When will indyref2 happen?

[Ad Lib]

13 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

If the court returns a judgement that the Scottish people do not have the right to hold a referendum to determine their political future, then surely any notion of "union" is over.

“The Scottish people” are a complete red herring here.

The question is not whether a people can hold a referendum. The question is whether a bit of state apparatus can hold a referendum, and who can legislate to authorise it to act in that way.

The UK Parliament could legislate to enable the Scottish people to vote on independence if it really wanted to. The issue here is can the Scottish Parliament, a constitutionally limited legislature, can do it unilaterally instead.

The very long legal argument cut very short is “the Scotland Act and case law on it suggests very probably not, but a minority of legal academics think there’s at least an argument to be made that it can”. In very crude terms we are in 90/10 territory for ultra vires/intra vires.

13 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

What we will be left with is occupation and subjugation.

Surely any self respecting Scottish unionists would oppose this also.

This doesn’t follow. Plenty of states forbid referendums on secession or secession in their constitutional arrangements. It’s called a pre-commitment strategy.

I happen to think it is one that wouldn’t work the way intended if applied rigorously in the UK’s political culture but it’s shrill to call it occupation.

[Ad Lib]

11 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Possibly.....but it would stand a much greater chance of success had the full weight of Scotgov had been behind it, employing the best legal minds.

It's almost as though they don't want independence

The Scottish Government, quite understandably, don’t want the courts involved. They want a negotiated referendum, so that a UK Government is committed to encouraging Unionists to participate rather than to boycott, and then to respect a Yes vote.

If a court case wins, the Nats lose the reassurance of the result of the referendum being respected: “we didn’t agree to this referendum we think it’s not binding the Union is reserved go away” Boris would say.

If the court case loses, the Nats lose the bargaining chip in the referendum negotiations of being able to threaten a wildcat referendum if the UK Government keeps saying naw. They become vulnerable to bad faith arguments like “it’s reserved never again” rather than the Edinburgh Agreement becoming the established precedent for “good constitutional behaviour”.

Also the Lord Advocate clearly is worried the Scottish Government would lose a case like this so wants no part of it.

They want independence. They’re just not stupid about the best route to achieve it.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Ad Lib

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Just FYI
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/english-teenagers-are-most-illiterate-developed-world-report-reveals-a6841166.html

Bad as these figures are, apparently they would have been MUCH worse had Buckinghamshire not been included.

[GordonS]

20 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

 

They want independence. They’re just not stupid about the best route to achieve it.

For the fundamentalist wing of the independence movement, unless you're screaming about occupation, waving flags on motorway bridges and threatening UDI, you're just not independencing hard enough and are clearly a yoon lackey. 

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Do we know that this "correspondent" is a supporter of "Sturgeon's Scotland"...?

"Lishties"...... That's almost as ignorant as calling Scots people Scotch!

I took a swing at fundamentalist nats above, so now, for balance, a swing at yoons (note - not all Unionists are yoons).

Yoons: Interest in Scots and Gaelic is a parochial nationalist plot.

Also yoons: if you can't pronounce Scots words properly it's the nationalists' fault.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

12 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

2 hours ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Just FYI
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/english-teenagers-are-most-illiterate-developed-world-report-reveals-a6841166.html

Bad as these figures are, apparently they would have been MUCH worse had Buckinghamshire not been included.

They've had another five years of Tory rule since then so god knows what its like now.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

36 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The Scottish Government, quite understandably, don’t want the courts involved. They want a negotiated referendum, so that a UK Government is committed to encouraging Unionists to participate rather than to boycott, and then to respect a Yes vote.

If a court case wins, the Nats lose the reassurance of the result of the referendum being respected: “we didn’t agree to this referendum we think it’s not binding the Union is reserved go away” Boris would say.

If the court case loses, the Nats lose the bargaining chip in the referendum negotiations of being able to threaten a wildcat referendum if the UK Government keeps saying naw. They become vulnerable to bad faith arguments like “it’s reserved never again” rather than the Edinburgh Agreement becoming the established precedent for “good constitutional behaviour”.

Also the Lord Advocate clearly is worried the Scottish Government would lose a case like this so wants no part of it.

They want independence. They’re just not stupid about the best route to achieve it.

That's all fine and well but a negotiated referendum is not going to happen. Ever.

The only people on earth who can grant one have said repeatedly and clearly there are no circumstances under which they will do so. They don't have any votes to lose in this country or any seats, and don't need our votes or seats anyway. Indeed, those that vote for them here would be pleased with them blocking a referendum and if anything they'd gain support, but as I said it doesn't matter anyway.

And its not like the media are going to hold them to account.

So the SNP need to stop either lying to us or themselves. A s30 is not going to happen, its not an option.

There is only one scenario in which it could, a UK GE returning a minority Labour government who can only govern with support from the SNP. A result which has never been returned in history, though more likely now than ever before. 

So the need to pursue other avenues is necessary and urgent, and if the SNP are maintaining the s30 route is the way to go they very much are stupid and don't know the best way to achieve their aims.

[sophia]

41 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

That's all fine and well but a negotiated referendum is not going to happen. Ever.

The only people on earth who can grant one have said repeatedly and clearly there are no circumstances under which they will do so. They don't have any votes to lose in this country or any seats, and don't need our votes or seats anyway. Indeed, those that vote for them here would be pleased with them blocking a referendum and if anything they'd gain support, but as I said it doesn't matter anyway.

And its not like the media are going to hold them to account.

So the SNP need to stop either lying to us or themselves. A s30 is not going to happen, its not an option.

There is only one scenario in which it could, a UK GE returning a minority Labour government who can only govern with support from the SNP. A result which has never been returned in history, though more likely now than ever before. 

So the need to pursue other avenues is necessary and urgent, and if the SNP are maintaining the s30 route is the way to go they very much are stupid and don't know the best way to achieve their aims.

Your premise is not a good one and pre election rhetoric is wont to disappear like snow in spring.

[Erih Shtrep]

49 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

That's all fine and well but a negotiated referendum is not going to happen. Ever.

 

It's happened before.  

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

8 minutes ago, sophia said:

Your premise is not a good one and pre election rhetoric is wont to disappear like snow in spring.

There's no reason for it to change after the results of a HR election. No matter how we vote is has no bearing whatsoever on WM and they can happily ignore our democratic wishes as there is no mechanism to compel them to respect them.

At this point its a zero sum game, the British government have nothing to lose by denying our democracy and everything to gain.

4 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said:

It's happened before.  

That doesn't mean it will happen again. They granted that when indy was polling at 27%. Now its double that, there's no chance they will agree to a referendum they know they'd lose.

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

That's all fine and well but a negotiated referendum is not going to happen. Ever.

The only people on earth who can grant one have said repeatedly and clearly there are no circumstances under which they will do so. They don't have any votes to lose in this country or any seats, and don't need our votes or seats anyway. Indeed, those that vote for them here would be pleased with them blocking a referendum and if anything they'd gain support, but as I said it doesn't matter anyway.

And its not like the media are going to hold them to account.

So the SNP need to stop either lying to us or themselves. A s30 is not going to happen, its not an option.

There is only one scenario in which it could, a UK GE returning a minority Labour government who can only govern with support from the SNP. A result which has never been returned in history, though more likely now than ever before. 

So the need to pursue other avenues is necessary and urgent, and if the SNP are maintaining the s30 route is the way to go they very much are stupid and don't know the best way to achieve their aims.

Even taking this argument at its highest, Sturgeon’s assessment is that either (a) there is a non-zero chance you’re wrong and that they would or that (b) there are enough Scots who still think (a) who she wants to keep on-side for now.

If the SNP wins an overall majority on an explicit manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, without caveats, contingencies or twistable words, that removes the “no mandate” argument that some Unionists genuinely believe applies to the “material change in circumstances” 2016 result. It leaves “once in a generation eat your dinner” up against “most voters now clearly want this”.

So even if it’s necessary to go wildcat rather than via s30, it is better to go wildcat after a referendum has been refused after the clearest possible political mandate has been obtained rather than before it.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Ad Lib

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

Just now, Ad Lib said:

Even taking this argument at its highest, Sturgeon’s assessment is that either (a) there is a non-zero chance you’re wrong and that they would or that (b) there are enough Scots who still think (a) who she wants to keep on-side for now.

If the SNP wins an overall majority on an explicit manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, without caveats, contingencies or twistable words, that removes the “no mandate” argument that some Unionists genuinely believe applies to the “material change in circumstances” 2016 result.

So even if it’s necessary to go wildcat, it is better to go wildcat after a referendum has been refused with the clearest possible political mandate rather than before it.

Totally agree with paragraphs one and three. 

However, unionists will never recognise or accept there is a mandate. They've said so. They've already refused to recognise an identical mandate.  It will make no difference. I think you're maybe giving them a little much credit too, there isn't a single unionist on earth who genuinely believes we don't have a mandate right now, they just say that. 

I don't see much of a way forward. Even if we hold a consultative referendum they will boycott it, unionist councils will refuse to facilitate it and they will claim its illegitimate. 

[lichtgilphead]

12 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This phrase is doing the rounds on various 'social media' places.

Disappointed to see it on P&B - but seeing as it's you it doesn't come as a surprise.

To edit:.  I was listening to 'open all mics' earlier and the correspondent at Palmerston today talked about 'an equaliser for The Lichties' but pronounced it as 'Lishties'..  That is how ignorant Sturgeon's Scotland has become.

Can you give us a list of phrases that disappoint you, so we can use them more often? 

With regard to the use of the word "colony", here's a definition (my emphasis)

Colonial Rule/Colonialism - The policy or practice of a wealthy or powerful nation's maintaining or extending its control over other countries, especially in establishing settlements or exploiting resources.

Obviously, England cannot really be described as a wealthy or powerful nation any more, but the rest of the definition would apply.

With regard to the pronounciation of "ch", I was watching the excellent stream from QoS TV, so I didn't hear Derek Ferguson's comment. However, I could find hundreds of other mispronounciations of the "ch" sound by the British Broadcasting Corporation, mainly relating to the word "Loch"

 

[git-intae-thum]

4 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

“The Scottish people” are a complete red herring here.

The question is not whether a people can hold a referendum. The question is whether a bit of state apparatus can hold a referendum, and who can legislate to authorise it to act in that way.

The UK Parliament could legislate to enable the Scottish people to vote on independence if it really wanted to. The issue here is can the Scottish Parliament, a constitutionally limited legislature, can do it unilaterally instead.

I fear the legal argument missed the boat when we left the jurisdiction of the European courts. It is unlikely the Scottish court will make a decision either way. The matter ultimately may head to the UK supreme court. I think it obvious the outcome thereafter.

If "the Scottish people" are unable to see enacted what they have repeatedly expressed through the ballot box, then where does that leave us. I think the terms occupation and subjugation quite apt tbh.

Edited January 17, 2021 by git-intae-thum

[git-intae-thum]

4 hours ago, GordonS said:

For the fundamentalist wing of the independence movement, unless you're screaming about occupation, waving flags on motorway bridges and threatening UDI, you're just not independencing hard enough and are clearly a yoon lackey. 

This is very condescending.

People are obviously concerned with regards to what the plan is when Johnson says naw....as he will.

As it stands the now there isn't one.

[git-intae-thum]

4 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

The Scottish Government, quite understandably, don’t want the courts involved. They want a negotiated referendum, so that a UK Government is committed to encouraging Unionists to participate rather than to boycott, and then to respect a Yes vote.

If a court case wins, the Nats lose the reassurance of the result of the referendum being respected: “we didn’t agree to this referendum we think it’s not binding the Union is reserved go away” Boris would say.

If the court case loses, the Nats lose the bargaining chip in the referendum negotiations of being able to threaten a wildcat referendum if the UK Government keeps saying naw. They become vulnerable to bad faith arguments like “it’s reserved never again” rather than the Edinburgh Agreement becoming the established precedent for “good constitutional behaviour”.

Also the Lord Advocate clearly is worried the Scottish Government would lose a case like this so wants no part of it.

They want independence. They’re just not stupid about the best route to achieve it.

Following this line of thought implies that we require the agreement of the UK government..... regardless of victory or defeat in this upcoming court case.

Even if that were the case.....it still does nothing to resolve the scenario of what happens when that agreement is consistently withheld, despite numerous democratic mandates.

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

This is very condescending.

People are obviously concerned with regards to what the plan is when Johnson says naw....as he will.

As it stands the now there isn't one.

Do you think it would be wise to announce plan B to him now? If we don't initially follow the constitutional path to the letter, we won't get any support when we need to get more creative.

[git-intae-thum]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Do you think it would be wise to announce plan B to him now? If we don't initially follow the constitutional path to the letter, we won't get any support when we need to get more creative.

I genuinely hope you are correct

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Do you think it would be wise to announce plan B to him now? If we don't initially follow the constitutional path to the letter, we won't get any support when we need to get more creative.

This.

Like a manager telling the opposition what they are going to do if their plan A tactics fail.

[Ad Lib]

2 hours ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Totally agree with paragraphs one and three. 

However, unionists will never recognise or accept there is a mandate. They've said so. They've already refused to recognise an identical mandate.  It will make no difference. I think you're maybe giving them a little much credit too, there isn't a single unionist on earth who genuinely believes we don't have a mandate right now, they just say that.

Whether you like it or not, there are at least some Unionists who think any mixture of the following:

(a) that 2016 wasn’t a mandate because the SNP didn’t win a majority

(b) that 2016 wasn’t a mandate because it was too soon after 2014

(c) that 2016 wasn’t a mandate because the conditions set by the SNP and Greens were hypothetical/not the same/not clear enough

(d) that the fall in the SNP’s seats share and votes in 2017 in some sense politically “overrode” any suggestion 2016 was a mandate because they were losing momentum

(e) that 2019 was really a Brexit election so you can’t treat it as a fresh mandate for an indyref

(f) that any mandate sought less than (say) 5 years after the first referendum sullies the idea that the first referendum was being respected

(g) that even if politically the SNP had a mandate for indyref2 for pragmatic reasons it was wrong to pursue it while Brexit was in limbo and the new settlement unclear

(h) that you shouldn’t make a referendum the public political priority during a pandemic.

Unionists are not a monolith. Not all of them (just the loudest ones) are “NO SURRENDER”. A Holyrood single party majority on an unambiguous pledge to hold a second referendum, secured almost 7 years after indyref1, will change the balance of sentiment.

Even if the UK Government’s response is to be NO SURRENDER it will be a more extremist position within its own umbrella and will probably be the wedge that splits them from moderate Unionists.

The underlying public support for a wildcat referendum just objectively will be higher if you keep the powder dry for now than if you reveal your hand. And, paradoxically, that’s more likely to get you a negotiated referendum.

2 hours ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

I don't see much of a way forward. Even if we hold a consultative referendum they will boycott it, unionist councils will refuse to facilitate it and they will claim its illegitimate. 

Some of them might. Your task is to persuade the roughly half of Unionists who don’t vote Scottish Tory that that’s just not a democratic position. Give Starmer’s Labour the breathing space to switch on this and see how viable and legitimate the Tory Government looks after that.

41 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

I fear the legal argument missed the boat when we left the jurisdiction of the European courts. It is unlikely the Scottish court will make a decision either way. The matter ultimately may head to the UK supreme court. I think it obvious the outcome thereafter.

If "the Scottish people" are unable to see enacted what they have repeatedly expressed through the ballot box, then where does that leave us. I think the terms occupation and subjugation quite apt tbh.

The European Courts would never have had any interest in the legal question of whether the Scottish Parliament has the legislative competence to enable an independence referendum. It doesn’t engage and never has engaged any questions of EU law.

We are not “occupied” or “subjugated”. We are constrained by a set of constitutional arrangements to which, in their infinite wisdom, the Scottish people reaffirmed their explicit consent in 2014: warts, risks, flexibilities and all.

39 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

These two posts pretty much sum it up for me tbh. It is hard to see a way forward without either a compliant Labour party willing to destroy itself in England in power at Westminster, or support in Scotland reaching the kinds of sky high levels that make extra-legal approaches feasible. Not sure I'd fancy being in the FM's shoes in May when Johnson refuses a referendum as I don't think she has any good options at that point.

It is better to exhaust the avenues of less bad options first in such a climate. That’s what impatient Salmond-ite yer da’s haven’t yet grasped.