When will indyref2 happen?

[BFTD]

46 minutes ago, Antlion said:

They’ll just try making the same “case”, word-for-word, as though the UK of 2014 is the same as the UK of 2022.  Hell, they’re still genuinely trying to use the “leaving the UK means no EU” line, by merely adapting it to “you were never in the EU and you’ll never get in!” (yes, really). Without a shred of irony, we can still expect “the UK keeps energy prices low!”; “the UK means a strong and stable pound!”; “the UK means cheaper food bills”; “you’re too poor to be a real country!”; “aliens will invade if you vote for independence!”; “putting up borders is bad!”

TBF, Ruth Davidson was right about the Russians invading. They'll be here any day now.

If only we'd listened.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

6 hours ago, Donathan said:

Even if Sturgeon does end up using the next GE as a single issue de facto referendum and the “Yes” side wins, I think there’s far from any guarantee that whoever wins the next general election as a whole won’t just ignore it.

 

By far the best chance of Scotland gaining a legal independence vote in the next 5-10 years is a hung Parliament situation at WM where the large SNP group of MPs is able to extract such vote as a concession for supporting a government (most likely a Labour one, as propping up a Tory government would be a poor look even though Labour were until recently even more unpopular than the Conservatives in Scotland)

 

Given that the polls now point to a whopping majority for Keir Starmer I suspect that the expected defeat in court for the Scottish Government kills the independence issue until 2029. Sturgeon has  run out of road because there are no options remaining that Westminster can’t simply ignore. The only thing that could improve her position now is a swing back to the Tories leading to a hung Parliament at the next GE, and even at that, I can’t see Starmer agreeing to negotiate independence straight away, but he might allow a referendum. 

How exactly does it point to a union of equals or a normal functioning democracy where you have to point out far fetched hypothetical possibilities as to when we ‘may’ be able to decide whats best for our country? That in itself doesnt point to a healthy relationship. 

[Stellaboz]

It's only a "union of equals" when it suits those of a unionist persuasion. 

[DAFC.]

It’s funny seeing the different attitude from unionist before 2014 
It was a “bring it on!” 
Now it’s a “it’s illegal, we will boycott it, please help us mummy Westminster”
If you think 2014 was bad for them not making a case for the union, wait until next year 

Because they know they are up against it now. Their arguments will just be “but you’ll be even MORE worse off as an independent country” They hold no cards whatsoever to make a semi-positive case. The “campaign” will prove that, if they’ve got the balls to have one. If so, you’ll only have to look at the amount of toffs, snobs, cretins, and general worstcunts that will be arguing for the Union to know that they are on the wrong side.

Their currency argument is completely redundant now, as the recent developments have proved. Apart from that, every single other argument has been myth-busted, and it only takes light research to disprove their lies.

If we vote No a second time around, then it’ll be purely down to being utter shitebags. There is simply nothing positive about staying in Brexit Britain.

If there is a campaign with plenty of time to get the message across, we should be winning it fairly comfortably. Stress the importance of “should” there.

[Donathan]

43 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

How exactly does it point to a union of equals or a normal functioning democracy where you have to point out far fetched hypothetical possibilities as to when we ‘may’ be able to decide whats best for our country? That in itself doesnt point to a healthy relationship. 

 

34 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

It's only a "union of equals" when it suits those of a unionist persuasion. 

It’s completely unrealistic to expect a nation of 5m to have equal say in how the union is run compared to a nation of 56m people. It’s the exact same principle for why Glasgow elects more members to the Scottish Parliament than the outer Hebrides. 

[renton]

1 minute ago, Donathan said:

 

It’s completely unrealistic to expect a nation of 5m to have equal say in how the union is run compared to a nation of 56m people. It’s the exact same principle for why Glasgow elects more members to the Scottish Parliament than the outer Hebrides. 

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Scotland may well get a fair representation within UK democracy - but that doesn't mean it's a good deal.

[Antlion]

Just now, Donathan said:

 

It’s completely unrealistic to expect a nation of 5m to have equal say in how the union is run compared to a nation of 56m people. It’s the exact same principle for why Glasgow elects more members to the Scottish Parliament than the outer Hebrides. 

No it’s not, because the UK has been sold to us by UKNats as a union of nations, not of people. Federalised or semi-federalised unions manage to balance out the national interests of members far better. The fact that the anachronistic UK is an incorporating union which, as you say, treats Scotland - a nation - like a low-populated region is not a defence. Quite the opposite.

[Donathan]

1 minute ago, renton said:

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Scotland may well get a fair representation within UK democracy - but that doesn't mean it's a good deal.

So why shouldn’t (insert small area of Scotland) secede and become independent then? Does the whole argument boil down to “Scotland is a nation”? 

[Antlion]

Just now, Donathan said:

So why shouldn’t (insert small area of Scotland) secede and become independent then? Does the whole argument boil down to “Scotland is a nation”? 

Pretty much. Either we’re a nation which could be in a modern union of nations, or we’re a wee region whose people get what the wider state tell us we’re getting.

[renton]

2 minutes ago, Donathan said:

So why shouldn’t (insert small area of Scotland) secede and become independent then? Does the whole argument boil down to “Scotland is a nation”? 

To a degree it does. There is no point pretending that this is wholly an administrative matter. Nations exist, as far as I can see as an imagined construct. There is a huge amount of historical and cultural inertia that gives rise to the idea of Scotland as a nation. This is no more or less illogical or egregious than any other recognised or self professed nation on the planet.

[Stellaboz]

9 minutes ago, Donathan said:

So why shouldn’t (insert small area of Scotland) secede and become independent then? Does the whole argument boil down to “Scotland is a nation”? 

If say Fife wants to break off, give them the democratic chance. I'd love to see Dunfermline try to qualify for the Champions League ahead of the wee team.

We might even get Scotland in a tournament qualifying group.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

No it’s not, because the UK has been sold to us by UKNats as a union of nations, not of people. Federalised or semi-federalised unions manage to balance out the national interests of members far better. The fact that the anachronistic UK is an incorporating union which, as you say, treats Scotland - a nation - like a low-populated region is not a defence. Quite the opposite.

The interests of the other parts of the UK (bar London & the South East) aren't balanced under the current arrangements either.

[Donathan]

24 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

The interests of the other parts of the UK (bar London & the South East) aren't balanced under the current arrangements either.

 

The counter argument to this will be that Scotland is a nation and (for example) Lancashire isn’t.

 

The entire argument can be reduced down to this simple idea (and that’s not an argument for or against independence from my side)

[Granny Danger]

30 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

If say Fife wants to break off, give them the democratic chance. I'd love to see Dunfermline try to qualify for the Champions League ahead of the wee team.

We might even get Scotland in a tournament qualifying group.

If Fife became a nation state they wouldn’t need passports or ID cards.   A simple finger count would be enough.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

43 minutes ago, Donathan said:

So why shouldn’t (insert small area of Scotland) secede and become independent then? Does the whole argument boil down to “Scotland is a nation”? 

Yes, the issue of should the country of Scotland secede and become independent does come down to the fact that Scotland is a country. Thanks for coming to my ted talk. 

[Antlion]

11 minutes ago, Donathan said:

The counter argument to this will be that Scotland is a nation and (for example) Lancashire isn’t.

 

The entire argument can be reduced down to this simple idea (and that’s not an argument for or against independence from my side)

It’s also central to the idea of “union” as it’s existed on these islands for centuries. The UK was created and has already been partly deconstructed out of nations joining and leaving - not counties or cities. The various unions have involved Scotland and Ireland and England and Great Britain - not Lancashire or Fife. If UKNats want to call themselves unionists, their argument rests on historical unions of nations, just as independence supporters’ arguments rest on Scotland leaving a union of nations (hopefully in anticipation of a more modern, equitable one - which, yes, does allow for the possibility of single members preventing the majority getting their way by virtue of vetos).

[Anonapersona]

1 hour ago, Donathan said:

So why shouldn’t (insert small area of Scotland) secede and become independent then? Does the whole argument boil down to “Scotland is a nation”? 

Until (small area of Scotland) wants to secede, why bother bringing up non-existing issues?

[BFTD]

Could see the Republic of the Kingdom of Fife building a wall to prevent race-mixing with outsiders from Broughty Ferry.

[SandyCromarty]

I've asked this question of unionists so many times and never got an answer, so I'll try again.

We Scots keep being told by the westminster government, ministers and many of the general english public how much more Scotland cost via the Barnet Formula per head of population as against the english public.

So Unionists, if we cost so much and are a drain on the westminster purse why not let Scotland go???????

What is the reason you would deny us Independence given that you would have more money for england?????

[BFTD]

Still amazed that someone like Just for Men haven't come out with a haircare product called The Barnet Formula.