When will indyref2 happen?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, Stinky Bone said:

What about making our General Election in May a plebiscite election on Scottish Independence.  Even defer it for a few months to give us time to campaign. 

That's what I'm talking about, its not constitutional. Also there is a big problem with democracy.  If you wanted to do that you would have to have a manifesto that is just one sentence, one page. Vote for us and we will declare independence. But then what mandate do the SNP have to govern the country for the following  five years in that case?  Nobody will have voted for that.  

One thing I've never heard anyone talk about is obstructionism at WM.  Imo that could work, there are all sorts of daft archaic rules at WM that can be used to obstruct parliamentary business.  You could paralyse WM for months, even years potentially.  Ad Fib would need to give us the lowdown on ways around it, but it would be a way to hold the UK govt hostage. We could have, for example, stopped them passing any legislation related to Brexit, completely paralysed the functioning of the UK parliament and said no s30 no Brexit. Then let their own supporters get angry enough at them by dragging it out that they eventually agreed. Turn the pressure on them.  Could have worked who knows.

[magic sign]

What about making our General Election in May a plebiscite election on Scottish Independence.  Even defer it for a few months to give us time to campaign. 

There is a General Election in May? Why hasn't anyone told me this? I guess this why I'm told on here to "educate myself".

[NotThePars]

Sturgeon and the current leadership of the SNP currently clearly believe that the people currently theoretically taking them from 45-54% or wherever the average poll numbers are generally belong to the middle classes who were radicalised by Brexit and the potential squeezing of middle earners and thus in their minds it limits how radge they can theoretically take this. 

Building a legalistic case to take independence forward and preventing any civil disobedience or parliamentary shutdown is what they believe will allow them to get to a referendum without scaring away the floating voters. It might be shite (and I've moaned about it myself frequently on here) but that's the way it is. And that's before you factor in how the rest of the world responds if we start burning George Square and occupying the city chambers. 

The only argument Unionists have left is the "getting on with the day job!!!!!" patter and if the SNP (and Greens) start abandoning any domestic governance that theoretically provides ammunition against those parties. I'm not saying it's not what should eventually happen but I get the impression that Sturgeon et al (and tbh virtually anyone with a position of influence in the party) wants to do (and be seen doing) everything they can to prove the mandate for independence exists, build the case for why it should be accepted, and then if it's rejected yet again that's when you might see the beginning of token resistance and then eventually full scale civil disobedience. But it's clearly felt as a risk to a naturally cautious leadership who know once that avenue is pursued there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. 

Pretty much Sturgeon isn't a Lenin type. She's not going baws oot and she isn't yet in a position where she needs to do that or at least she feels that way.

Edited January 31, 2021 by NotThePars

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

21 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

What would you suggest is the best way forward?  I think most people know that the section 30 approach isn't going to work so where does that leave us?  Even this magical 11 point plan that gives nothing is extremely vague on what we must do for Independence. 

 

Edit:  I initially agreed with the 11 point plan, until I read into it. 

 

For me the only focus apart from the pandemic should be on securing an SNP majority ideally in May, or SNP-Green.  Without that there will be no movement whatsoever for a minimum of five years  so everything else is secondary to that.

After that I think there will probably be a consultative referendum. There is a problem that unionist controlled councils which is most of them would probably refuse to cooperate. So Scotgov would need to find a way round that. However, they are definitely allowed to hold a consultative referendum, so to call it 'illegitimate' or 'wildcat' isn't true, though that's what it will be called. 

What you do with the results of that I don't know. I think one day Scotgov will need to present the results of that to either a court or the EU/Biden administration to say we have demonstrated this is the clear will of the people of Scotland. With this in mind, imo its crucial any referendum secures a bare minimum of 2.2 million votes for independence. That would represent 50% +1 of the Scottish electorate, so even if unionists boycott it, as they probably would, Scotgov could say it doesn't matter, even if every single person in the country who didn't vote had voted against we'd still have won. 

So then you could say with all accuracy this is the clearly expressed democratic wish of the people of Scotland. I think the EU may be in a position uniquely receptive to what we have to say given the unique position we are in, and Biden is essentially an Irish nationalist so would be more sympathetic than most other US presidents (witness what he said to the BBC recently), and if you could get those two bodies to agree the whole house of cards could come falling down and WM agree to recognise it. The second they do it becomes constitutional, meaning Spain's objection wouldn't be a problem now.

Failing that you are waiting for a GE which returns a Labour government but without a majority, who can only govern with SNP support. This has never happened in history, but is actually quite a likely outcome of the next GE. Also, its not necessarily the case that the next GE will be 2024, as we have seen recently they can come about a lot more often than that and this government is teetering after the Covid shambles and blatant corruption going on.

Then the SNP simply say to Labour we will help you govern for one parliament on a confidence and supply basis in return for a s30. Hold the referendum say 18 months into that parliament and use the following 3.5 years to negotiate the terms of independence timing it to leave at the end of that parliament with elections in iScotland six months later.

I understand this is far from ideal, everyone wants independence now and the sooner we get it the easier everything is especially EU entry. The reason Scotgov are trying to pass legislation just now to retain alignment with EU standards is to make eventual EU accession much easier, but the IMB will try to undermine that. So its messy and there's lots of potential problems but there are a couple of possible avenues too.

We could have a consultative referendum as early as September this year potentially, though imo next year more likely, but if we can hold that and get 50% +1 of the electorate to vote for independence the ball will be rolling.

But its a difficult thing with lots of pitfalls and potential problems, and Scotgov has an unenviable task. What London will be relying on is splits in the SNP (hello trans issue tearing the party apart) meaning all this becomes academic anyway. To have any chance the SNP has to continue to absolutely own Scottish politics for a good while yet and to do so it has to remain fairly united.  That's not wheest for indy but the anger created by people advocating a plebiscite election when this does not become a reality is not helping at all, and neither is the pish going on around the trans debate just now.

Also obstructionism and a campaign of civil disobedience are options for the future.  But who knows, I don't have the answers more than anyone else.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, Stinky Bone said:

There is nothing more legal than the wishes of the electorate. Admire your socialist views though. 

An absolute excellent post.  

If I could say that if it was a plebiscite Scottish general election, then wouldn't the local authorities be bound by law to hold it.  Thus making any refusal by unionists to not to vote backfire on them.

Using an election as a plebiscite just couldn't work imo. Certainly not a HR election, a GE I don't know for sure Ad Fib could enlighten us but I'd seriously doubt it.

As for unionists councils, a consultative referendum is not the Scottish government doing something they're not allowed to do. So you've got to imagine there's way that could be facilitated despite the obvious objections of unionist councils. 

[The_Kincardine]

25 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

The only argument Unionists have left is the "getting on with the day job!!!!!" patter

Dreary fucking me, Mr Three Word User Name.

You've forgotten the most basic argument of all:  Why should we even consider the partitioning of our nation state on the say so of a shower of Glengarried-up daft wee tartan gonks?

[The_Kincardine]

12 hours ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

What's ironic and infuriating in equal measures is the level of anti-Scottish feeling in England is way higher than the level of anti-English feeling in Scotland and always has been.

I saw this earlier and almost choked on my breakfast gin and smoked salmon.

I know that you're one of these posters whose volume of output is inversely proportional to their IQ but, even by your abysmal standards, this is the daftest thing I have read on here for years.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Know what else I might do just now if I was NS and in a rabble rousing mood?  Employ a couple of forensic accountants, have them dig up irrefutable evidence on as many members of the British cabinet as possible that they are guilty of some form of financial corruption, as they are fuckin are, and use it to bribe them into agreeing a s30 request in return for not having them jailed.  Could be a fun wee side project.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

4 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

Hold a Scottish general election then.  I believe by law the local councils have to comply. 

Campaign on a ticket that a vote for Independence parties, preferably SNP, if elected will result in Independence. 

Begin negotiations with westminster. 

SNP used to do that, up until 2012/2013 when the Edinburgh agreement was signed. 

What I mean is, it used to be the SNP point that a majority at westminster was enough.  We now have a majority at westminster and Holyrood.  If we continue along this path, then why would a "legal" referendum be illegal and why should we hold one in the first place. 

That's effectively what a consultative referendum is, with much more legitimacy. We can't call a Scottish general election, a consultative referendum (which is exactly what the EU one was) carries much less problems.

Its actually a fallacy that SNP policy was a majority of MP's equalled a mandate for independence, that was always to be followed by putting the terms of independence to a vote ie a referendum.

Also when Thatcher said that it didn't make that the constitutional reality, it was just a throwaway statement same as once in a generation.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

4 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

Section 30 only lets the british state dictate the terms of a referendum 

That has been set by the electoral commission and Edinburgh agreement. If you wanted to change the question and franchise next time you'd have a pretty tough case to make.

I have no doubt the UK govt would rig a referendum though if they felt it necessary and thought they could get away with it, so when the time comes if it goes the s30 route Scotgov will need to put measures in place ie observers at every stage of the process to make sure that doesn't happen.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

The most basic argument of all is why would Scotland not want to be an Independent country?  

Eh?  If you have any feel for the history of Scotland since what could be described as early modern times then making a breach with England is the act of the scoundrel, the wastrel, the ignorant, the vapid and the aggrieved.

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

Nice one.  Made me laugh. 

Given that Natterism is all about Punch and Judy politics I don't think that's very difficult.

Mind you, you probably take umbrage at the crocodile and the string of sausage and mutter, "Those are Basturd English sausages.  We slice ours".

[Erih Shtrep]

Wee dugs, sausage rolls. 

[SANTAN]

9 hours ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

For me the only focus apart from the pandemic should be on securing an SNP majority ideally in May, or SNP-Green.  Without that there will be no movement whatsoever for a minimum of five years  so everything else is secondary to that.

After that I think there will probably be a consultative referendum. There is a problem that unionist controlled councils which is most of them would probably refuse to cooperate. So Scotgov would need to find a way round that. However, they are definitely allowed to hold a consultative referendum, so to call it 'illegitimate' or 'wildcat' isn't true, though that's what it will be called. 

What you do with the results of that I don't know. I think one day Scotgov will need to present the results of that to either a court or the EU/Biden administration to say we have demonstrated this is the clear will of the people of Scotland. With this in mind, imo its crucial any referendum secures a bare minimum of 2.2 million votes for independence. That would represent 50% +1 of the Scottish electorate, so even if unionists boycott it, as they probably would, Scotgov could say it doesn't matter, even if every single person in the country who didn't vote had voted against we'd still have won. 

So then you could say with all accuracy this is the clearly expressed democratic wish of the people of Scotland. I think the EU may be in a position uniquely receptive to what we have to say given the unique position we are in, and Biden is essentially an Irish nationalist so would be more sympathetic than most other US presidents (witness what he said to the BBC recently), and if you could get those two bodies to agree the whole house of cards could come falling down and WM agree to recognise it. The second they do it becomes constitutional, meaning Spain's objection wouldn't be a problem now.

Failing that you are waiting for a GE which returns a Labour government but without a majority, who can only govern with SNP support. This has never happened in history, but is actually quite a likely outcome of the next GE. Also, its not necessarily the case that the next GE will be 2024, as we have seen recently they can come about a lot more often than that and this government is teetering after the Covid shambles and blatant corruption going on.

Then the SNP simply say to Labour we will help you govern for one parliament on a confidence and supply basis in return for a s30. Hold the referendum say 18 months into that parliament and use the following 3.5 years to negotiate the terms of independence timing it to leave at the end of that parliament with elections in iScotland six months later.

I understand this is far from ideal, everyone wants independence now and the sooner we get it the easier everything is especially EU entry. The reason Scotgov are trying to pass legislation just now to retain alignment with EU standards is to make eventual EU accession much easier, but the IMB will try to undermine that. So its messy and there's lots of potential problems but there are a couple of possible avenues too.

We could have a consultative referendum as early as September this year potentially, though imo next year more likely, but if we can hold that and get 50% +1 of the electorate to vote for independence the ball will be rolling.

But its a difficult thing with lots of pitfalls and potential problems, and Scotgov has an unenviable task. What London will be relying on is splits in the SNP (hello trans issue tearing the party apart) meaning all this becomes academic anyway. To have any chance the SNP has to continue to absolutely own Scottish politics for a good while yet and to do so it has to remain fairly united.  That's not wheest for indy but the anger created by people advocating a plebiscite election when this does not become a reality is not helping at all, and neither is the pish going on around the trans debate just now.

Also obstructionism and a campaign of civil disobedience are options for the future.  But who knows, I don't have the answers more than anyone else.

"Here Biden, Mr President, please come and give us some good ol 'Murican freedom."

Wtf is Joe Biden going to do about it. Send in the troops? You've actually made me laugh out loud there. That is brilliant you spend all your time attacking sensible Indy supporters about their supposed lack of plan or timescale and this is your master plan. The audacity is off the charts. 

[SandyCromarty]

24 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

"Here Biden, Mr President, please come and give us some good ol 'Murican freedom."

Wtf is Joe Biden going to do about it. Send in the troops? You've actually made me laugh out loud there. That is brilliant you spend all your time attacking sensible Indy supporters about their supposed lack of plan or timescale and this is your master plan. The audacity is off the charts. 

Biden has a huge Irish familial attachment and is more than aware of the Irish peoples struggle for Independence from england, as such I have no doubt he would view the Scottish peoples desire for Independence favourably.

With the financial trillions American industrial trade and business at his disposal, which the tories are so keen to engage with, I'm sure he could expend some political leaning in favour of Scotland.  

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, SandyCromarty said:

Biden has a huge Irish familial attachment and is more than aware of the Irish peoples struggle for Independence from england, as such I have no doubt he would view the Scottish peoples desire for Independence favourably.

With the financial trillions American industrial trade and business at his disposal, which the tories are so keen to engage with, I'm sure he could expend some political leaning in favour of Scotland.  

[welshbairn]

 

[Lurkst]

10 hours ago, Stinky Bone said:

Didn't it used to be pre Salmond that a majority at westminster would be enough. 

Maggie Thatcher said that, safe in the knowledge that it wouldn't happen in her lifetime.  And fair play to her she timed it perfectly. 

 

[Baxter Parp]

 

[The_Kincardine]

On 31/01/2021 at 09:56, SandyCromarty said:

Biden has a huge Irish familial attachment and is more than aware of the Irish peoples struggle for Independence from england, as such I have no doubt he would view the Scottish peoples desire for Independence favourably.

Ireland never gained independence from England.