb up in military outfits and wield claymores around.
That suits both of them.
Don't know why anyone is red dotting this.
When people are in winning positions they don't hand out concessions and downplay their own hand.
If this was a confident strategy they wouldn't have already dropped the spoiler that when they lose the SC battle they'll blame it on Westminster and have another GE advocating unrealistic propositions.
10 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:It's clever in the sense that if, as expected the supreme Court deems it not legal, it gives the SNP a free hit to make the GE on independence and not the SNP's record in office.
Equally the more the ukgov push back the worse they make it. The best bet for the Unionists is get a referendum as soon as possible and settle it once and for all.
Whether the unionists have the ability to fight for the union on two fronts, Scotland and Ireland is up for debate. Rolling out JRM, Johnson or Raab is not going to convince anyone.
What is lost on most arguing against independence is that independence and the SNP are not one in the same. A lot, if not even the majority, I'd argue, of people who vote SNP are doing so primarily because of independence. If you really want the SNP out, ironically independence is the best route to go.
I don't know how people keep buying these magic beans.
If the courts rule Westminster has the authority over holding proper referendums then no matter what happens in the GE if the SNP were to get a majority they would still need Westminster authority. Neither Keir or whoever is leading the Tories would back this especially after a court ruling.
This was effectively another publicity stunt where the end product seemed to be "If Westminster doesn't give the go ahead we'll continue to blame them for our own inadequacies as we've been doing for the past 10 years"
Perhaps a bold unpopular opinion but if the above happens and the SNP fight the next GE solely on Indy they'll lose seats.
0 -
Just now, G51 said:
I don't want Mick Lynch to be Labour leader. He's shouty, aggressive and doesn't really seem to understand the rules of the game. Plus he's from Northern England, which means he's racist. And he's a man - it's high time that Labour got the girlboss treatment!
I want someone who understands that politics is less about ideals, and more about what's possible. Someone like Rachel Reeves, or Jess Phillips. Dream candidate? Nigella Lawson.
He's a bit too Brexity for me.
I'm happy with Starmer paving the way for the irrepressible Lisa Nandy.
Either that or Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting have a square go to decide.
0 -
58 minutes ago, 101 said:
Hopefully he will be pressurising the PM to devolve all aspects of legislation around controlled substances then!
Safe consumption rooms, decriminalisation personal use, battering f**k out of dealers and organised crims. The last one is possible but so much of the contraband enters from England and with their largest police force under special measures due to being permafucked then it's not the greatest advert for the benefits of unionism.
For clarity I 100% meant the once in a generation line, that Tory is particularly detestable and dim.
0 -
3 minutes ago, 101 said:
I wonder if he has any knowledge about this issue or is just using people dying, as a cheap sound bite.
I suspect it's a sound bite. Horrible horrible stuff.
Also I'd love to see where he found The FM saying it's a once in a generation vote.
Would only take him a 10 seconds google search tbf.
1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:The idea of this was actually a tory proclamation. Margaret Thatcher I believe.
I hate the snp but will be voting yes! Cannot fucking wait to vote yes. Every fucker should vote yes.
This was before my lifetime but I would disagree with the idea. Can't see it happening anyway.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:
Can you suggest any other way that is better than the plan announced today?
I understand you don’t want a referendum, but given the options, a pro Independence Party only have limited choices.
illegal referendum
UDI
or what has sensibly been proposed by Sturgeon today.
Had she gone for anything else, there’d be an outcry.
I think if the SNP had a better record in government they'd build support and should focus on winning the arguments they lost in 2014.
Basically their only viable option is a slow burn fact based approach rather than some emotional blame game approach.
Proposing how to have a referendum should come after they're comfortably winning the Indy argument whereas right now they're hiding the detail in a Brexity way.
0
When will indyref2 happen?
in The Politics Forum
Posted
I'm a bit lost at this part?
On the second part, it doesn't matter why people vote for who they do, you can't decide something is single issue for other people. If Labour or Tories stand candidates and even one of them wants to talk about anything other than the constitution that's this notion burst. People have always voted SNP without wanting Indy that wouldn't change just because Nicola says so.