When will indyref2 happen?

[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.

[Lex]

2 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

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.

It's not an English parliament.

[Antlion]

2 minutes ago, Lex said:

It's not an English parliament.

Why does the Parliament in England continue only the customs and traditions of the English parliament? Why the charade with Black Rod? Why the wool sacks? Why does the parliament’s website say it goes back to the 13th century? Why do scholars acknowledge that the English Parliament sitting in 1706 continued exactly as before in its operations in 1708?

Looks to me like the English Parliament, in England, has simply expanded its jurisdiction and membership (and at times lost some) over the centuries. It never demonstrably ceased to be the English Parliament and certainly never adopted the customs or traditions of anywhere but England.

Now there is no English Government, but that’s a different matter.

[PossilYM]

 

Has any party in living memory got 50 +1 % of the vote at a Westminster general election?

 

[Fullerene]

5 minutes ago, PossilYM said:

 

Has any party in living memory got 50 +1 % of the vote at a Westminster general election?

 

Not a valid comparison.  There are multiple parties to choose from as opposed to a binary question.

[PossilYM]

1 minute ago, Fullerene said:

Not a valid comparison.  There are multiple parties to choose from as opposed to a binary question.

Has anybody told Nicola?

[Double Jack D]

44 minutes ago, Lex said:

It's not an English parliament.

I'm aware of that, and it has no bearing on the point. Votes from other nations within the UK parliament being used to keep Scotland within the union is not sustainable for UK democracy. 

[Cowden Cowboy]

5 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

I'm aware of that, and it has no bearing on the point. Votes from other nations within the UK parliament being used to keep Scotland within the union is not sustainable for UK democracy. 

It is unless there was a much larger majority strongly in favour of independence.  That isn’t the case.  The vast majority of Scots aren’t seething about this, taking to the streets rather they have other issues in their lives to deal with 

[PossilYM]

22 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

It is unless there was a much larger majority strongly in favour of independence.  That isn’t the case.  The vast majority of Scots aren’t seething about this, taking to the streets rather they have other issues in their lives to deal with 

Funnily enough i don't remember family members or workmates holding any particular view on Brexit.

First time it got mentioned was the day after the Brexit vote.

[Cowden Cowboy]

3 minutes ago, PossilYM said:

Funnily enough i don't remember family members or workmates holding any particular view on Brexit.

First time it got mentioned was the day after the Brexit vote.

Yes a 60% threshold would have prevented a stupid decision 

[Antlion]

26 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

It is unless there was a much larger majority strongly in favour of independence.  That isn’t the case.  The vast majority of Scots aren’t seething about this, taking to the streets rather they have other issues in their lives to deal with 

Every single Scottish resident could be in favour of independence. We’ve been told there is no legal mechanism by which we can achieve it other than the UK Government sitting in the English Parliament allowing it. Are you seriously trying to now suggest that in the 2020s UK, our only recourse would be to “take to the streets”? What kind of sham of a democracy is it you’re suggesting the UK is, here, and what is it that makes it so attractive to you?

[Antlion]

3 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Yes a 60% threshold would have prevented a stupid decision 

A glorious slogan of our sunny future within ZombieUK:

”Let’s live by England and Wales’s stupid decisions. Forever.”

It has the advantage of being accurate, at least.

[Cowden Cowboy]

1 minute ago, Antlion said:

Every single Scottish resident could be in favour of independence. We’ve been told there is no legal mechanism by which we can achieve it other than the UK Government sitting in the English Parliament allowing it. Are you seriously trying to now suggest that in the 2020s UK, our only recourse would be to “take to the streets”? What kind of sham of a democracy is it you’re suggesting the UK is, here, and what is it that makes it so attractive to you?

No I didn’t say that’s the only recourse rather you need to persuade the UK parliament by showing clearly what the true sentiment is and its strength.  At the moment it’s a 50/50 with probably a silent majority in Scotland not that fussed one way or the other.  Not everybody is a fervent unionist or Nat.  That is like assuming right wingers and left wingers with their extreme views actually represent the majority.  Instead UK politics has largely converged upon the middle ground 

[PossilYM]

9 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Yes a 60% threshold would have prevented a stupid decision 

And stopped Thatcherism 

[Granny Danger]

There are obvious trolls on here on the NO side and there are idiots too, but most worryingly amongst them there are Scots who genuinely believe that their fellow Scots should be denied the opportunity to decide their future.

I really struggle to understand that mindset.

[williemillersmoustache]

"Silent majority" is just code for "imaginary voters upon which my argument depends."

Carry on. 

[scottsdad]

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

There are obvious trolls on here on the NO side and there are idiots too, but most worryingly amongst them there are Scots who genuinely believe that their fellow Scots should be denied the opportunity to decide their future.

I really struggle to understand that mindset.

I absolutely believe Scotland should decide its own future. The UK parliament should allow indyref 2 because the will of the Scottish people is clear on this.

I do not accept any "de facto referendum" argument at a general election however.

[Antlion]

5 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

No I didn’t say that’s the only recourse rather you need to persuade the UK parliament by showing clearly what the true sentiment is and its strength.  At the moment it’s a 50/50 with probably a silent majority in Scotland not that fussed one way or the other.  Not everybody is a fervent unionist or Nat.  That is like assuming right wingers and left wingers with their extreme views actually represent the majority.  Instead UK politics has largely converged upon the middle ground 

Where in the Supreme Court’s recognition of the position, or in any part of the UK’s constitution, is a single word said about us having any ability or legal mechanism to “persuade” the UK government by “showing what the true sentiment is and its strength”? What form does this “persuasion” take? We’ve established it’s not via the ballot box. What you’re suggesting here sounds a lot like hoping the issue will go away by simply continuing to demand higher and higher bars whilst refusing to recognise election results.

You’re making the UK seem like an imperious overlord, which needs to be convinced to grant things on a whim by … what? Opinion polls set at arbitrary numbers over unknown periods of time? Rattling sabres? When it feels like it? What you’re not suggesting it is is a normal or even an acceptable democracy.

And you’re probably right.