When will indyref2 happen?

[SandyCromarty]

10 hours 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. 

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. 

 

Over the years I've talked to many many SNP members and voters and I've only met one or two that said they didn't want Independence but voted tactically to keep the tories or labour out of their constituencies.

[gaz5]

Perhaps the ones with question marks attached. 
I dont think negging me is going to work either. People can take me as they see fit, it doesn't change much. 
I'm walking away because you're ignoring questions I've asked and then posting very long winded posts on tangents that I've not even discussed.
I don't think that this is a win or lose type of debate anyway, I have an opinion that we shouldn't have referendums everytime the SNP win an election and you disagree, there isn't a right or wrong answer and the fact you're trying to talk about winners and losers is quite off putting to such a discussion anyway. 
So I bow out champ, you won that one! 

Thats not my intention (I had to Google "negging" by the way, as I'm old and had no clue what it was).

I had also updated my post as you were typing, answering the only unanswered question.

I also offered an alternative to a referendum as well. One proposed by the Tories originally, funnily enough.

Would you support that?

[SandyCromarty]

36 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

You're still conflating "referendum" with "policy".

My point is very simple. When parties put themselves forward for an election, they put forward the policies they want to deliver in that parliament. The electorate votes on them and the party that wins then had a democratic mandate, provided by the electorate, to pursue those policies.

It's that simple.

We just happen to be talking about one policy here, but it applies to all.

That doesn't mean all of them will be delivered. It means they have made a commitment to pursue them and the electorate have agreed.

If they don't deliver enough of what they said they would and that makes the electorate unhappy, you get a chance to hold them to account for that at the next election by removing them from position.

I don't think a mandate is a magical thing, I think it's the basis for democracy. The electorate chooses the prospectus it wants based on all of those put forward and it's the rule of the lawmakers proposing the winning prospectus to pursue it, delivering enough to stay the lawmakers at the next election.

What political institutions "think" isn't a serious argument, they are literally driven by their own political self interest, be that the SNP, SG, Tories or Westminster. But what they "think", if you live in a democracy, matters not compared to what the electorate vote for.

But ultimately, my point is still absolutely vslid because it's binary. If the party with a flagship policy of independence is returned by a majority of the electorate, then that is what the electorate wants.

You can disagree with the policy, but not that it has already been chosen as a policy to pursue by the electorate.

The rest of your point is the very basis for my argument for Scottish Independence.

That the Scottish electorate can vote for something, that the parliament of another country has to give them permission to do, is the very democratic deficit on which I base my support for independence.

I want to be able to vote for a government in my country based on the policy they say they will deliver and, like every other country around the world I want them to have the power to deliver that so that I can hold them accountable when they do or don't.

I don't want a country where the Government I vote for can be over ruled by the government of another country based on population share.

For me, all the other arguments are logistical and nothing that can't (and hasn't by several hundred other countries) be overcome.

As a final point: On this "not the right time", "once in a generation", "political institutions think otherwise" point: I lived through the 80's, meaning like the vast majority of us who did the Tories will always be a shower of c***s who can quite literally get in the sea.

During that time though, Maggie told us, while she was prime minister, that all that was required for Scottish Independence was the SNP returning a majority of MP's to Westminster.

I don't believe that's how democracy works, there's a route to independence that involves asking the electorate. My point in raising it is that Unionists can't have it both ways.

This view that asking the electorate what they think is bad is a British thing. As has been said, plenty other countries do it successfully.

Sums it up for me.

Edited March 7, 2021 by SandyCromarty

[SANTAN]

22 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Over the years I've talked to many many SNP members and voters and I've only met one or two that said they didn't want Independence but voted tactically to keep the tories or labour out of their constituencies.

Of course I'm not saying they're in the majority at all, similarly two of my good friends are voting Green but would vote No in any referendum, I'm just raising this point as I had previously asked people if we did have referendums every time the SNP won a majority and the referendums were returning 40% would it still be a sensible thing to do? 

[Dawson Park Boy]

29 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

35 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

The point is to get down to the nitty gritty rather than the emotional aspects inevitably involved in the first.
Most people, especially the young, view independence as a swashbuckling, heroic, ‘braveheart’ kind of thing to vote for. At least, that is what I find within my family circle. Maybe I’m wrong.
The point of the second referendum is to focus on the practicalities and, just as Andrew Wilson concludes in his report, realise that there will be a dent to living standards for a good number of years. This will separate the true believers from the romanticists.
With Brexit, I voted for it on the basis that I was prepared for a 10% hit to my living standards.
Time will tell on that one.

Surely that "second vote" you are referencing is just a general election in a newly independent Scotland where the political parties putting themselves forward have outlined their view of independence?

No - not at all.

If the second referendum votes against going ahead, then it doesn’t happen.

Thats the point!

 

[SANTAN]

45 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

What questions didn't I answer that you want an answer to?

I picked the pertinent ones from your posts like you did with mine.

I actually think your a fairly decent poster, but that's an odd response if you want to be taken seriously.

ETA: Serious Question, as it was probably the most pertinent point of my post - If you don't think this question should be asked in a referendum, would you support Maggie's view that it can be delivered via general election instead?

If referendums are too costly, drain the electorate etc. Was she right in the 80's, let's not have referendum in this question, it can be answered every 4/5 years at the polls in a general election?

ETA 2: The only question I didn't answer: "if they keep losing, would you still want them every 4 years keeping losing and pushing people away from the cause"

I don't "want one ever 4 years", but I think there should be the ability to have one every time a party putting one forward as a manifesto pledge is chosen by the electorate, just like every other policy.

What the result of that referendum is I truly think is irrelevant. If it goes against my view, like most general elections in my lifetime, so be it. Democracy is a majority game.



 

Thanks for your answer. If there was the mechanism to do so do you think they would be wise to have one every 4 years showing such levels of support? 

Perhaps I didnt actually ask the question but I thought I had, do you know what the SNP says re a referendum in their manifesto, do they say they will hold one or do they say they will seek to hold one? As I said before they've previously campaigned on stopping Brexit when they couldn't do so, it may be an issue that the SNP promise more than what they can deliver. 

I'm not from the 80s so I'm quite unfamiliar with what Maggie has said and I'm not sure I follow what you want me to answer. If it's what I gather I think an SNP whitewash at a general election would probably be a fair enough position for a referendum to be held with Westminsters consent.

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Stormzy

[Lurkst]

1 hour ago, Pato said:

New Caledonia ironically enough will be needing three

And Quebec. 

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

25 minutes ago, Pato said:

Why?

Because I loved the idea of being out of the useless EU but realised that there could be financial implications.

If I felt that the cost would have been too high, then I might have voted to stay in.

What I, and I would thought most people would NOT want to happen, is for people to vote for something which, when they later find that there is a substantial cost involved say ‘What the f.... is this all about. Why wasn’t I told about this?’ 
It’s just an extra layer of protection for people, unlike yourself, who don’t spend a lot of times studying the minutiae of politics.

[SandyCromarty]

1 minute ago, Stormzy said:

Of course I'm not saying they're in the majority at all, similarly two of my good friends are voting Green but would vote No in any referendum, I'm just raising this point as I had previously asked people if we did have referendums every time the SNP won a majority and the referendums were returning 40% would it still be a sensible thing to do? 

To be fair we have only had one referendum so far on Independence and that result was heavily influenced in the media, which is owned 99% by right wing tories, and further with Scare Stories propaganda, Better Together lies of 'Staying in the EU' and of course their biggest weapon currency, another referendum would be a whole different scenario with many young voters coming on board angry at Brexit and the currency scare story has been circumvented by the creation of the Scottish National Investment Bank by the SNP Government, which on Independence will become our Central Bank and the ability to issue our own currency, probably named The Scottish Pound.

I would say that if you asked the general public would it be better to have referendums on some westminster tory policies or just accept said policies then I am 100% sure that the public would plump for Referendums.

The bedroom tax for instance.

I've already forecast that the Greens will have more success this May.

[gaz5]

No - not at all.
If the second referendum votes against going ahead, then it doesn’t happen.
Thats the point!
 

Ok, I get you.

But on that case then surely a part could spend on the general election in that basis?

i.e. the should we/shouldn't we question is asked initially and returns a "yes".

There's a period for planning (just for the ease of discussion say 2 years of something).

Those standing for election put forward their view of both the end state and the roadmap to get there for the electorate to vote on.

Any party who thinks it's a bad idea (let's call then Scottish Conservatives for argument's sake [emoji846]) stand on a platform of "we sing think this is a good idea still because X" which gives anyone who doesn't like the roadmaps laid out by anyone else a route to say "cancel the whole deal".

They're are issues with that, sure. From my own perspective you'd potentially dilute the yes vote across multiple choices and consolidate the no vote behind one choice. So it's probably a shit idea.

But I do think a second referendum sounds like having a meeting to discuss a meeting and in the long term gives us an issue with delivery.

I think you're right in saying that the roadmap would be a long one, certainly more than one parlimentary term, which could result in a change in leadership and a reluctance from a new government to deliver the roadmap put forth by the previous one.

It also provides less ability to be "agile", and change the plan as we discover more through delivery.

If it's tied to parlimentary terms and parties need to campaign and win votes based on their view of the next 5 years of the roadmap, it gives us more ability to admit we got things wrong (which we undoubtedly will) as we go and vote to change them, rather than be tied to delivering a roadmap put forward at a referendum 10/15 years ago that contained assumptions that have since been debunked.

That's a really bad way of writing it, but hopefully make sense what I mean.

[SandyCromarty]

1 hour ago, Stellaboz said:

I don't know any other country that needed two referendums on deciding their independence. Bonkers!

Well you'll know one soon enough.

[SANTAN]

3 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

To be fair we have only had one referendum so far on Independence and that result was heavily influenced in the media, which is owned 99% by right wing tories, and further with Scare Stories propaganda, Better Together lies of 'Staying in the EU' and of course their biggest weapon currency, another referendum would be a whole different scenario with many young voters coming on board angry at Brexit and the currency scare story has been circumvented by the creation of the Scottish National Investment Bank by the SNP Government, which on Independence will become our Central Bank and the ability to issue our own currency, probably named The Scottish Pound.

I would say that if you asked the general public would it be better to have referendums on some westminster tory policies or just accept said policies then I am 100% sure that the public would plump for Referendums.

The bedroom tax for instance.

I've already forecast that the Greens will have more success this May.

If this 99% media is as influential as you believe then why would that significantly changed a second time round? 

[gaz5]

Thanks for your answer. If there was the mechanism to do so do you think they would be wise to have one every 4 years showing such levels of support? 
Perhaps I didnt actually ask the question but I thought I had, do you know what the SNP says re a referendum in their manifesto, do they say they will hold one or do they say they will seek to hold one? As I said before they've previously campaigned on stopping Brexit when they couldn't do so, it may be an issue that the SNP promise more than what they can deliver. 
I'm not from the 80s so I'm quite unfamiliar with what Maggie has said and I'm not sure I follow what you want me to answer. If it's what I gather I think an SNP whitewash at a general election would probably be a fair enough position for a referendum to be held with Westminsters consent.
 

I think like most political parties they're cute enough to give themselves wiggle room.

I've not read it recently, but from memory I believe it is "seek to" or words to that effect, as they know they can't deliver it on their own and it gives them someone to point at when they "seek to" but can't and their base gets annoyed (another drawback of the dual parlimentary setup, each has someone else to blame and never take accountability themselves!).

Do I think it would be wise to have one every 4 years? No, I don't. I think there's a case at the moment because of the fundamental change caused by Brexit.

But having one every 4 years isn't my argument/stance and I don't think it would happen every 4 years if the SG had the ability to do it because they'd actually need to think about it.

Ultimately, my stance is a democratic one. I think that the Scottish Parliament (any elected government) SHOULD be able to do whatever the electorate votes (obviously within reason, which a referendum is) for a party that has that policy.

And that puts the onus on the party proposing it to ensure appropriate timescales.

At the moment we are in a position where the SNP can have it in their manifesto in perpetuity, without thinking about whether it is appropriate or not, because let's face it they know Westminster isn't going to agree. They don't need to *think about it*.

If it was in their power to do it, given your correct assertion that continually losing would harm the cause overall, they would need to be more selective about when they put that in as a manifesto pledge as they couldn't blame anyone else for not delivering it.

I think if the SG had the ability to call that referendum, rather than be able to point at Westminster, it would be discussed less and we would only have one when they are pretty sure they are going to win. At the moment, it's always a topic of discussion because it is been made a political football.

As I said, my stance is a democratic one. If a party is voted into government by the electorate, who are the only people that matter, on a policy of a referendum, that government should be able to hold that referendum.

But the trade off for that party if they are able to have it is that they then have to follow through, meaning they actually have to think about the timing and they'd be stupid to then put it in their manifesto every election cycle only to know they will lose X times.

RE: Maggie - She said Scotland didn't need a referendum for independence, all we need to do was return a majority of Scottish MP's to Westminster from the SNP, which would signify a vote for independence. At the time, 50+ SNP MP's was seen as fantasy.

She basically said Scotland could choose independence at a general election.

[Gordon EF]

2 hours ago, Stormzy said:

It's as simple as you want to make it. 

I've answered most of the above but you're making a huge presumption that everyone is single issue voters, pro Indy parties could be in the majority and then Yes could lose a referendum, the timing is everything for them. 

You can also be pro Indy and not be keen on a referendum after the next elections...

As you say simple stuff. 

Well, yeah. But that's not my point at all. We can all just sit here and come up with potential scenarios about what voters might actually have wanted or we can accept that in a parliamentary democracy, if the parliament contains a majority of members elected on a manifesto to do X, it is a mandate from the voters to do X.

[SANTAN]

13 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

I think like most political parties they're cute enough to give themselves wiggle room.

I've not read it recently, but from memory I believe it is "seek to" or words to that effect, as they know they can't deliver it on their own and it gives them someone to point at when they "seek to" but can't and their base gets annoyed (another drawback of the dual parlimentary setup, each has someone else to blame and never take accountability themselves!).

Do I think it would be wise to have one every 4 years? No, I don't. I think there's a case at the moment because of the fundamental change caused by Brexit.

But having one every 4 years isn't my argument/stance and I don't think it would happen every 4 years if the SG had the ability to do it because they'd actually need to think about it.

Ultimately, my stance is a democratic one. I think that the Scottish Parliament (any elected government) SHOULD be able to do whatever the electorate votes (obviously within reason, which a referendum is) for a party that has that policy.

And that puts the onus on the party proposing it to ensure appropriate timescales.

At the moment we are in a position where the SNP can have it in their manifesto in perpetuity, without thinking about whether it is appropriate or not, because let's face it they know Westminster isn't going to agree. They don't need to *think about it*.

If it was in their power to do it, given your correct assertion that continually losing would harm the cause overall, they would need to be more selective about when they put that in as a manifesto pledge as they couldn't blame anyone else for not delivering it.

I think if the SG had the ability to call that referendum, rather than be able to point at Westminster, it would be discussed less and we would only have one when they are pretty sure they are going to win. At the moment, it's always a topic of discussion because it is been made a political football.

As I said, my stance is a democratic one. If a party is voted into government by the electorate, who are the only people that matter, on a policy of a referendum, that government should be able to hold that referendum.

But the trade off for that party if they are able to have it is that they then have to follow through, meaning they actually have to think about the timing and they'd be stupid to then put it in their manifesto every election cycle only to know they will lose X times.

RE: Maggie - She said Scotland didn't need a referendum for independence, all we need to do was return a majority of Scottish MP's to Westminster from the SNP, which would signify a vote for independence. At the time, 50+ SNP MP's was seen as fantasy.

She basically said Scotland could choose independence at a general election.

In short I agree with much of what you say but I think the sticking point is I don't think the SG should be able to unilaterally hold a referendum when it's something that also concerns Westminster. There's plenty of points when I think Westminster should probably allow one but I don't think that's likely to be the case. 

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

Well, yeah. But that's not my point at all. We can all just sit here and come up with potential scenarios about what voters might actually have wanted or we can accept that in a parliamentary democracy, if the parliament contains a majority of members elected on a manifesto to do X, it is a mandate from the voters to do X.

Unless they can't actually do X like they say, then they've just mislead their voters. Or alternatively as covered above they word it in a way that they "seek" a referendum in which case I'm sure they will, that doesn't mean Westminster has to bow down. 

[SandyCromarty]

13 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

If this 99% media was as influential as you believe then why would that significantly changed a second time round? 

Simply because we are more aware of their tactics and will be inured to them, and in the 7 years since the last Referendum newspaper readership has fallen dramatically.

But that pales into insignificance as the most dramatic change has been Brexit and that's the Holy Cross we'll be crusading on. 

Check the BBC bias thread for opinions on that Government organisation with a Tory Donor (£400,000), as Chairman.

 As of yesterday the BBC had received over 400 complaints on Sarah Smith's bias and connection to the Labour party.

No the Scottish electorate are not as naiive as they were in 2014 to believe the false promises and lies.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

We've moved on.

[SandyCromarty]

Strangely, since I mentioned, a few weeks ago, that last year the SNP Government had created The Scottish National Investment Bank which will become our Central Bank in our EU membership application, not one unionist on here has mentioned it.

Edited March 7, 2021 by SandyCromarty

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Unless they can't actually do X like they say, then they've just mislead their voters. Or alternatively as covered above they word it in a way that they "seek" a referendum in which case I'm sure they will, that doesn't mean Westminster has to bow down. 

Sure. Then it's up to Westminster to make the case telling the voters why they're not the best people to make these decisions. Actually, it's Boris Johnson.

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

Sure. Then it's up to Westminster to make the case telling the voters why they're not the best people to make these decisions. Actually, it's Boris Johnson.

This brings us round full circle where we know what the response from Bojo would be. 

I have a lot of sympathy for Independence supporters frustrated with their options.