When will indyref2 happen?

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

Perhaps you could post a picture of some Tartan Gonks so I can resume my usual pithy & witty replies? 

'Resume' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence...

[Goomba]

19 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

1) Goomba's original post said ""It's been obvious from the start that no 2nd referendum will take place for the following reasons: - Scots don't want one" 

Since then, he has claimed that this statement refers to Sturgeon's timetable for Indyref 2. It's impossible to work that out from the original statement, which is just plain wrong.

Of course it refers to her timetable.  I clarified my original statement which is normal in discourse.

2) The GFA specifies conditions under which one discrete part of the UK can choose to leave the UK. As Yoons claim that we are a union of equals, why do they appear to be happy with different rules applying to another discrete part of the union?

Us all working out different agreements depending on our situation isn't inconsistent with a Union of Equals.  The GFA was driven by the need to stop the IRA bombing campaign for example, with all sorts of other stuff thrown in.  Thankfully Sturgeon's not thrown any bombs yet.

I would agree that the condition in the GFA is that it should appear likely that a majority would vote in favour of the United Ireland in a referendum. The method to determine this condition is not set out. The Institute For Government (a UK organisation) state that this condition could be determined by "a consistent majority in opinion polls, a Catholic majority in a census, a nationalist majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly, or a vote by a majority in the Assembly" (my emphasis)

The bit in bold is exactly the condition I specified in my previous post.

All ifs and buts, unlike your original claim.

3) Goomba's orginal contention was that "There’s been no sustainable evidence of support for the breakup of the country"

I countered by saying that "Both sides appear to be at around 50% +/- 5% in the majority of polls" (since the start of the pandemic). That's sustainable evidence that support for the Scottish Indepedence is around 50%, give or take a few percent either way. 

It's not.  It's evidence of fluctuation.

Contrary to Goomba's claim, I never said that this was a basis for holding IndyRef 2. The mandate for that exists because of the Green/SNP majority in our proportionally elected government at Holyrood.

There is no mandate, other than the one Boris has based on the Tories manifesto promise.  Holyrood can't decide referenda.

Also contrary to Goomba's claims, "No" have not mostly been in front. There have been a further 3 polls since my original post, when Yes led by 35 to 30. The current score (since 1st March 2020) is Yes 36, No 32 and 8 ties.

It all just depends what the timescale is surely?

Goomba also said that the 35 leads for yes were during a short period of time and were mainly done by Yes supporters. I demonstrated that the 35 polls were over 18 months and that polls were commissioned by organisations such as the Daily Express & DC Thomson. At no point did I suggest that Yes had won 35 polls in a row, so I fail to see any relevance in Goomba's "There were several No leads during that period.  Hard lines." response. Indeed, I specifically pointed out that No had led o 30 occasions!

I humbly concede on this point.  Having looked through the posts, it looks like I messed up completely 

4) Stormzy Goomba says that the Ipsos MORI poll of 9th February 2022 "had dodgy, loaded, leading questions prior to the penultimate 'Do you want Scotland to be an Independent Country?"'. That's a barefaced lie.  How dare you! 

Here's the link to the survey results. It is easily seen that the first question is "Q1. If a referendum were held in Scotland on its constitutional future, would you personally prefer Scotland tovote for or against leaving the UK and becoming an independent country?"

Is Goomba privy to information to suggest otherwise, or is he just talking out of his arse?

There were definitely dodgy, loaded, lead up questions in there.  Mark my words.

He also describes the poll of 29 November 2021 is a outlier. This poll was carried out by Ipsos MORI/STV and should therefore be compared against other polls carried out by the same organisation for the same client.

It's an outlier because it goes completely against the grain/trend of the other polls held at a similar time.

It looks like the Ipsos MORI/STV panel are quite Yes friendly, as the 6 results over the last couple of years always show Yes in the lead, apart from one poll that shows a tie. The 5 leads held by Yes are 9%, (Tie,) 4%, 4%, 10% and 13%. Accordingly, the average Yes lead over the period is 6.67% with a standard deviation of 4.38. 9% is clearly not an outlier of that population.

It was a huge outlier as all the surrounding polls were, just like Scots in 2014, emphatically saying NO THANKS.

5) Goomba asks me to provide evidence that his position does not align with the UN's position on self-determination. The UN's position is set out in Article 1 (2)

This establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to "develop friendly international relations based on respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. The case studies in this section cover instances where the Security Council has discussed situations with a bearing on the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections, and the legitimacy of governments."

Link

Scotland has defined borders, and a devolved parliament that represents the populace. Accordingly, should the populace elect a government on a manifesto promise to hold a referendum, the UN supports the right of that populace to hold a referendum. Denying such a right (by giving Westminster the decision whether to hod such a referendum) does not align with the UN's position. The Westminster parliament is not solely elected by the Scottish populace.

Aye, but the people of Scotland aren't clamouring to break away.

6) Goomba says "A Tory mandate is indeed a mandate to resist another referendum.  Deciding referenda is not a devolved issue, so the devolved assembly results matter not a jot.  Very sneaky of you to go by the list vote and not the constituency vote too"

The Tory majority is in the UK, not Scotland. See point 5 above. 

Doesn't matter.  It's not a devolved issue so Parliament decides, not the devolved assembly or the UK.  The UN's stance could only be invoked if it was obvious that a clear majority of Scots were clamouring for Independence for a sustained amount of time.

Conducting referenda is not reserved, so it is devolved. The constitution is reserved, so the Scottish Parliament cannot change it. However, this does not prevent them from holding an advisory referendum. I've already explained all this. If Goomba wishes to refute this, he should provide evidence, not unsupported statements.

Deciding whether a referendum takes place lies with Parliament, not the devolved assembly.  An advisory referendum would be utterly pointless without Parliament's consent.  You'd have a Catalonia situation, with the Nats all jumping about Freedom George Square as if they'd won the lottery, when in reality it means nothing.

With regard to the constituency/ list vote, I went for the list as Goomba specifically said that FPTP is unfair (SNP won the constituency by 62 to 11). This list vote is proportional & rewards all parties equally. Indepedence supporting parties won a majority of this proportional vote.

I do think FPTP is unfair, but you'll get a more accurate picture on the constitutional mindset of the populace via the constituency results.  People tend to vote for wildcards and novelty parties on the list.

7) Goomba says that the Scottiish Parliament is now permanent. The doctrine of Parliamentary Soverignty says it is not. Westminster could abolish Holyrood at the stroke of a pen. This is absolutely basic stuff.

I think you're wrong on that one (I hope you're not), but if you have evidence that stands up to scrutiny then I'll happily eat humble pie.

8 ) In 2014, no-one seriously thought that England & Wales would be stupid enough to vote to leave the EU. The assumption that Scotland would be thrown out of the EU on a Yes vote depends on who would be considered by the EU to be the continuing state. Nothing was guaranteed at the time, and the EU specifically said that they would only answer the question if it was asked by the member state (the UK). Strangely, the UK didn't ask the question (perhaps because they wouldn't have liked the answer?)

Guaranteed or not, the No Campaign's claim was not that we'd be staying in the EU forever if we remain in the UK.  This is yet another Nationalist myth.  It can be added to the ever growing list alongside the vow being a lie and that NHS Scotland was in danger of being privatised.

If you recall, EU citizens resident in Scotland were overwhelmingly "No", because of the Yoon propaganda about the EU. Their view will have changed.

Well the opinion polling certainly doesn't reflect much change, plus loads of them will have moved back home anyway surely?

9) Goomba asks what powers have been taken back from Holyrood to Westminster? All devolved powers under EU law have been removed from Edinburgh, Cardiff & Belfast. It's set out in the Internal Market Act. Off the top of my head, these include food labelling & standards. animal feed labelling and standards, and a mechanism to allow Westminster to fund local authorities directly, rather than through Holyrood. Westminster is worried that we might ban chlorinated chicken!

I believe these were EU powers given to Parliament rather and were not devolved assembly powers in the first place.

10) Goomba said "The Tories always run on the promise of not holding" a 2nd referendum. When asked for specifics, he said that they had run on that promise twice - in 2019 & 2017. Twice is ot the same as always, and the referendum policy in 2017 was "Now is not the time", rather that a specific commitment to not hold one. Effectively, the current UK government are the only UK government ever elected on that manifesto promise. They won 6 out of 59 seats on that manifesto.

I think saying 'always' is fair in this case.  We use it in such a way all the way.  i.e. if your neighbour parks the car too far from the pavement the last two times, you could say 'he always parks terribly.'  Just the way we speak.

11) Goomba said "Sturgeon is stringing her voters along.  There will be no referendum arranged in 2023 - mark my words.  Fancy a wager?"

I hope that Sturgeon is not "stringing her voters along", but I'm not confident enough to put money on it. I will, however, be resigning my membership of the SNP if they fail to keep their manifesto commitment to hold a referendum "when the covid crisis has passed". All other things being equal, I expect that referendum to be arranged by the end of 2023

I respect that to be honest.  Let me know if you change your mind on the wager.

 

[git-intae-thum]

Remember that commodity we were told until recently was all but gone 

www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/simon-clarke-uk-north-sea-oil-production-b2043060.html%3famp

They think you are stupid.

In 2014 they were 55% right.

[Wee-Bey]

 

[git-intae-thum]

2 hours ago, Detective Jimmy McNulty said:

 

Vote slab....mibbe get another referendum next century.....mibbe

[williemillersmoustache]

4 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Vote slab....mibbe get another referendum next century.....mibbe

Written entirely from the perspective of someone who is watching what Keir Starmer and the Labour party are actually doing, humping the legs of the brexity north of England, and just flat out imagining that they are or they would do something completely different.

Sure there's a case for Labour " to respect the demands for greater autonomy" "or meaningful economic self-determination, incorporating public ownership, transformative support for homegrown green industry and expanded workers’ rights" but they conspicuously aren't offering this, and aren't going to, which is very much the point. 

It is just a nonsense to lay the ground for the precondition for the SNP supporting a minority Labour government shouldn't be a section 30 order but a plan for a new Labour run No.10 to lavish spending, priorities and powers on an SNP voting Scotland, who presumably have just told them to f**k off at the ballot box again. Something which is antithetical and would I imagine boil the pish of, those voters in England who they've been courting so hard to ditch the tories, with their anti Europe, anti refugee centrist garbage and who actually did vote Labour.  Behave.

Edited May 5, 2022 by williemillersmoustache

[Albus Bulbasaur]

11 hours ago, Detective Jimmy McNulty said:

 

Interesting article. 

Thought the "vaguely patriotic" line was a bit strange though. 

As someone who wants Labour to win the next election I see this as a viable approach, I'm all for more autonomy across the board, it's certainly more appealing than the chaotic rush into a referendum with the current state of play. A lot of people like myself believe Indy at this stage would be a catastrophic failure however if the Scottish government can actually deliver and show competence it could slowly switch voters like myself over given time. 

I've said as long as I've been here that it's a hard balance to strike, over the past 30 years the SNP has done wonderful on a slow long term approach, i could see this continuing but the type of people that demand a referendum now because they think the outcome would definitely go there way are delusional, most sensible Indy supporters would agree with this approach rather than hurdling into a referendum and losing and having support plummet for good. The Alba Da types must be extremely frustrated but stupid people are often frustrated by their lack of understanding anyway. 

[Wee-Bey]

5 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Interesting article. 

Thought the "vaguely patriotic" line was a bit strange though. 

Aye, something a bit different. He's an Independence supporting Labour member, not many of them left.

I think the vaguely patriotic thing was about Scots who feel Scottish 1st, but still oppose or aren't convinced by Indy, (but could be possibly persuaded) as opposed to folk who feel British 1st or are hard-core unionist, who will never be turned.

5 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

As someone who wants Labour to win the next election I see this as a viable approach, I'm all for more autonomy across the board, it's certainly more appealing than the chaotic rush into a referendum with the current state of play. 

Not that I trust Starmer at all, but you would think he would have to offer the SNP something in the event they win the next GE, but fail to get an overall majority. (probably not a referendum initially though). Plays into the paradox that the SNP is more likely to get a majority to support Indy with the Tories in charge, but are more likely to actually get a 2nd referendum with Labour in charge.

5 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I've said as long as I've been here that it's a hard balance to strike, over the past 30 years the SNP has done wonderful on a slow long term approach, i could see this continuing but the type of people that demand a referendum now because they think the outcome would definitely go there way are delusional, most sensible Indy supporters would agree with this approach rather than hurdling into a referendum and losing and having support plummet for good. The Alba Da types must be extremely frustrated but stupid people are often frustrated by their lack of understanding anyway. 

I think quite a lot of the UDI and '2nd referendum NOW' stuff is driven by FOMO. Either the fear that it'll be too late to see any benefits/the oil is running out etc. or on a more personal level, they won't be around to witness or enjoy it. It would be interesting to see a more detailed breakdown of the 'UDI v Gradulist' split in terms of age, social class etc. whether it is mostly the older 'da's'.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

47 minutes ago, Detective Jimmy McNulty said:

Aye, something a bit different. He's an Independence supporting Labour member, not many of them left.

I think the vaguely patriotic thing was about Scots who feel Scottish 1st, but still oppose or aren't convinced by Indy, (but could be possibly persuaded) as opposed to folk who feel British 1st or are hard-core unionist, who will never be turned.

Not that I trust Starmer at all, but you would think he would have to offer the SNP something in the event they win the next GE, but fail to get an overall majority. (probably not a referendum initially though). Plays into the paradox that the SNP is more likely to get a majority to support Indy with the Tories in charge, but are more likely to actually get a 2nd referendum with Labour in charge.

I think quite a lot of the UDI and '2nd referendum NOW' stuff is driven by FOMO. Either the fear that it'll be too late to see any benefits/the oil is running out etc. or on a more personal level, they won't be around to witness or enjoy it. It would be interesting to see a more detailed breakdown of the 'UDI v Gradulist' split in terms of age, social class etc. whether it is mostly the older 'da's'.

Yeah I thought that was the intention it's just something I profoundly disagree with. I think it's naive and foolish when the identity element is conflated with patriotism. It's a much more palatable way of saying if you don't support Indy then you must hate Scotland. 

Yeah I still think it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Labour wins outright or doesn't need the SNP to form a government, perhaps this is uneducated from myself and some of the statto nerds will be around to explain why this would be extremely improbable. Either way I don't think Labour would agree to a referendum in that instance so this seems to be an intriguing possibility. 

On the last part I think you're right but I do understand their frustrations on that part. You have a lot of the "inevitable" patter from some of the older posters. The part that I find

Spoiler

amusing

Is a lot of these older types have posted about waiting for the old Tories to die off before Indy goes there way but the way the clock is now tick tocking away I can't see many of them being alive to witness such a thing if it were to happen.  Maybe it's just anecdotal experience and it's hard to gauge the older you get but I don't see the argument being made from many younger types at the moment, the Indy movement always seemed quite youthful but now it seems like it's been abandoned by most other than the Da's and flag shaggers on Twitter. (This isn't me saying support wouldn't be there just about general activism etc..)

[williemillersmoustache]

"there is no support for a referendum" update. 

 

 

 

[Duries Air Freshener]

2 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

"there is no support for a referendum" update. 

 

 

 

I believe that’s called clutching at straws

[Salt n Vinegar]

On 27/03/2022 at 15:44, Day of the Lords said:

It must just be coincidence that it's only ..... some.... Rangers fans and various other yoon losers creating alias after alias to relentlessly troll the Politics forum of a football messageboard. It's such an empty existence, no wonder they're mostly fucking jakes.

It's hard enough being a Nationalist, anti-monarchist, atheist Rangers supporter. Please give  the sane among us a break and use the word "some" just occasionally! 

Radio Scotland just took the face off Dross by pointing out that his change of mind on Boris being PM effectively meant that Putin had the final say on who the British PM is.  An unusual, but welcome, smack in the pus.

[Lurkst]

Reporting Scotland sounding the referendum klaxon.

[Lex]

Radio Scotland just took the face off Dross by pointing out that his change of mind on Boris being PM effectively meant that Putin had the final say on who the British PM is.  An unusual, but welcome, smack in the pus.

Wait, Radio Scotland doesn’t think that Douglas decides who the PM is, do they?

[Salt n Vinegar]

2 minutes ago, Lex said:

 

Wait, Radio Scotland doesn’t think that Douglas decides who the PM is, do they?

 

Nope, I think the idea they put out was that what might be keeping Boris in no 10 is the bogey man Putin, because if not for him, Dross would presumably want Boris out on his arse. I thought it was a pretty straightforward piece of devilment in the interview.  Dross has a say in the matter if enough of his colleagues can find a spine to run up and put the letters in. 

Do I think it'll happen soon? No, spines appear to be scarce. 

[carpetmonster]

It’s probably not even as complicated as that, they’re likely just in the huff with him for having led the Scottish Tories into a shoeing 

[Lex]

9 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Nope, I think the idea they put out was that what might be keeping Boris in no 10 is the bogey man Putin, because if not for him, Dross would presumably want Boris out on his arse. I thought it was a pretty straightforward piece of devilment in the interview.  Dross has a say in the matter if enough of his colleagues can find a spine to run up and put the letters in. 

Do I think it'll happen soon? No, spines appear to be scarce. 

Well he wanted him out before and he didn't leave, so his change of mind had no impact on Boris' position whatsoever. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

4 minutes ago, Lex said:

Well he wanted him out before and he didn't leave, so his change of mind had no impact on Boris' position whatsoever. 

I'd be more if the views that the "not now because of Putin" Tory MPs are cowards, or have been "leant on" but I accept that's only an opinion. When pressed on things like "partygate", or lying to Parliament, or lying to the Queen, every Tory MP who runs for the "not now because of Putin" is publicly accepting that their view of who should lead the Tory party is more set by the Russian nutter than what's best for the country. It also means that they can continue to run away from the simple fact that they have put into the most powerful political position of the country someone of, well, let's say questionable honesty, dubious morals and wanton disregard for the very Union he claims to support. 

[Lex]

15 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I'd be more if the views that the "not now because of Putin" Tory MPs are cowards, or have been "leant on" but I accept that's only an opinion. When pressed on things like "partygate", or lying to Parliament, or lying to the Queen, every Tory MP who runs for the "not now because of Putin" is publicly accepting that their view of who should lead the Tory party is more set by the Russian nutter than what's best for the country. It also means that they can continue to run away from the simple fact that they have put into the most powerful political position of the country someone of, well, let's say questionable honesty, dubious morals and wanton disregard for the very Union he claims to support. 

The majority of Tory MP's are interested in one thing: winning elections, and Boris has shown he can win them, and that's why he is staying. The electorate gave him a historic mandate in 2019 and the electorate will have the chance to remove him in 2024. 

[williemillersmoustache]

36 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I'd be more if the views that the "not now because of Putin" Tory MPs are cowards, or have been "leant on" but I accept that's only an opinion. When pressed on things like "partygate", or lying to Parliament, or lying to the Queen, every Tory MP who runs for the "not now because of Putin" is publicly accepting that their view of who should lead the Tory party is more set by the Russian nutter than what's best for the country. It also means that they can continue to run away from the simple fact that they have put into the most powerful political position of the country someone of, well, let's say questionable honesty, dubious morals and wanton disregard for the very Union he claims to support. 

It also entirely infantalises the UK government and the British state apparatus as a whole. The proposition is that there is nobody else in the whole county who could supply arms and aid to Ukraine. Its fucking embarrassing. 

And as for winning elections, almost entirely down to him, the tories just took a ridiculous pumping. No matter how it is spinned that's what happened.