When will indyref2 happen?

[Gordon EF]

49 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

A multitude of reasons, even if they're confident it's still a high risk strategy in comparison to not having one when they clearly feel they can adequately explain away the reasons behind not having one. 

If SNP go for some rogue referendum without backing from Westminster then they develop a scenario that doesn't favour them imo, it just wouldn't look good and I dont think the SNP want that however at this stage Westminster clearly think their stance is secure and would be happy relativley speaking if the SNP went for this approach. It makes sense. 

Lastly I think the tactic of saying "you're too scared" is beyond infantile, it doesn't even really work on any level other than an argument in the playground in primary school...

Genuine question here. How to you feel about the democratic implication of Westminster just flat out refusing the authorisation of a section 30 order? Do you think there should be some democratic mechanism by which the people of Scotland can choose whether they want to have a referendum and if so, what should it be?

[Baxter Parp]

Union army: Number 10 to draft dozens more staff to combat SNP

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/uk-politics/2898007/uk-government-union/

Boris Johnson's team of union advisers is to triple in size this year, marking a major change in the UK Government's approach to the SNP and Scottish independence.

I was under the impression that using taxpayers money for political ends was illegal.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Baxter Parp

[SANTAN]

29 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Genuine question here. How to you feel about the democratic implication of Westminster just flat out refusing the authorisation of a section 30 order? Do you think there should be some democratic mechanism by which the people of Scotland can choose whether they want to have a referendum and if so, what should it be?

Come on man, some people were just starting to warm to me then you have to go and ask me that...

I don't personally see it as that bad, I understand why some people feel more strongly than me about it but I sincerely believe the 2014 referendum - leaving aside the "once in a generation" argument - should be respected, at least to a greater extent than it has been, I don't believe that Brexit in itself is a tangible enough reason to have another referendum, specifically because many people were aware that this could become an issue in 2014. I do think that the majority of people that say that Brexit is reason enough to have a referendum are all people that funnily enough want to have one in the first place anyway.

I do agree in the fluidity of democracy and of course agree there should be a mechanism to express this change, of course if I believed the overwhelming majority of Scotland wanted Indy I would support a referendum on the spot, i think using polls and other types of barometers are quite rightly rejected by most sensible people as to being proof that there should be a referendum, I could also write an essay on why voting for the SNP does not indicate support for a referendum and why people shouldn't confuse the two. 

I appreciate this puts normal, democratic minded Indy fans in a bit of a tough spot and I sincerely empathise with their conundrum, it of course poses the question what could they do or what path can they take to achieving Indy under the grounds I've stated?

As for now I can't see an obvious answer, hence the infighting within the party.. Now for the tasty part, I'll undoubtedly get laughed off the forum for this but in the absence of any proper mechanism or suggestions of how to gauge support for a second referendum I'd happily either;

A. Have a referendum on having a referendum.

B. Have a deal which agrees that if the SNP maintain majority support for the next 10 years whilst having Independence clearly stated in their manifestos then we can have another referendum. 

Also before everyone goes all heavy mental over my suggestion, from a position of power, I'd like anyone that's that outraged to firstly take it with a pinch of salt and secondly to provide an alternative credible mechanism for gauging support for Indy enough to have another referendum, discounting Twitter polls and anecdotal pish.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Stormzy

[jakedee]

[emoji23]
Come on man, some people were just starting to warm to me then you have to go and ask me that...
I don't personally see it as that bad, I understand why some people feel more strongly than me about it but I sincerely believe the 2014 referendum - leaving aside the "once in a generation" argument - should be respected, at least to a greater extent than it has been, I don't believe that Brexit in itself is a tangible enough reason to have another referendum, specifically because many people were aware that this could become an issue in 2014. I do think that the majority of people that say that Brexit is reason enough to have a referendum are all people that funnily enough want to have one in the first place anyway.
I do agree in the fluidity of democracy and of course agree there should be a mechanism to express this change, of course if I believed the overwhelming majority of Scotland wanted Indy I would support a referendum on the spot, i think using polls and other types of barometers are quite rightly rejected by most sensible people as to being proof that there should be a referendum, I could also write an essay on why voting for the SNP does not indicate support for a referendum and why people shouldn't confuse the two. 
I appreciate this puts normal, democratic minded Indy fans in a bit of a tough spot and I sincerely empathise with their conundrum, it of course poses the question what could they do or what path can they take to achieving Indy under the grounds I've stated?
As for now I can't see an obvious answer, hence the infighting within the party.. Now for the tasty part, I'll undoubtedly get laughed off the forum for this but in the absence of any proper mechanism or suggestions of how to gauge support for a second referendum I'd happily either;
A. Have a referendum on having a referendum.
B. Have a deal which agrees that if the SNP maintain majority support for the next 10 years whilst having Independence clearly stated in their manifestos then we can have another referendum. 
Also before everyone goes all heavy mental over my suggestion, from a position of power, I'd like anyone that's that outraged to firstly take it with a pinch of salt and secondly to provide an alternative credible mechanism for gauging support for Indy enough to have another referendum, discounting Twitter polls and anecdotal pish.

Polls conducted by bona fide polling companies?

[Gordon EF]

8 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Come on man, some people were just starting to warm to me then you have to go and ask me that...

I don't personally see it as that bad, I understand why some people feel more strongly than me about it but I sincerely believe the 2014 referendum leaving aside the "once in a generation" argument should be respected, at least to a greater extent than it has been, I don't believe that Brexit in itself is a reason to have another referendum, specifically because many people were aware that this could become an issue in 2014. I do think that the majority of people that say that Brexit is reason enough to have a referendum are all people that funnily enough want to have one anyway in the first place. 

I do agree in the fluidity of democracy and of course agree there should be a mechanism to express this change, of course if I believed the overwhelming majority of Scotland wanted Indy I would support a referendum on the spot, i think using polls and other types of barometers are quite rightly rejected by most sensible people as to being proof that there should be a referendum, I could also write an essay on why voting for the SNP does not indicate support for a referendum and why people shouldn't confuse the two. 

Appreciate the answer.

I think you know the problem with what you're saying. In a parliamentary democracy, it really doesn't matter what you, me or any one individual thinks about whether there should be a referendum or not.  You don't think there should be one. I do. And no matter what arguments are made, we're not going to change each others minds on it.

I agree that opinion polls should not be used as proof of what people want. And we can all put a spin on election results to say what they do or don't mean but it boils down to the fact that if the majority of people vote for parties clearly standing on a platform of offering an independence referendum and a majority of the MSPs elected to the parliament were elected on that platform, there's no argument to be made against having another referendum that isn't a fairly outrageous denial of democracy.

 

Quote

I appreciate this puts normal, democratic minded Indy fans in a bit of a tough spot and I sincerely empathise with their conundrum, it of course poses the question what could they do or what path can they take to achieving Indy under the grounds I've stated?

 

I'm not sure what grounds you stated but I assume you mean if the current WM government just flat out deny authorising one even after a majority vote for pro-referendum parties and the Scottish Parliament has a pro-referendum majority?

We broadly know what the options are: 1) Challenge the decision in the courts, 2) SG state that the blanket refusal constitutes a denial of the basic right to self-determination and hold a consultative referendum and honour the result, 3) Take no immediate action but continue to put as much pressure as possible on WM to allow a referendum, possibly with a view to the SNP holding the balance of power at WM.

I'm not making any value judgements at all about these options. They've been argued to death on here but those are basically the choices. I'd argue pretty strongly that any rational person trying to look at this from a neutral perspective would want to avoid all of those and just agree to a referendum and a more concrete legal framework for deciding these things.

 

Quote

Now for the tasty part, I'll undoubtedly get laughed off the forum for this but in the absence of any proper mechanism or suggestions of how to gauge support for a second referendum I'd happily either;

A. Have a referendum on having a referendum.

B. Have a deal which agrees that if the SNP maintain majority support for the next 10 years whilst having Independence clearly stated in their manifestos then we can have another referendum. 

Also before everyone goes all heavy mental over my suggestion, from a position of power, I'd like anyone that's that outraged to provide an alternative credible mechanism for gauging support for Indy enough to have another referendum, counting Twitter polls does not count. 

 

The only credible mechanism is to put that decision in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. I wouldn't be outraged by the idea of some buffer between referendums like two parliamentary terms or something.

[git-intae-thum]

37 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Come on man, some people were just starting to warm to me then you have to go and ask me that...

I don't personally see it as that bad, I understand why some people feel more strongly than me about it but I sincerely believe the 2014 referendum - leaving aside the "once in a generation" argument - should be respected, at least to a greater extent than it has been, I don't believe that Brexit in itself is a tangible enough reason to have another referendum, specifically because many people were aware that this could become an issue in 2014. I do think that the majority of people that say that Brexit is reason enough to have a referendum are all people that funnily enough want to have one in the first place anyway.

I do agree in the fluidity of democracy and of course agree there should be a mechanism to express this change, of course if I believed the overwhelming majority of Scotland wanted Indy I would support a referendum on the spot, i think using polls and other types of barometers are quite rightly rejected by most sensible people as to being proof that there should be a referendum, I could also write an essay on why voting for the SNP does not indicate support for a referendum and why people shouldn't confuse the two. 

I appreciate this puts normal, democratic minded Indy fans in a bit of a tough spot and I sincerely empathise with their conundrum, it of course poses the question what could they do or what path can they take to achieving Indy under the grounds I've stated?

As for now I can't see an obvious answer, hence the infighting within the party.. Now for the tasty part, I'll undoubtedly get laughed off the forum for this but in the absence of any proper mechanism or suggestions of how to gauge support for a second referendum I'd happily either;

A. Have a referendum on having a referendum.

B. Have a deal which agrees that if the SNP maintain majority support for the next 10 years whilst having Independence clearly stated in their manifestos then we can have another referendum. 

Also before everyone goes all heavy mental over my suggestion, from a position of power, I'd like anyone that's that outraged to firstly take it with a pinch of salt and secondly to provide an alternative credible mechanism for gauging support for Indy enough to have another referendum, discounting Twitter polls and anecdotal pish.

This post highlights the kind of knots a person will tie themselves into to justify denying democracy.

 

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

This post highlights the kind of knots a person will tie themselves into to justify denying democracy.

 

^^^Reductive nonsense. 

[git-intae-thum]

2 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

^^^Reductive nonsense. 

There is nothing complicated about it to be reductive about.

It's simply a democratic outrage.

It must be a struggle to justify an unjustifiable position.

[SANTAN]

24 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

There is nothing complicated about it to be reductive about.

It's simply a democratic outrage.

It must be a struggle to justify an unjustifiable position.

 

25 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

There is nothing complicated about it to be reductive about.

It's simply a democratic outrage.

It must be a struggle to justify an unjustifiable position.

You made zero comprehensive points. You just asserted something with no reference. Vague, bland pish, pointless input tbh. 

[git-intae-thum]

18 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

 

You made zero comprehensive points. You just asserted something with no reference. Vague, bland pish, pointless input tbh. 

Oh my point was very clear. So clear you posted it twice

[Aufc]

This post highlights the kind of knots a person will tie themselves into to justify denying democracy.
 

This frustrates me as a yes voter. I thought he actually made some decent points (better than usual unionist) and thats what you come back with

[git-intae-thum]

3 hours ago, Aufc said:

 

This frustrates me as a yes voter. I thought he actually made some decent points (better than usual unionist) and thats what you come back with

 

Rubbish. The points being made by him/her were essentially our vote doesn't count and democracy doesn't apply to Scotland.

Just because Stormy delivered that belter iin a nice friendly worded post doesn't make the message any better.

The fact that someone purportedly supporting independence cannot see through that is frustrating.

[SandyCromarty]

14 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Please explain why a shared currency (for example, the Euro) means that the countries involved cannot deal with market forces.

The Copenhagen Treaty clearly asks that a country applying for EU membership can demonstrate it can deal with market forces as part of it's Economic Policy.

The Baltic states, Estonia for example, immediately prior to it's EU application ceased it's shared currency with the Russian Rouble and created it's own Central Bank with the KROON as it's currency, then for a period the country operated with that currency and demonstrated it's ability to 'deal with market forces independently', it's currency is now the Euro.

Scotland in it's EU application would have to follow the same application route in forming a Central Bank with a new currency, otherwise it would be impossible to demonstrate financial independence to the EU and conform to the Copenhagen Treaty if Scotland was sharing a currency with the Bank of England controlled by a non EU member.

In answer to your question, if I have read that correctly, of the 27 EU countries 19 share the EURO as a common currency so I cannot see why collectively they could not deal with market forces. 

[SandyCromarty]

20 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Sandy- I’m sure you’re a nice chap but you’re so blinded by your desire for INDEPENDENCE that you’ve lost touch with reality.

Your assessment is correct but I have never lost touch with reality, my reality is the imbalance I see economically in this so called union where the future will remain one sided , I only want my country to stand on it's own two feet as we have the resources and the people to be a respected nation among others of a similar size.

For too long we blindly and obediently gave our blood and resources on battlefields, factories and shipyards to benefit another country's imperialistic wrongful ambitions.

Blinded by my desire, maybe, but I have the vision to see my country Independent and Proud.

[Detournement]

On 11/02/2021 at 22:57, Baxter Parp said:

It's not even a rule of accession, it's one of the acquis of membership.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-acquis_en

The acquis in the area of economic and monetary policy contains specific rules requiring the independence of central banks in Member States, prohibiting direct financing of the public sector by the central banks and prohibiting privileged access of the public sector to financial institutions. Member States are expected to co-ordinate their economic policies and are subject to the Stability and Growth Pact on fiscal surveillance.

This is why we should never rejoin the EU whether UK or iScotland. 

[ICTJohnboy]

3 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Your assessment is correct but I have never lost touch with reality, my reality is the imbalance I see economically in this so called union where the future will remain one sided , I only want my country to stand on it's own two feet as we have the resources and the people to be a respected nation among others of a similar size.

For too long we blindly and obediently gave our blood and resources on battlefields, factories and shipyards to benefit another country's imperialistic wrongful ambitions.

Blinded by my desire, maybe, but I have the vision to see my country Independent and Proud.

^^^^^

This,

This, this, this and this.

[SANTAN]

38 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Rubbish. The points being made by him/her were essentially our vote doesn't count and democracy doesn't apply to Scotland.

Just because Stormy delivered that belter iin a nice friendly worded post doesn't make the message any better.

The fact that someone purportedly supporting independence cannot see through that is frustrating.

Just say you dont have very good reading comprehension and move on...

[git-intae-thum]

2 hours ago, Stormzy said:

Just say you dont have very good reading comprehension and move on...

Oh...now you are becoming a bit abusive because you have been cornered. No we won't move on.

When Scotland elects a parliament that has a majority for a referendum,  there should be a referendum.

To deny that, is to deny democracy. Despite all the flowery rubbish you wrote.

 

[Stellaboz]

Is this bam still trying to deny the freedom of democracy because he's scared of the result? Sheesh.

[HTG]

So ... union army ... viet cong etc. These c***s wanting to use charities - you couldn't mark their necks with a blowtorch. 

The strategy has been a bit like the US dealing with the Viet Cong.

“The generals there were playing chess, trying to land that killer blow, but the game they should have been playing was Go, where you surround the opposing side.

“We need a much more holistic approach against the SNP, there needs to be work with charities, opinion formers and civil society to change people’s minds.

“There’s too much soft support for independence.”