When will indyref2 happen?

[HTG]

13 hours ago, Aufc said:

Hopefully this will give the SNP to actually sit down and work out a proper financial plan for how an independent Scotland would look.

I'm in catch up on this thread but the SNP sitting down etc has f**k all to do with anything. The Supreme Court didn't rule on the basis of the competence of the argument and Westminster will never rule on the basis of the competence of the argument.  That element matters after the route to a democratic outcome has been established. 

[williemillersmoustache]

5 hours 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,

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.

You've already had the immigration questiond explained to you.

The SNP policy is different in 2 ways. 1) The restoration of freedom of movement. 2) Non EU migration determined by the needs of the people who live here and not the insane screeching of GB news about England being full.

On brexit, we know what his policy isn't.  It's not the single market, its not the customs Union and its not freedom of movement.  So we can say right away that it is idiot fucking nonsense. The UK will never have a stable relationship with the EU that doesn't involve single market membership. It's impossible for a whole host of reasons not least Northern Ireland, another part of the UK the current British Labour and Unionist parry couldn't give less of a f**k about if there are frother votes in Englandshire to chase.

Someone mentioned the non codified nature of the UK constitution and this is a good point. This whole farrago and it is a fucking horrible mess is just yet another example of the "good chap" system of government falling down the second it makes contact with a c**t, with a plurality of English votes behind it.  There are no rules, the UK is a midden failed state, with only democracy for some, if at all. 

As for the house jock comment, I've tried not to use it, despite doing so frequently in the past. It's not racist. But it is highly offensive. There is no racial component to this modern Scottish version but it is derived from those slaves prepared to inform on their fellows, lick boot, tug forelock, scrape and bow for the chance to move into service in The Big House with the quality, where they dream of one day pouring the tea, washing the clothes and emptying the chamber pots of their masters. Abandoning who they are and where they came in the process. Like Lindsay Hoyle or any member of the Scottish accounting unit of the Labour Party. 

So highly offensive but the most apposite 2 word description in the history of politics and while I try not to use it myself, mainly to avoid the sort of idiot rasper comments above telling me it is racist simply because of its history, despite the obvious lack of any racial component, (does Dobbie the House-Elf make JK into Bernard Manning?) you should know I absolutely am thinking it when I consider those servile creatures who'd rather wipe the arses, iron the shirts and deliver the breakfast trays to the owners, than live in the house themselves.

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by williemillersmoustache

[git-intae-thum]

Since the UK's supreme Court has decided the nation of Scotland and therefore the union does not exist.....what are Scottish "Unionists" going to call themselves now?

[Aufc]

So is denying Scotland a democratic route to deciding its own future but that's the world we find ourselves in.
Besides, in some respects it's the most honest an SNP WM manifesto will have ever been. Who cares what the SNP think about tax and spend, immigration or the EU when they will never be allowed to exercise those positions?
The SNP's only concern at WM is the constitution, and always has been. 

Surely that would be the best way to get a larger majority to vote yes? By offering a convincing argument as to how they see everything working? They haven’t done this.

I don’t believe the whole “too wee, too poor” rhetoric that gets spat out. Scotland is a well developed, educated and nutrient rich country. However, it is also an ageing population and it doesn’t have a lot of higher rate taxpayers to help pay for this and it seems like they will look to increase the taxes on them even further.

[Aufc]

I'm in catch up on this thread but the SNP sitting down etc has f**k all to do with anything. The Supreme Court didn't rule on the basis of the competence of the argument and Westminster will never rule on the basis of the competence of the argument.  That element matters after the route to a democratic outcome has been established. 

I have mentioned similar above but I disagree. If the SNP can convince a larger majority of people to vote yes then it makes their case stronger. At the moment, the polls are so tightly balanced that it’s harder for them to argue that a referendum is the desire of the Scottish people.

[Donathan]

1 hour ago, git-intae-thum said:

Since the UK's supreme Court has decided the nation of Scotland and therefore the union does not exist.....what are Scottish "Unionists" going to call themselves now?

What on earth are you on about? 

[Guest Jedi]

Think you will find that the 'house jock' term derives rather from American slavery, and the 'word' which always followed it there was the one which was applied to slaves brought in from Africa, and the house part meaning those who worked in domestic service on large Southern plantations.

Clearly, I'm not going to use 'that' word.But no, no racist connotations there at all.

[williemillersmoustache]

1 minute ago, Jedi said:

Think you will find that the 'house jock' term derives rather from American slavery, and the 'word' which always followed it there was the one which was applied to slaves brought in from Africa, and the house part meaning those who worked in domestic service on large Southern plantations.

Clearly, I'm not going to use 'that' word.But no, no racist connotations there at all.

House word salad. Covered in house word salad dressing. 

[renton]

1 hour ago, Aufc said:

Surely that would be the best way to get a larger majority to vote yes? By offering a convincing argument as to how they see everything working? They haven’t done this.

I don’t believe the whole “too wee, too poor” rhetoric that gets spat out. Scotland is a well developed, educated and nutrient rich country. However, it is also an ageing population and it doesn’t have a lot of higher rate taxpayers to help pay for this and it seems like they will look to increase the taxes on them even further.

There are various papers stretching back before 2014 regarding how they think it should work and no doubt they will prepare more in the run up to 2024. That's preparatory work that will be used to inform, but the campaign and the manifesto itself should be a simple one liner.

As to your second paragraph, well its either have more kids or own your own immigration policy.

[sparky88]

1 hour ago, Aufc said:

I have mentioned similar above but I disagree. If the SNP can convince a larger majority of people to vote yes then it makes their case stronger. At the moment, the polls are so tightly balanced that it’s harder for them to argue that a referendum is the desire of the Scottish people.

They should be doing this stuff when Yes are at 60% in the polls..

Using greivance might well get Yes a small majority in the end but it's storing up resentment for the future.  

For example, Sturgeon wants to campaign that a vote for SNP is a vote for democracy at the next election. Does that mean that a vote for a Unionist party makes you anti democratic? It's very Farage in his Brexit Party years.

[ICTJohnboy]

35 minutes ago, renton said:

 the campaign and the manifesto itself should be a simple one liner.

 

 

Get Indy Done?

 

[williemillersmoustache]

4 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Get Indy Done?

 

Get Democracy Done

OR

Scotland to Get Democracy 

[Guest Jedi]

1 hour ago, williemillersmoustache said:

House word salad. Covered in house word salad dressing. 

As you said...at least house jock not a term you will use yourself.

[Double Jack D]

41 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

They should be doing this stuff when Yes are at 60% in the polls..

Using greivance might well get Yes a small majority in the end but it's storing up resentment for the future.  

For example, Sturgeon wants to campaign that a vote for SNP is a vote for democracy at the next election. Does that mean that a vote for a Unionist party makes you anti democratic? It's very Farage in his Brexit Party years.

This is deliberately muddying the issues.

Every vote is democratic so long as the winners get to implement what they were voted in for. In a Scottish context this isn't happening. This isn't sustainable.

Worryingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, there seems to be more sympathy within pro union voices in England for the democratic deficit Scotland faces.

Given that UK law has determined that the Scottish Parliament doesn't have the power over constitution, it is now up to the UK parliament to establish the process by which Scotland can choose to voluntarily end the union. The most obvious answer to that is for a majority MP's from scottish constituencies to vote for a referendum then it should take place. 

[Guest Jedi]

Is there a chance that, once the precedent is set, of using a national election as a de facto Ref, with a one line 'manifesto', that that becomes the tactic moving forward (assuming the SNP don't win 50% in 2 years).

So it then simply rolls over to the next Holyrood election..which is the next de facto Ref, and if 50% is secured there, then Independence achieved.. if not..onto the next GE.

There is an irony in the fact that the SNP's best ever election result in 2015 is the only election they have fought when Independence wasn't even mentioned (too close to 2014 obviously).

That was one factor in their result of 56 seats...another of course being the deep unpopularity of Labour at the time..already have 45% in the bag from.the Ref etc.

[Cowden Cowboy]

10 hours ago, renton said:

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.

I would expect that a return to EU should meet a 60% hurdle - the previous mistake was to make such a major change on a narrow margin.  

[Lex]

Just now, Jedi said:

Is there a chance that, once the precedent is set, of using a national election as a de facto Ref, with a one line 'manifesto', that that becomes the tactic moving forward (assuming the SNP don't win 50% in 2 years).

So it then simply rolls over to the next Holyrood election..which is the next de facto Ref, and if 50% is secured there, then Independence achieved.. if not..onto the next GE.

There is an irony in the fact that the SNP's best ever election result in 2015 is the only election they have fought when Independence wasn't even mentioned (too close to 2014 obviously).

That was one factor in their result of 56 seats...another of course being the deep unpopularity of Labour at the time..already have 45% in the bag from.the Ref etc.

It won't matter of course. The SNP won't win 50%+ of the Scottish votes cast (they never have), and even if they did, it wouldn't lead to independence, despite what they say. It won't change the fact that the constitution is a Westminster matter and any changes to it requires a bill to pass through that chamber with a majority of MP's voting for it. The route to Scottish independence is for Westminster to vote through a referendum act - like they did prior to 2014 - and for the SNP to then win the referendum. Of course that won't happen under a Sunak or Starmer administration, and we will have one of them post 2024. Beyond that? Who can say.

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, sparky88 said:

They should be doing this stuff when Yes are at 60% in the polls..

Using greivance might well get Yes a small majority in the end but it's storing up resentment for the future.  

For example, Sturgeon wants to campaign that a vote for SNP is a vote for democracy at the next election. Does that mean that a vote for a Unionist party makes you anti democratic? It's very Farage in his Brexit Party years.

There are no unionist parties. There is no “union”. As the Supreme Court’s ruling shows, Scotland and England’s union was done and dusted in 1707 and thereafter both became mere regions of the UK rather than countries in mutual union. You might call this “greivance” - but I reckon that word more applies to England and Wales’s bitterness towards the EU, which was a mutual union from which countries can withdraw.

Ergo, there are only UK Nationalist parties and Scottish Nationalist parties. Of the former, the Tories have shown themselves to be anti-democratic. Labour have tried to ape this but it’s not entirely clear whether they’d go full anti-democratic and outright deny Scotland can legally further dismantle the UK or not.

[renton]

22 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

I would expect that a return to EU should meet a 60% hurdle - the previous mistake was to make such a major change on a narrow margin.  

My point being is that what you may expect is a sensible criteria will be tossed aside for political expediency. 

By the same token, Scoand could poll 60% consistently and I bet you WM would raise the margin required to 70%

[Double Jack D]

35 minutes ago, Lex said:

It won't matter of course. The SNP won't win 50%+ of the Scottish votes cast (they never have), and even if they did, it wouldn't lead to independence, despite what they say. It won't change the fact that the constitution is a Westminster matter and any changes to it requires a bill to pass through that chamber with a majority of MP's voting for it. The route to Scottish independence is for Westminster to vote through a referendum act - like they did prior to 2014 - and for the SNP to then win the referendum. Of course that won't happen under a Sunak or Starmer administration, and we will have one of them post 2024. Beyond that? Who can say.

I think the Westminster process for voting for a referendum needs to be clarified. Simply saying that Sunak or Starmer or whoever in future can block Scottish expressed democracy based on votes from elsewhere isn't sustainable for the Union. 

I could understand Scots voting No, I'm really struggling with Scots who are happy to have an English parliament have sovereignty over us.  Some of the mental gymnastics currently being exercised by Scottish Unionists justifying this is quite perplexing.