When will indyref2 happen?

[SANTAN]

5 minutes ago, MONKMAN said:

Theoretically, yes. Genuine question, what would be your reason for opposing this? 

I don't think it's a good thing for any society to constantly have referendums, let's say theoretically in your scenario if Yes kept getting 40% and we kept on having referendums it would be pointless, there needs to be something more long term or substantive imo to merit them. I know a few people that vote SNP that don't support Indy. 

I'm similar to what JLD said, closer to every 10 years or some arbitrary number unless there was a better system in place. I'd prefer if people didn't want one but I'm not someone that would deny the right to have one. 

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, WilliamBragg said:

The Conservative Party won in December. 

Why bother having another election?

One vote should in a lifetime should be enough. 

 

[WilliamBragg]

Just now, Stormzy said:

 

Isn't that what you believers of the once in a generation believe?

[SANTAN]

3 minutes ago, WilliamBragg said:

Isn't that what you believers of the once in a generation believe?

I've read your post 3 or 4 times and I'm no closer to understanding what you're talking about. 

[MONKMAN]

3 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I don't think it's a good thing for any society to constantly have referendums, let's say theoretically in your scenario if Yes kept getting 40% and we kept on having referendums it would be pointless, there needs to be something more long term or substantive imo to merit them. I know a few people that vote SNP that don't support Indy. 

I'm similar to what JLD said, closer to every 10 years or some arbitrary number unless there was a better system in place. I'd prefer if people didn't want one but I'm not someone that would deny the right to have one. 

Something substantive like a party getting elected on a pledge to hold a referendum? We have a system in place already called the Scottish Elections Bill. As a result, if you don’t like the policies of the current lot in charge, you get to vote them out after 5 years. 

[Chapelhall chap]

2 hours ago, Stormzy said:

I'm looking for a sincere answer here from people that would class themselves as pro Indy, trolls need not apply.

If the UK had voted to Remain in the EU what argument would you be making re fluid democracy, a lot of people say that Brexit was a material change, if there wasn't this material change would anyone here admit to not thinking there should be a referendum for a considerable amount of time or would you have been the same level of expectancy over a referendum?

I know it's all Ifs and buts: Clearly voting to remain in all 4 nations of the UK would have made it more difficult to push Indy 2 back into the mainstream.  It would have weakened the idea that Scotland gets what England votes for and I would have been less inclined to be annoyed. I cant speak for other people . but in your scenario IF England had been deprived of leaving on the back of Scotland/Northern Ireland voting , would it have increased England/Wales campaigns to get rid of these two nations? The general desire for a reframing of Scotland's relationship  in the UK would still have continued but with possibly less support. As others have said IF a party/parties gets  a majority of seats in Holyrood then the campaign continues. Hope this is seen as sincere.

[gaz5]

I don't think it's a good thing for any society to constantly have referendums, let's say theoretically in your scenario if Yes kept getting 40% and we kept on having referendums it would be pointless, there needs to be something more long term or substantive imo to merit them. I know a few people that vote SNP that don't support Indy. 
I'm similar to what JLD said, closer to every 10 years or some arbitrary number unless there was a better system in place. I'd prefer if people didn't want one but I'm not someone that would deny the right to have one. 

Genuine question, if 10 years is a suitable timescale to ask the referendum question again, why do we have elections every 5 years? Why would they not be 10, we had one already, why do we need to do it again?

In all honesty I'm an advocate of democracy and the decision on whether Scotland should be independent or not lies with the electorate of Scotland, in perpetuity, not the elected lawmakers of any time period.

If a party (or coalition of parties as is the case at the moment) runs consistently on a platform of independence and that party continuously wins elections in that platform, then the electorate have spoken and that's a mandate to ask the people who matter. That's not the politicians in either parliament, that's the people who make up the electorate of Scotland.

If the polls continuously show support for independence AND Scotland continuously returns an independence coalition, in whatever guise, democracy would suggest that's confirmation of the already given mandate.

That you know people who vote SNP but don't support independence is irrelevant. If you vote for a party, your vote is your acceptance of ALL of their manifesto policies. If they get elected and that leads to those policies becoming fulfilled you've no cause for complaint.

There's no box next to the Tories on the voting slip that says "I vote for the Tories, but I don't support X policy that kills poor people", so you can't have any complaints when you vote Tory and they enact policies that kill poor people in favour of enriching their mates.

Same goes for the SNP and Independence. If you don't want that as an outcome, don't vote for a party with that on their agenda (their flagship agenda item no less!).

The reality is that those opposed to independence don't want another referendum because they're scared they will lose, which is absolutely fair enough in its own right as a reason not to want one, but it shouldn't be dressed up in any other way and it's certainly not a democratic standpoint.

This "once in a lifetime" nonsense completely flies in the face of democracy, regardless of which side of the argument you fall on.

Either you're a democrat, in which case you believe in democratic mandate won at the polls, delivered by an electorate, or you're not.

You can't pick and choose which democracy you like and decide to ignore, or obfuscate the democracy you don't. That's one of the many reasons the position Westminster has taken around IndyRef 2 is untenable, from a democratic standpoint.

Of course they won't care, because there's (seemingly) nothing Scotland can do about that given the way Governments are elected at Westminster, which again is in and of itself the best argument for Independence, in my view.

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, gaz5 said:

Genuine question, if 10 years is a suitable timescale to ask the referendum question again, why do we have elections every 4 years? Why would they not be 10, we had one already, why do we need to do it again?

In all honesty I'm an advocate of democracy and the decision on whether Scotland should be independent or not lies with the electorate of Scotland, in perpetuity, but the elected lawmakers of any time period.

If a party (or coalition of parties as is the case at the moment) runs consistently on a platform of independence and that party continuously wins elections in that platform, then the electorate have spoken and that's a mandate to ask the people who matter. That's not the politicians in either parliament, that's the people who make up the electorate of Scotland.

If the polls continuously show support for independence AND Scotland continuously returns an independence coalition, in whatever guise, democracy would suggest that's confirmation of the already given mandate.

That you know people who vote SNP but don't support independence is irrelevant. If you vote for a party, your vote is your acceptance of ALL of their manifesto policies. If they get elected and that leads to those policies becoming fulfilled you've no cause for complaint.

There's no box next to the Tories on the voting slip that says "I vote for the Tories, but I don't support X policy that kills poor people", so you can't have any complaints when you vote Tory and they enact policies that kill poor people in favour of enriching their mates.

Same goes for the SNP and Independence. If you don't want that as an outcome, don't vote for a party with that on their agenda (their flagship agenda item no less!).

The reality is that those opposed to independence don't want another referendum because they're scared they will lose, which is absolutely fair enough in its own right as a train, but it shouldn't be dressed up in any other way and it's certainly not a democratic standpoint.

This "once in a lifetime" nonsense completely flies in the face of democracy, regardless of which side of the argument you fall on.

Either you're a democrat, in which case you believe in democratic mandate won at the polls, delivered by an electorate, or you're not.

You can't pick and choose which democracy you like and decide to ignore, or obfuscate the democracy you don't. That's one of the many reasons the position Westminster has taken around IndyRef 2 is untenable, from a democratic standpoint.

Of course they won't care, because there's (seemingly) nothing Scotland can do about that given the way Governments are elected at Westminster, which again is in and of itself the best argument for Independence, in my view.
 

In short and apologies I can't be bothered to reply with nearly half as much as you have wrote but referendums and general elections are quite rightly different mechanisms, we shouldn't consufe the two and just because I'm in favour of having elections every 4 years does not mean that I'm being anti democratic by not thinking it's wise to also have referendums every 4 years. 

I've said this a million times on here too but the whole "you don't want one because you're scared" doesn't really hold much weight. Might do with some people but not with myself, I'm open to having one at some point in the near future and I think the result would be the same as the last. 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

The Swiss have lots of referendums on a range of issues and the sky hasn't fallen in on them.

[gaz5]

In short and apologies I can't be bothered to reply with nearly half as much as you have wrote but referendums and general elections are quite rightly different mechanisms, we shouldn't consufe the two and just because I'm in favour of having elections every 4 years does not mean that I'm being anti democratic by not thinking it's wise to also have referendums every 4 years. 
I've said this a million times on here too but the whole "you don't want one because you're scared" doesn't really hold much weight. Might do with some people but not with myself, I'm open to having one at some point in the near future and I think the result would be the same as the last. 

Ok, I'll shorten it sightly, but I'm only sending the asked question. [emoji1787]

An electorate votes every 5 years based on the policies of those putting themselves forward to be voted on.

If the people of Scotland don't want an independence referendum, they wouldn't continue to vote into a majority a party with that as their flagship policy.

That they do, democratically, should be enough to see it happen. Arguing otherwise, because you don't like that outcome, is arguing against democracy, regardless of your view on any policy, independence included (we could be taking about anything).

It's literally how democracy works.

What the result of that referendum might be is irrelevant, as is what the result of any vote might be before it happens.

But the fact remains, if an electorate returns an independence supporting majority IN ANY ELECTION that is a mandate for a referendum IN THAT PARLIAMENTARY TERM.

The electorate have decided that, as is their right. It IS NOT the right of an incumbent government, SG included, to decide that for them.

We can argue that electorates are stupid, that's a different discussion. [emoji1787] But ultimately that's how we decide things, so we shouldn't be able to choose to just not do the things we don't like. That's how Brexit happened. Stupid idea, but the electorate voted for a party who said they'd do it, then voted to do it. Lots of people don't like it, but they have to suck it up, that's how democracy works.

If you think it was OK the Tories having the Brexit referendum IN THAT PARLIAMENT having been voted in on that mandate and you think any different for any other elected government, regardless of parliament or timescale, thats not a democratic position. It's objection based on a like or dislike of the policy.

[John Lambies Doos]

The Swiss have lots of referendums on a range of issues and the sky hasn't fallen in on them.

As do our Celtic cousins

[Lurkst]

19 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I've said this a million times on here 

Hard to believe I know but that's a slight exaggeration. 

 

[SANTAN]

5 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

 

 

Ok, I'll shorten it sightly, but I'm only sending the asked question.

An electorate votes every 5 years based on the policies of those putting themselves forward to be voted on.

If the people of Scotland don't want an independence referendum, they wouldn't continue to vote into a majority a party with that as their flagship policy.

That they do, democratically, should be enough to see it happen. Arguing otherwise, because you don't like that outcome, is arguing against democracy, regardless of your view on any policy, independence included (we could be taking about anything).

It's literally how democracy works.

What the result of that referendum might be is irrelevant, as is what the result of any vote might be before it happens.

But the fact remains, if an electorate returns an independence supporting majority IN ANY ELECTION that is a mandate for a referendum IN THAT PARLIAMENTARY TERM.

The electorate have decided that, as is their right. It IS NOT the right of an incumbent government, SG included, to decide that for them.

We can argue that electorates are stupid, that's a different discussion. But ultimately that's how we decide things, so we shouldn't be able to choose to just not do the things we don't like. That's how Brexit happened. Stupid idea, but the electorate voted for a party who said they'd do it, then voted to do it. Lots of people don't like it, but they have to suck it up, that's how democracy works.

If you think it was OK the Tories having the Brexit referendum IN THAT PARLIAMENT having been voted in on that mandate and you think any different for any other elected government, regardless of parliament or timescale, thats not a democratic position. It's objection based on a like or dislike of the policy.

 

You can make this case but it's naive to believe everyone that votes SNP wants a referendum, it doesn't matter what their flagship policy is when there will always be a percentage that vote for them for other reasons, you dont get such issues with a binary yes or no referendum hence why they shouldn't be treated as the same. 

As I've said I'm not against having referendums I just think it's silly to have them frequently, it's a waste of everyone's time unless one side is quite obviously going to flip the vote, it also doesn't look good when people use terms like "once in a generation" etc and then 2 years later decide that was all semantics.

If you think we should have referendums every time the SNP get elected then that is fine, I understand your position whilst politely disagreeing. If you think it's undemocratic of me to not think we should have referendums off the back of every general election then there's not much else I can say sincerely. 

 

[gaz5]

You can make this case but it's naive to believe everyone that votes SNP wants a referendum, it doesn't matter what their flagship policy is when there will always be a percentage that vote for them for other reasons, you dont get such issues with a binary yes or no referendum hence why they shouldn't be treated as the same. 
As I've said I'm not against having referendums I just think it's silly to have them frequently, it's a waste of everyone's time unless one side is quite obviously going to flip the vote, it also doesn't look good when people use terms like "once in a generation" etc and then 2 years later decide that was all semantics.
If you think we should have referendums every time the SNP get elected then that is fine, I understand your position whilst politely disagreeing. If you think it's undemocratic of me to not think we should have referendums off the back of every general election then there's not much else I can say sincerely. 
 

I covered that in my first post.

What everyone voting SNP days they want outside of the polling booth is completely irrelevant to democratic mandate.

They voted for a party with an independence referendum as their flagship policy, therefore their vote indicates that an independence referendum is exactly what they want and that is literally all that matters for a democratic mandate.

As I said, when you vote for a party you are voting for all of their policies. There's no box in the ballot paper that lets you add notes about the ones you dont like.

I don't like the SNP, I wouldn't vote for the vast majority of their policies under normal circumstances, but I support independence and see the SNP as the only vehicle to deliver that so I suck it up and put my X in the box.

I don't then have any right to complain about their policies I don't like, because I voted for them knowing what they were.

I can hold them to account for being shite at delivering those policies and everything that goes with that, but I've no right to complain when they deliver something they said they would and that I voted for.

In short, anyone voting SNP who doesn't support an Independence referendum in their own mind is literally supporting an independence referendum in the only way that actually matters, at the ballot box.

That's how ALL policy is delivered.

You could swap "Independence Referendum" in the above for "income tax reduction policy" and the point would be equally as valid. The policy in question doesn't matter.

So I say again, we deliver democratic mandate at the ballot box, as an electorate. To deny that mandate, on any policy, because you don't like the policy is not a democratic argument, that argument was already lost. It's an argument based on like or dislike of a policy THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON AND MANDATE PROVIDED.

*Not shouting there, can't figure out how to bold on my mobile so that's just bold as it's the main point. [emoji1787]

[Gordon EF]

15 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

You can make this case but it's naive to believe everyone that votes SNP wants a referendum, it doesn't matter what their flagship policy is when there will always be a percentage that vote for them for other reasons, you dont get such issues with a binary yes or no referendum hence why they shouldn't be treated as the same. 

This is basically just an imperfection of parliamentary democracy though. There's absolutely no way you can know if the number of people who vote SNP but don't want a referendum is greater or smaller than the number of people who do want a referendum but don't vote SNP.

it's hardly going to be something hidden away on page 87 of the manifesto. If you vote SNP in May you either want a second referendum or don't feel strongly enough about it to change your vote. If not having a second referendum during the next term was important enough to enough people, we won't have one because pro-referendum parties won't form a majority of the parliament. 

It's very simple.

[gaz5]

This is basically just an imperfection of parliamentary democracy though. There's absolutely no way you can know if the number of people who vote SNP but don't want a referendum is greater or smaller than the number of people who do want a referendum but don't vote SNP.
it's hardly going to be something hidden away on page 87 of the manifesto. If you vote SNP in May you either want a second referendum or don't feel strongly enough about it to change your vote. If not having a second referendum during the next term was important enough to enough people, we won't have one because pro-referendum parties won't form a majority of the parliament. 
It's very simple.

Much more succinct than me Gordon.

Exactly this. [emoji846]

[Highland Capital]

1 hour ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

The Swiss have lots of referendums on a range of issues and the sky hasn't fallen in on them.

This is a point that I've often thought about.  The UK electorate doesn't have a good relationship with referendums - they're so rare that we treat them as these absolutely massive events and result is taken like a message from the heavens.  Our current relationship with them isn't healthy so we need to go either one of two ways with them - we either start having them regularly on all kinds of things (which is what happens in Switzerland) or we do away with them completely (Germany?). 

New Zealand had two referendums at the last election (on euthanasia and legalising cannabis).  Reykjavik once had one on the local domestic airport.  California once had a referendum on whether all male porn stars had to wear condoms in their films...and then had another referendum a few years later on the exact same issue!  

We either need to start having them fairly regularly on all kinds of stuff or do away with them completely and just do everything through the elections/parliament.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Highland Capital

[Baxter Parp]

[WilliamBragg]

4 hours ago, Stormzy said:

I've read your post 3 or 4 times and I'm no closer to understanding what you're talking about. 

OK I'll slow it down for you.

Why do you think it is ok for elections every four years but not referendums?

If you can change your mind every 4 years about the party you support why not what country you want to live in?

[WilliamBragg]

2 hours ago, gaz5 said:

 

 

Ok, I'll shorten it sightly, but I'm only sending the asked question.

An electorate votes every 5 years based on the policies of those putting themselves forward to be voted on.

If the people of Scotland don't want an independence referendum, they wouldn't continue to vote into a majority a party with that as their flagship policy.

That they do, democratically, should be enough to see it happen. Arguing otherwise, because you don't like that outcome, is arguing against democracy, regardless of your view on any policy, independence included (we could be taking about anything).

It's literally how democracy works.

What the result of that referendum might be is irrelevant, as is what the result of any vote might be before it happens.

But the fact remains, if an electorate returns an independence supporting majority IN ANY ELECTION that is a mandate for a referendum IN THAT PARLIAMENTARY TERM.

The electorate have decided that, as is their right. It IS NOT the right of an incumbent government, SG included, to decide that for them.

We can argue that electorates are stupid, that's a different discussion. But ultimately that's how we decide things, so we shouldn't be able to choose to just not do the things we don't like. That's how Brexit happened. Stupid idea, but the electorate voted for a party who said they'd do it, then voted to do it. Lots of people don't like it, but they have to suck it up, that's how democracy works.

If you think it was OK the Tories having the Brexit referendum IN THAT PARLIAMENT having been voted in on that mandate and you think any different for any other elected government, regardless of parliament or timescale, thats not a democratic position. It's objection based on a like or dislike of the policy.

 

Correct until this election I have never voted SNP before.

I have accepted it is the only way to keep the vile Tories out of Scotland. 

I also realise by putting my x in their box then I am nominally supporting a referendum.