When will indyref2 happen?

[SANTAN]

7 hours ago, gaz5 said:

I covered that in my first post.

What everyone voting SNP days they want outside of the polling booth is completely irrelevant to democratic mandate.

They voted for a party with an independence referendum as their flagship policy, therefore their vote indicates that an independence referendum is exactly what they want and that is literally all that matters for a democratic mandate.

As I said, when you vote for a party you are voting for all of their policies. There's no box in the ballot paper that lets you add notes about the ones you dont like.

I don't like the SNP, I wouldn't vote for the vast majority of their policies under normal circumstances, but I support independence and see the SNP as the only vehicle to deliver that so I suck it up and put my X in the box.

I don't then have any right to complain about their policies I don't like, because I voted for them knowing what they were.

I can hold them to account for being shite at delivering those policies and everything that goes with that, but I've no right to complain when they deliver something they said they would and that I voted for.

In short, anyone voting SNP who doesn't support an Independence referendum in their own mind is literally supporting an independence referendum in the only way that actually matters, at the ballot box.

That's how ALL policy is delivered.

You could swap "Independence Referendum" in the above for "income tax reduction policy" and the point would be equally as valid. The policy in question doesn't matter.

So I say again, we deliver democratic mandate at the ballot box, as an electorate. To deny that mandate, on any policy, because you don't like the policy is not a democratic argument, that argument was already lost. It's an argument based on like or dislike of a policy THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON AND MANDATE PROVIDED.

*Not shouting there, can't figure out how to bold on my mobile so that's just bold as it's the main point.

I dont think you covered it enough to discredit my point though... you can call it a democratic mandate for a referendum because they say they want one in their manifesto if you'd like, I think that's debatable, clearly political institutions agree with my reading of the situation over yours. 

I can't recall if they say that they'll definitely have one in their manifestos or not. I can't imagine they do knowing it's not within their power to say that but I could be wrong considering they had "stop Brexit" in their last manifestos... just because the SNP want something doesn't mean they can have it, your logic makes manifestos seem like some magical paperwork, you can campaign on "melting down the Royals jewels and dividing the profit between the Scots" - An extreme analogy but let's say the above happens what do you expect them to do when they win to practically do this...? Nothing because they can't as it's not within their powers and if you had voted on such a thing you would have been mislead. Now you can argue over if they should have that power or not but that's a separate discussion, one we'll likely come to if they do well at the polls and Bojo flat out rejects a referendum.

Understandably I'll predict that the majority of people on this board don't think there should be referendums everytime the SNP win an election, the SNP don't even push for that, as I asked of the other poster lets say theoretically this was the case and they lost at 40% consecutively then what would be the point, would you still want them every 4 years knowing it could push people away from the cause? 

I completely disagree with the practical implications and fully understand why it's not within a devolved nations power to constantly hold referendums, I'm not making this argument because I dislike the idea of it, I'm making it because it literally is the state of play in the Union and I think this probably goes a long way in explaining why Yes Da's feel so let down with the lack of movement on this issue and why they feel like the Scottish Government should be doing more to combat this. 

[SANTAN]

6 hours ago, WilliamBragg said:

OK I'll slow it down for you.

Why do you think it is ok for elections every four years but not referendums?

If you can change your mind every 4 years about the party you support why not what country you want to live in?

I don't think it's an effective form of governance, if you mean specifically referendums on issues like Independence then I think you'd have to be quite thin between the ears to not understand why returning "No" every 4 years and spending lots of money on doing so and sucking all the political oxygen out the room to do so would not be good for anyone, do you want your MSPs to spend half their time campaigning or actually creating policies and implementing them etc..

You can change your mind on these issues every 2 seconds if you like, doesn't mean the whole country should rerun votes based on your individual indecisiveness.

[SANTAN]

8 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

This is basically just an imperfection of parliamentary democracy though. There's absolutely no way you can know if the number of people who vote SNP but don't want a referendum is greater or smaller than the number of people who do want a referendum but don't vote SNP.

it's hardly going to be something hidden away on page 87 of the manifesto. If you vote SNP in May you either want a second referendum or don't feel strongly enough about it to change your vote. If not having a second referendum during the next term was important enough to enough people, we won't have one because pro-referendum parties won't form a majority of the parliament. 

It's very simple.

It's as simple as you want to make it. 

I've answered most of the above but you're making a huge presumption that everyone is single issue voters, pro Indy parties could be in the majority and then Yes could lose a referendum, the timing is everything for them. 

You can also be pro Indy and not be keen on a referendum after the next elections...

As you say simple stuff. 

[WilliamBragg]

21 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I don't think it's an effective form of governance, if you mean specifically referendums on issues like Independence then I think you'd have to be quite thin between the ears to not understand why returning "No" every 4 years and spending lots of money on doing so and sucking all the political oxygen out the room to do so would not be good for anyone, do you want your MSPs to spend half their time campaigning or actually creating policies and implementing them etc..

You can change your mind on these issues every 2 seconds if you like, doesn't mean the whole country should rerun votes based on your individual indecisiveness.

To be honest the MSPs I want will never be elected or get the chance to implement policies.

By the same token these we voted no/leave suck it up types do my head in.

I agree with you every 4 years is probably too often but by the same token those saying we shouldn't get another vote because we lost is equally ridiculous. 

[Granny Danger]

Can we have a poll on whether posters should respond to the spamming c*nt stormzy?  I vote NO.

 

[Juanhourjoe]

The Tory government at the time argued that staying in Europe was a reason to vote no. And if there is a pro indy majority, they should have a right to implement there policies in Scotland whatever. You could argue that would be a double mandate.

On the Brexit referendum. That was campaigned for by ukip. Who, despite completely unwarranted airtime. Got nowhere near successful at Westminster. So no mandate for it to happen. However. Government in its current form is too far removed from the people for me. So I wouldn't have opposed it happening in principle.

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

There is a good reason why referenda on matters such as Scottish independence should only be held ‘once in a generation’.

I don’t think you realise just how long it would take to implement such an enormous change to our constitutional situation.

If you imagine the difficulties and complexities in disentangling the UK from the EU, just imagine how much more difficult it would be to remove Scotland from the UK. The systems of banking, currency, taxation, defence, foreign affairs would all need to be addressed along with borders, pensions, the list gets endless.

I would guess we’re talking about 10 years here after a Yes vote.

I don’t think people realise just how integrated we are and, hence, the difficulties in disentanglement.

For what it’s worth, I think if it ever happens, we probably need 2 referenda. The first to establish the principle of separation - yes or no.

If it is yes, then a second laying out all the details regarding currency, taxation, pensions, financial forecasts, etc., in order that the people can see the real implications. A forward GERS forecast would be produced showing Scotland as an independent nation and how the finances would look. Something like Andrew Wilson’s Growth commission produced some time ago.

[SANTAN]

27 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Can we have a poll on whether posters should respond to the spamming c*nt stormzy?  I vote NO.

 

Why do you post about this so frequently? Just put me on ignore. Imploring other people to not reply to me is kinda weird for an old man to be doing. 

[Stellaboz]

I don't know any other country that needed two referendums on deciding their independence. Bonkers!

[gaz5]

I dont think you covered it enough to discredit my point though... you can call it a democratic mandate for a referendum because they say they want one in their manifesto if you'd like, I think that's debatable, clearly political institutions agree with my reading of the situation over yours. 
I can't recall if they say that they'll definitely have one in their manifestos or not. I can't imagine they do knowing it's not within their power to say that but I could be wrong considering they had "stop Brexit" in their last manifestos... just because the SNP want something doesn't mean they can have it, your logic makes manifestos seem like some magical paperwork, you can campaign on "melting down the Royals jewels and dividing the profit between the Scots" - An extreme analogy but let's say the above happens what do you expect them to do when they win to practically do this...? Nothing because they can't as it's not within their powers and if you had voted on such a thing you would have been mislead. Now you can argue over if they should have that power or not but that's a separate discussion, one we'll likely come to if they do well at the polls and Bojo flat out rejects a referendum.
Understandably I'll predict that the majority of people on this board don't think there should be referendums everytime the SNP win an election, the SNP don't even push for that, as I asked of the other poster lets say theoretically this was the case and they lost at 40% consecutively then what would be the point, would you still want them every 4 years knowing it could push people away from the cause? 
I completely disagree with the practical implications and fully understand why it's not within a devolved nations power to constantly hold referendums, I'm not making this argument because I dislike the idea of it, I'm making it because it literally is the state of play in the Union and I think this probably goes a long way in explaining why Yes Da's feel so let down with the lack of movement on this issue and why they feel like the Scottish Government should be doing more to combat this. 

You're still conflating "referendum" with "policy".

My point is very simple. When parties put themselves forward for an election, they put forward the policies they want to deliver in that parliament. The electorate votes on them and the party that wins then had a democratic mandate, provided by the electorate, to pursue those policies.

It's that simple.

We just happen to be talking about one policy here, but it applies to all.

That doesn't mean all of them will be delivered. It means they have made a commitment to pursue them and the electorate have agreed.

If they don't deliver enough of what they said they would and that makes the electorate unhappy, you get a chance to hold them to account for that at the next election by removing them from position.

I don't think a mandate is a magical thing, I think it's the basis for democracy. The electorate chooses the prospectus it wants based on all of those put forward and it's the rule of the lawmakers proposing the winning prospectus to pursue it, delivering enough to stay the lawmakers at the next election.

What political institutions "think" isn't a serious argument, they are literally driven by their own political self interest, be that the SNP, SG, Tories or Westminster. But what they "think", if you live in a democracy, matters not compared to what the electorate vote for.

But ultimately, my point is still absolutely vslid because it's binary. If the party with a flagship policy of independence is returned by a majority of the electorate, then that is what the electorate wants.

You can disagree with the policy, but not that it has already been chosen as a policy to pursue by the electorate.

The rest of your point is the very basis for my argument for Scottish Independence.

That the Scottish electorate can vote for something, that the parliament of another country has to give them permission to do, is the very democratic deficit on which I base my support for independence.

I want to be able to vote for a government in my country based on the policy they say they will deliver and, like every other country around the world I want them to have the power to deliver that so that I can hold them accountable when they do or don't.

I don't want a country where the Government I vote for can be over ruled by the government of another country based on population share.

For me, all the other arguments are logistical and nothing that can't (and hasn't by several hundred other countries) be overcome.

As a final point: On this "not the right time", "once in a generation", "political institutions think otherwise" point: I lived through the 80's, meaning like the vast majority of us who did the Tories will always be a shower of c***s who can quite literally get in the sea.

During that time though, Maggie told us, while she was prime minister, that all that was required for Scottish Independence was the SNP returning a majority of MP's to Westminster.

I don't believe that's how democracy works, there's a route to independence that involves asking the electorate. My point in raising it is that Unionists can't have it both ways.

This view that asking the electorate what they think is bad is a British thing. As has been said, plenty other countries do it successfully.

[renton]

33 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

There is a good reason why referenda on matters such as Scottish independence should only be held ‘once in a generation’.

I don’t think you realise just how long it would take to implement such an enormous change to our constitutional situation.

If you imagine the difficulties and complexities in disentangling the UK from the EU, just imagine how much more difficult it would be to remove Scotland from the UK. The systems of banking, currency, taxation, defence, foreign affairs would all need to be addressed along with borders, pensions, the list gets endless.

I would guess we’re talking about 10 years here after a Yes vote.

I don’t think people realise just how integrated we are and, hence, the difficulties in disentanglement.

For what it’s worth, I think if it ever happens, we probably need 2 referenda. The first to establish the principle of separation - yes or no.

If it is yes, then a second laying out all the details regarding currency, taxation, pensions, financial forecasts, etc., in order that the people can see the real implications. A forward GERS forecast would be produced showing Scotland as an independent nation and how the finances would look. Something like Andrew Wilson’s Growth commission produced some time ago.

What is the point of this second referendum?

[gaz5]

There is a good reason why referenda on matters such as Scottish independence should only be held ‘once in a generation’.
I don’t think you realise just how long it would take to implement such an enormous change to our constitutional situation.
If you imagine the difficulties and complexities in disentangling the UK from the EU, just imagine how much more difficult it would be to remove Scotland from the UK. The systems of banking, currency, taxation, defence, foreign affairs would all need to be addressed along with borders, pensions, the list gets endless.
I would guess we’re talking about 10 years here after a Yes vote.
I don’t think people realise just how integrated we are and, hence, the difficulties in disentanglement.
For what it’s worth, I think if it ever happens, we probably need 2 referenda. The first to establish the principle of separation - yes or no.
If it is yes, then a second laying out all the details regarding currency, taxation, pensions, financial forecasts, etc., in order that the people can see the real implications. A forward GERS forecast would be produced showing Scotland as an independent nation and how the finances would look. Something like Andrew Wilson’s Growth commission produced some time ago.

Got it, we shouldn't do it cos it's a bit hard. [emoji102][emoji102]

Seriously though, how long it takes to deliver and the logistics of what that looks like, to me anyway, is just noise thrown in by those opposed to the independence outcome to obfuscate a fairly simple question.

Yes, there would be challenges. Yes it would take a while to sort out. All the other countries that have done it tell us that.

Anyone saying it would be a piece of piss and not take a long time to complete is either a liar or an idiot (or both), so you're right on the complexities.

But that's not a reason not to do it, or to only ask the question every X years minimum.

[SANTAN]

4 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

You're still conflating "referendum" with "policy".

My point is very simple. When parties put themselves forward for an election, they put forward the policies they want to deliver in that parliament. The electorate votes on them and the party that wins then had a democratic mandate, provided by the electorate, to pursue those policies.

It's that simple.

We just happen to be talking about one policy here, but it applies to all.

That doesn't mean all of them will be delivered. It means they have made a commitment to pursue them and the electorate have agreed.

If they don't deliver enough of what they said they would and that makes the electorate unhappy, you get a chance to hold them to account for that at the next election by removing them from position.

I don't think a mandate is a magical thing, I think it's the basis for democracy. The electorate chooses the prospectus it wants based on all of those put forward and it's the rule of the lawmakers proposing the winning prospectus to pursue it, delivering enough to start the lawmakers at the next election.

What political institutions "think" isn't a serious argument, they are literally driven by their own political self interest, be that the SNP, SG, Tories or Westminster. But what they "think", if you live in a democracy, matters not compared to what the electorate vote for.

But ultimately, my point is still absolutely basis because it's binary. If the party with a flagship policy of independence is returned by a majority of the electorate, then that is what the electorate wants.

You can disagree with the policy, but not that it has already been chosen as a policy to pursue by the electorate.

The rest of your point is the very basis for my argument for Scottish Independence.

That the Scottish electorate can vote for something, that the parliament of another country has to give them permission to do, is the very democratic deficit on which I base my support for independence.

I want to be able to vote for a government in my country based on the policy they say they will deliver and, like every other country around the world I want them to have the power to deliver that so that I can hold them accountable when they do or don't.

I don't want a country where the Government I vote for can be over ruled by the government of another country based on population share.

For me, all the other arguments are logistical and nothing that can't (and hasn't by several hundred other countries) be overcome.

As a final point: On this "not the right time", "once in a generation", "political institutions think otherwise" point: I lived through the 80's, meaning like the vast majority of us who did the Tories will always be a shower of c***s who can quite literally get in the sea.

During that time though, Maggie told us, while she was prime minister, that all that was required for Scottish Independence was the SNP returning a majority of MP's to Westminster.

I don't believe that's how democracy works, there's a route to independence that involves asking the electorate. My point in raising it is that Unionists can't have it both ways.

This view that asking the electorate what they think is bad is a British thing. As has been said, plenty other countries do it successfully.

Yeah, you wrote an awful lot but don't actually engage with some of the points I've made or actually respond to questions I've directly asked so I'll leave you to having this discussion with yourself and agree to disagree on the matter of how frequently we should have referendums and on the ability of the SG to actually be able to decide to have one. 

[gaz5]

Yeah, you wrote an awful lot but don't actually engage with some of the points I've made or actually respond to questions I've directly asked so I'll leave you to having this discussion with yourself and agree to disagree on the matter of how frequently we should have referendums and on the ability of the SG to actually be able to decide to have one. 

What questions didn't I answer that you want an answer to?

I picked the pertinent ones from your posts like you did with mine.

I actually think your a fairly decent poster, but that's an odd response if you want to be taken seriously.

ETA: Serious Question, as it was probably the most pertinent point of my post - If you don't think this question should be asked in a referendum, would you support Maggie's view that it can be delivered via general election instead?

If referendums are too costly, drain the electorate etc. Was she right in the 80's, let's not have referendum in this question, it can be answered every 4/5 years at the polls in a general election?

ETA 2: The only question I didn't answer: "if they keep losing, would you still want them every 4 years keeping losing and pushing people away from the cause"

I don't "want one ever 4 years", but I think there should be the ability to have one every time a party putting one forward as a manifesto pledge is chosen by the electorate, just like every other policy.

What the result of that referendum is I truly think is irrelevant. If it goes against my view, like most general elections in my lifetime, so be it. Democracy is a majority game.

[Dawson Park Boy]

6 minutes ago, renton said:

What is the point of this second referendum?

The point is to get down to the nitty gritty rather than the emotional aspects inevitably involved in the first.

Most people, especially the young, view independence as a swashbuckling, heroic, ‘braveheart’ kind of thing to vote for. At least, that is what I find within my family circle. Maybe I’m wrong.

The point of the second referendum is to focus on the practicalities and, just as Andrew Wilson concludes in his report, realise that there will be a dent to living standards for a good number of years. This will separate the true believers from the romanticists.

With Brexit, I voted for it on the basis that I was prepared for a 10% hit to my living standards.

Time will tell on that one.

[renton]

1 minute ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

The point is to get down to the nitty gritty rather than the emotional aspects inevitably involved in the first.

Most people, especially the young, view independence as a swashbuckling, heroic, ‘braveheart’ kind of thing to vote for. At least, that is what I find within my family circle. Maybe I’m wrong.

The point of the second referendum is to focus on the practicalities and, just as Andrew Wilson concludes in his report, realise that there will be a dent to living standards for a good number of years. This will separate the true believers from the romanticists.

With Brexit, I voted for it on the basis that I was prepared for a 10% hit to my living standards.

Time will tell on that one.

... and what is the practical outcome of voting Yes in your 1st referendum and then no in your 2nd?

Edited March 7, 2021 by renton

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

What questions didn't I answer that you want an answer to?

I picked the pertinent ones from your posts like you did with mine.

I actually think your a fairly decent poster, but that's an odd response if you want to be taken seriously.

Kinda sounds like you realised you lost the argument so are walking away.

Perhaps the ones with question marks attached. 

I dont think negging me is going to work either. People can take me as they see fit, it doesn't change much. 

I'm walking away because you're ignoring questions I've asked and then posting very long winded posts on tangents that I've not even discussed.

I don't think that this is a win or lose type of debate anyway, I have an opinion that we shouldn't have referendums everytime the SNP win an election and you disagree, there isn't a right or wrong answer and the fact you're trying to talk about winners and losers is quite off putting to such a discussion anyway. 

So I bow out champ, you won that one! 

[gaz5]

The point is to get down to the nitty gritty rather than the emotional aspects inevitably involved in the first.
Most people, especially the young, view independence as a swashbuckling, heroic, ‘braveheart’ kind of thing to vote for. At least, that is what I find within my family circle. Maybe I’m wrong.
The point of the second referendum is to focus on the practicalities and, just as Andrew Wilson concludes in his report, realise that there will be a dent to living standards for a good number of years. This will separate the true believers from the romanticists.
With Brexit, I voted for it on the basis that I was prepared for a 10% hit to my living standards.
Time will tell on that one.

Surely that "second vote" you are referencing is just a general election in a newly independent Scotland where the political parties putting themselves forward have outlined their view of independence?

[Cairn Terrier]

You can make this case but it's naive to believe everyone that votes SNP wants a referendum, it doesn't matter what their flagship policy is
 

It really does, you are being totally disingenuous.

[SANTAN]

Just now, Cairn Terrier said:

 

It really does, you are being totally disingenuous.

 

By saying that some people aren't single issue voters?