When will indyref2 happen?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I will reiterate what I said yesterday.

If opponents want the SNP to stop pursuing independence, all they have to do is persuade enough of the Scottish electorate to stop voting for them.

Telling the SNP to "get on with the day job" or to "stop focusing on independence" ignores the reality that the SNP's raison d'etre is independence.

It also ignores another reality - the SNP keep winning elections against the Britnat parties - even when they put opposition to independence at the centre of their manifestos.

The Britnats only tool is to be undemocratic.

[Johnny Martin]

57 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Perhaps you can explain exactly how “Scots can establish independence if they want it”, then? Please be very specific.

 

If opinion polling was running at say 60% or above for a long time.. like a couple of years or something, then it'd be obvious that Scots had changed their mind for the long term, and the devolved assembly could ask for a section 30.

This would be a long way off anyway, as we only had one eight years ago.  Referenduma should be well spaced out - like 50 years or something.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Johnny Martin

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 
If opinion polling was running at say 60% or above for a long time.. like a couple of years or something, then it'd be obvious that Scots had changed their mind for the long term, and the devolved assembly could ask for a section 30.
This would be a long way off anyway, as we only had one eight years ago.  Referenduma should be well spaced out - like 50 years or something.

Opinion polls are not democracy.

[Antlion]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

 

If opinion polling was running at say 60% or above for a long time.. like a couple of years or something, then it'd be obvious that Scots had changed their mind for the long term, and the devolved assembly could ask for a section 30.

This would be a long way off anyway, as we only had one eight years ago.  Referenduma should be well spaced out - like 50 years or something.

Where is this codified? It looks to me like the UK could simply say “60% for a couple of years is not enough”.

We have only ever had a “referenduma” on whether or not to be part of an EU member state. We have never voted on whether to be part of an aggressively anti-European non-member state. Don’t blame us for nullifying the 2014 vote - blame David Cameron, Boris Johnson, and the good voters of England and Wales.

[Guest Jedi]

1 hour ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

 

What’s it like hating your own country so much that you think it needs to be tied to another country who genuinely treat you with complete contempt? I cant really figure out that mindset? Does it feel nice when they pat you on the head and tell you you’re a good little house jock?

Yes, hating it that much that I want to see an Independent Scotland based on socialist principles (and not the SNP's pro big business/multinational/public sector slashing corporate agenda), and would therefore prefer to see that Independent country run by politicians who are more interested in people than profit.

You do know that 'house Jock' is a racist term right (and no, not the jock part, consider for oh, a second what term normally followed the 'house' part), but crack on.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Jedi

[Antlion]

Out of curiosity, are the Daily Mail going to try inciting hatred over the Supreme Court ruling? Going to run a headline similar to this?

[Antlion]

1 minute ago, Jedi said:

Yes, hating it that much that I want to see an Independent Scotland based on socialist principles (and not the SNP's pro big business/multination public sector slashing corporate agenda), and would therefore prefer to see that Indepedent country run by politicians who are more interested in people than profy.

Odd that you don’t want to see an independent UK run along the same lines. You’d hardly be supporting the jolly, immigrant-bashing, Brexit-loving knight of the realm if you did.

[Guest Jedi]

2 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Odd that you don’t want to see an independent UK run along the same lines. You’d hardly be supporting the jolly, immigrant-bashing, Brexit-loving knight of the realm if you did.

I think you need to look up the actual Labour proposals on immigration, and then compare them to the SNP's and come back with what the key differences are, rather than basing the immigration card entirely on (I admit) poor comments made by Starmer.

And no, we still don't know what 'Make Brexit work' means, until there is a published manifesto outlining the plan, whether it is even pushing to join EFTA, find more alignment with the single market or whatever,

Meanwhile, the classic right wing tactic of trying to play public sector workers off against each other in Scotland, claiming there is 'no money' (despite magically 'finding; an extra £550 million to offer some sectors of health care tonight), and indeed having been handed £1.5 billion extra by Hunt's budget last week, continues. Still, no money for these pesky teachers though.

[carpetmonster]

The Labour Party that exists inside Jedi’s head sounds brilliant. I’d be overjoyed to vote for it if it wasn’t entirely fantastical. 

[carpetmonster]

20 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Where is this codified? It looks to me like the UK could simply say “60% for a couple of years is not enough”.

We have only ever had a “referenduma” on whether or not to be part of an EU member state. We have never voted on whether to be part of an aggressively anti-European non-member state. Don’t blame us for nullifying the 2014 vote - blame David Cameron, Boris Johnson, and the good voters of England and Wales.

I’m not saying this new poster is a sockpuppet account, but check its pattern of greenies and then when it started making actual posts. 

[Guest Jedi]

9 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

The Labour Party that exists inside Jedi’s head sounds brilliant. I’d be overjoyed to vote for it if it wasn’t entirely fantastical. 

So, what does Make Brexit work' mean? What is the policy outline? Or is it there, there isnt one?

On Immigration...in what ways are a points based skills system different to the SNP's Scottish Visa system (also based on skills)?

Both parties oppose the Tories Rwanda plan

Both parties agree on the priority of ensuring that asylum seekers have proper access to housing, benefits, and employment.

Both parties agree on the necessity of ensuring that migrants are reunited with their families in the UK

And finally, both parties agree to end the Tories detention centres.

Labour's other immigration policies include cracking down on criminal gangs, and ensuring safer crossing of the Channel...or do the SNP oppose these?

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Jedi

[Antlion]

25 minutes ago, Jedi said:

I think you need to look up the actual Labour proposals on immigration, and then compare them to the SNP's and come back with what the key differences are, rather than basing the immigration card entirely on (I admit) poor comments made by Starmer.

And no, we still don't know what 'Make Brexit work' means, until there is a published manifesto outlining the plan, whether it is even pushing to join EFTA, find more alignment with the single market or whatever,

 

You are supporting Labour, not knowing “what Make Brexit Work means”, in the blind belief that a nothing like Sir Keir will somehow just produce an independent socialist UK? This, despite his “poor comments”? This, despite him distancing himself from the perceived socialism of Corbyn?

I think you need to look up Starmer’s comments and history rather than simply believing that he’ll wave a socialist wand over Blighty. It’s not going to happen.

You really are in no position to criticise any party if you’re willing to put blind faith in one, just invent what you want it to stand for, and hide behind it not having a published manifesto to excuse your fantasies.

[Antlion]

22 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

I’m not saying this new poster is a sockpuppet account, but check its pattern of greenies and then when it started making actual posts. 

Fluffing DPB is the mark of a real socialist, no?

[Guest Jedi]

23 minutes ago, Antlion said:

You are supporting Labour, not knowing “what Make Brexit Work means”, in the blind belief that a nothing like Sir Keir will somehow just produce an independent socialist UK? This, despite his “poor comments”? This, despite him distancing himself from the perceived socialism of Corbyn?

I think you need to look up Starmer’s comments and history rather than simply believing that he’ll wave a socialist wand over Blighty. It’s not going to happen.

You really are in no position to criticise any party if you’re willing to put blind faith in one, just invent what you want it to stand for, and hide behind it not having a published manifesto to excuse your fantasies.

I deal in facts rather than fantasies....Fact is that Labour have not published a manifesto, rather an outline of intentions for the next GE.

Fact is, as I have agreed, that Starmer's comments on immigration recently, are poor. He is clearly trying to shore up Red Wall 'Brexit' seats there, when he doesn't need to. I don't imagine he will 'wave' a socialist wand over the country, given that the only arguably 'socialist' govt the UK has had, was Clement Atlee's 1945-51 administration. I do however believe that we will see a considerable improvement on the current Tory govt.

'No position' to criticise any other govt.....(by offering 'opinions' on where I think Labour will improve the country viz a viz the Tories). Am I to assume that you support the current SNP mantra there isn't an extra penny available to increase say teachers wages in line with inflation (£300 million would be the cost), but yet they managed to find a magic £550 million tonight, and had an increase of £1.5 billion last week?

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Jedi

[Cowden Cowboy]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

What a steaming pile of shite.

So 60% to leave the Union but leaving the EU was 52% - and could have been 50% + 1 vote.

 

 

Which is the point - such decisions should have to meet a 60% or similar hurdle given the scale of its impact and to as best as possible ensure a meaningful majority are solidly in favour rather than it just being a transitory majority situation 

[Antlion]

8 minutes ago, Jedi said:

I deal in facts rather than fantasies....Fact is that Labour have not published a manifesto, rather an outline of intentions for the next GE.

Fact is, as I have agreed, that Starmer's comments on immigration recently, are poor. He is clearly trying to shore up Red Wall 'Brexit' seats there, when he doesn't need to. I don't imagine he will 'wave' a socialist wand over the country, given that the only arguably 'socialist' govt the UK has had, was Clement Atlee's 1945-51 administration. I do however believe that we will see a considerable improvement on the current Tory govt.

 

 

So to be clear, your demand is no less than a socialist independent Scotland (and anything that falls short is unacceptable), but you’ll settle for … *reads again* a Labour-led UK which is only “a considerable improvement on the Tory govt” (based on an unwritten manifesto from a man pandering to xenophobes) but still not socialist.

Seems legit. Doesn’t seem at all like you’re demanding far more from Scotland than you do from the lying, pandering (by your own admission) knight of the realm.

[Antlion]

7 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Which is the point - such decisions should have to meet a 60% or similar hurdle given the scale of its impact and to as best as possible ensure a meaningful majority are solidly in favour rather than it just being a transitory majority situation 

Why stop at 60? Why should we even believe the line would be drawn at 60%? Surely, just to be safe, we should not accept Scotland can ever be a real, sovereign nation state until every single living voter across the whole of Blighty (and at least 101% of dead ones) has the callous temerity to vote (consistently for 100 years minimum) to tear apart the seamless fabric of the glorious UK?

[renton]

19 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Which is the point - such decisions should have to meet a 60% or similar hurdle given the scale of its impact and to as best as possible ensure a meaningful majority are solidly in favour rather than it just being a transitory majority situation 

And when Labour - in government - finally plucks up the courage to put a referendum to the UK about going back into the EU, you think they'll demand a 60% criteria? Of course not. It's only the answers you don't like that people generally want to chuck hurdles at.

I have sympathy with the notion that 50%+1 is a less than stellar way of deciding such matters. Then again, British democracy where we basically chuck out the entire government every 5 years on slender pluralities isn't genius anyway.

I previously have thought a good compromise would be to codify a vote into every Scottish electoral cycle, regardless of the party(ies) in power. However, a single Yes vote wouldn't be enough to trigger Indy - instead you'd need to get two on the bounce (think of it as a two strike system.)

As a compromise it has the advantage of giving the pro-Indy side a hardwired mechanism for exiting the UK, while giving the pro-shite side a similarly codified cool down period that would give them time to rectify or address the grievances that had created a Yes vote in the first place. Meanwhile the constitutional question would be somewhat removed from everyday political life.

Edited November 24, 2022 by renton

[Guest Jedi]

8 minutes ago, Antlion said:

So to be clear, your demand is no less than a socialist independent Scotland (and anything that falls short is unacceptable), but you’ll settle for … *reads again* a Labour-led UK which is only “a considerable improvement on the Tory govt” (based on an unwritten manifesto from a man pandering to xenophobes) but still not socialist.

Seems legit. Doesn’t seem at all like you’re demanding far more from Scotland than you do from the lying, pandering (by your own admission) knight of the realm.

'Hoping' for an Independent Scotland which would at some point be run on more socialist principles, is hardly 'demanding'...neither is it a 'higher bar' for Scotland, as I would 'hope' to see a UK govt in the meantime which also set out its stall along more socialist lines. As things stand, the proposals put forward by Labour, while in some parts 'socialist' and in some parts, less so, (though still an improvement on the Tories), will I believe improve the lives of a lot of people.

On the 60% point....yes, it does seem high....could go in, on a 55% plus 'consistent' polling. The point, as Nicola Sturgeon herself made is to demonstrate a clear demand for Independence by a majority.

If the SNP don't reach 50% in the GE, do they then just move onto the next Holyrood election, and again go on a single ticker campaign, and 'this time' if they get 50% in a de facto Referendum, then...Independence happens......or, do they go back to the 60% polling idea, which they themselves first floated?

[git-intae-thum]

Re the teachers strike......Scotgov cannot win on this issue tbh. I would imagine most have sympathy for the plight of all workers when faced with cost of living rises far outstripping pay.

Where does it stop though. A devolved administration with limited fiscal levers cannot fix the public sector finance disaster initially caused by Labour and magnified by the Tories.

When the teachers get their rise...who is next. With a fixed budget it just can't happen. SLAB Britnats in the public sector unions and the media know this, but it doesn't stop them agitating.

Full fiscal independence would allow the necessary fiscal leverages that could be used to try to offset any rising cost of living demands.

Incredulous anyone purporting to want an independent socialist Scotland can't see this tbh.