Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens

[Duries Air Freshener]

4 minutes ago, Zern said:

You're calling them decent then pointing towards their lack of accuracy?

We have method of polling the electorate of their preferences don't we? The General Election give fair representation and is more comprehensive than any poll.  Since the last referendum polling has been consistently higher than the result of 2014 and we have had several general elections where a majority of our representatives are pro-independence. Why ignore that?

If the support of 45% in 2014 was accurate, then that referendum was called on less support than what it enjoys currently. That would seem to support the argument in favour of one being held.

I don't care what the Tories say, they have no mandate in Scotland and consist of a vanishing minority led by a bigoted linesman of no political importance.

You get to set the conditions surrounding the wording and what not of our referendum when you take Holyrood.

Yeah, you can roughly tell what's going on by them.  Although they were generous to you in 2014, they were only a few percent off the mark for the final result, which is why I'd like them to show at least more than 60% support for a long period.

I think it'd be foolish to equate support for a party with support for their constitutional stance.  Plenty people will vote for them for other reasons.  You also have consistently far lower turnouts for general elections, so to say it'd be more representative than opinion polls is disingenuous at best.

Whether you care what the Tories say or not is irrelevant.  The fact is they are in power with a majority with a mandate to say 'NO TO INDYREF 2'.  They don't have to take Holyrood in order to do anything.

[Duries Air Freshener]

7 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

I mean, if you’re moving from sealioning to straight up lying, then there’s not a lot of point mate, is there? 

If that were the case then there wouldn't be much point at all.  I'm not though, so if you could explain what you're on about then that would be magic.

What have I said that's revisionist and/or wrong?  And why?

Still waiting on an answer regarding the double standard too.

[carpetmonster]

3 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

If that were the case then there wouldn't be much point at all.  I'm not though, so if you could explain what you're on about then that would be magic.

What have I said that's revisionist and/or wrong?  And why?

Still waiting on an answer regarding the double standard too.

Again, please refer to first post. That contains all the salient points you’re trying to wriggle out of addressing. This is really fucking boring. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by carpetmonster
Typo.

[Duries Air Freshener]

Just now, carpetmonster said:

Again, please refer to first post. That contains all the all the salient points you’re trying to wriggle out of addressing. This is really fucking boring. 

I suspect you're deliberately ignoring what I'm saying now.

[carpetmonster]

5 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

I suspect you're deliberately ignoring what I'm saying now.

I’m absolutely not. You said ‘if you want me to take your claim seriously…’  - the facts were in the first post. You can’t and won’t make a good faith argument so you’re sealioning and trying to shift goalposts, so no, I don’t want you to do anything with ‘my claim’ other than keep obfuscating. It’s going really well for you. 
 

Again. The salient points were in the first post and you cannnot/will not address them honestly. This is about the 5th exchange where I’ve told you this, hence I’m fucking bored. 
 

ETA - it’s half 9 on a Saturday night in Scotland, you don’t got anything better to do? 

Edited April 30, 2022 by carpetmonster

[Zern]

15 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Yeah, you can roughly tell what's going on by them.  Although they were generous to you in 2014, they were only a few percent off the mark for the final result, which is why I'd like them to show at least more than 60% support for a long period.

I think it'd be foolish to equate support for a party with support for their constitutional stance.  Plenty people will vote for them for other reasons.  You also have consistently far lower turnouts for general elections, so to say it'd be more representative than opinion polls is disingenuous at best.

Whether you care what the Tories say or not is irrelevant.  The fact is they are in power with a majority with a mandate to say 'NO TO INDYREF 2'.  They don't have to take Holyrood in order to do anything.

 

Polls are inaccurate, by application, they extrapolate from a tiny minority and are not representative. They are indicative only. To claim the actual votes cast during a general election involving several millions of ballots cast against a sample of 500-2000 who never cast a vote is asinine.

The Tories have no mandate in Scotland, they perform as a spoiler party here. Much like the DUP, being obstructive and generally useless. The electorate have cast their votes in favour of a plurality of parties that campaigned for election on holding a referendum. You do not get to declare on why those votes were cast only to deal with the reality that they were.

Quote

"I think it'd be foolish to equate support for a party with support for their constitutional stance."

That would carry more weight if hadn't be accompanied and preceded by "Tories... NO TO INDEREF2"

You lack a consistent point.

[Duries Air Freshener]

18 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

I’m absolutely not. You said ‘if you want me to take your claim seriously…’  - the facts were in the first post. You can’t and won’t make a good faith argument so you’re sealioning and trying to shift goalposts, so no, I don’t want you to do anything with ‘my claim’ other than keep obfuscating. It’s going really well for you. 
 

Again. The salient points were in the first post and you cannnot/will not address them honestly. This is about the 5th exchange where I’ve told you this, hence I’m fucking bored. 
 

ETA - it’s half 9 on a Saturday night in Scotland, you don’t got anything better to do? 

I've addressed everything you've asked of me and you've failed to answer my responses.

Claiming you're bored of stuff not being addressed, when I've specifically questioned what you mean, is not a good look.

Spending time on you is obviously futile, and I'm actually embarrassed I haven't realised this 'til now, so this is my last post to you.

[carpetmonster]

15 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

I've addressed everything you've asked of me and you've failed to answer my responses.

You didn’t. 

15 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Claiming you're bored of stuff not being addressed, when I've specifically questioned what you mean, is not a good look.

Yes, you didn’t address any of it. 

15 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Spending time on you is obviously futile, and I'm actually embarrassed I haven't realised this 'til now, so this is my last post to you.

If you won’t address anything I’ve put to you, then yes, it’s entirely futile. You should be entirely embarrassed, and this should be your last post to anyone, quite frankly, given you can’t back up anything you say on even the broadest of challenges. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by carpetmonster

[Albus Bulbasaur]

2 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

It’s not the job of judges to rule on morality. It’s the job of judges to rule on what the law is.

There is no relevant international law in this dispute. Whether or not Scotland has a legal right to hold a secession referendum, just as with Quebec and Catalonia, is a question of domestic constitutional law.

We can argue until the cows come home about whether that domestic constitutional law is virtuous (and I think it isn’t) but they are the rules of the game Scotland accepted when it ratified the Treaty of Union.

It is legitimate for constitutional structures to include what are known as precommitment strategies. Sometimes they produce harmonious outcomes. Sometimes they clearly don’t. But ultimately that’s a political question, not a legal one.

I don’t think this is quite right. Certainly, they (Unionists) are being shady with their political criteria for allowing a second referendum, and there has been a lot of political goalpost shifting since 2014.

But if it comes to it, if a majority of Scots vote in a Scottish Parliamentary election for a single party on a manifesto pledge to hold a second independence referendum, and there has been at least a decade, or possibly slightly longer, since the last one, I think any political obstacles to engagement on a section 30 Order probably begin to melt away. As Alex Massie has often said, the problem with “now is not the time” is that it is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

The fundamental problem that pro-independence folks face at the moment is that the majority of voters in Scotland don’t want, or are ambivalent about, the holding of another independence referendum and of independence. There are even a small but significant number who favour the outcome but not (at the moment) the mechanism.

That is why the majority of constituency ballots (though not list ballots) have consistently been cast for pro-Union parties, and why the Scottish Parliamentary majority is entirely dependent on a quirk of the electoral system.

My personal view is, and always has been, that the Scottish Parliament should have a legal right to legislate for a referendum, and that therefore the political mandate should align with legal competence. But it’s not anti-democratic to disagree with that proposition; just potentially very foolish.

Tremendous post. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[The_Kincardine]

5 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

My personal view is, and always has been, that the Scottish Parliament should have a legal right to legislate for a referendum, and that therefore the political mandate should align with legal competence. But it’s not anti-democratic to disagree with that proposition; just potentially very foolish.

This is silly nonsense.  Britain is a unitary nation state and it has to be Westminster that makes such decisions.

[Ad Lib]

4 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is silly nonsense.  Britain is a unitary nation state and it has to be Westminster that makes such decisions.

No it isn’t and no it doesn’t. It is a union state (not a unitary state) and it’s a constitutional policy choice who gets to make any decisions.

[williemillersmoustache]

4 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is silly nonsense.  Britain is a unitary nation state and it has to be Westminster that makes such decisions.

So drunk, so blinded by continual abuse of anti freeze, rinse aid and self loathing you can't tell he's making as good a fist of your arguments as it's possible to make.

Describing the unquestionable majority as a quirk, is quite funny though.

At some point it will have to be brought to a head, initially through the courts. However while a ruling stating that there is no route to self determination will be celebrated by the george square unwashed hordes initially, in the end that is both dangerous for everyone and counter productive for unionism.

I remember Andrew Tickell saying that one of the biggest issues or frustrations facing the independence movement was basically a lack of revolutionary fervour. 

Nobody wants a Catalonia situation, nobody is suggesting this is a desirable position to be in and the constant provocations or unionist wet dreams of the "ulsterisation" of Scottish politics so they can decry the indy movement as extremist are as transparent as they are desperate.

The question for Scottish unionists is do they want to wait until there is such a movement, as it is clear, and rather indicative of the problem, that Westminster under the control of whatever government just don't and wont give a shit either way. 

A week is a long time in politics, and I think what will happen in The Norn shortly may well have a bearing on what happens here. A wildly unpopular UK government being forced to impose direct rule because the unionists can't stomach playing second fiddle to republicans/nationalists would have to be handled very very carefully. And with a sensitivity and competence these mugs are just not capable of.

For us or for me, we have to have a mechanism to consent or otherwise to the system of governance we have now. *A lot* has happened since we were last given that opportunity and it would be far better for both sides to make the arguments, have a campaign and then a vote. It should be easy and indeed a prideful or pleasurable democratic experience to make the (positive )case for the union. 

But unionists seem disinclined to do that, they seem to believe screaming "divisive" at the thought of having to argue with the courage of their convictions is somehow effective and not in fact revealing or self defeating. No doubt because they know the UK is a disgusting midden and they'd lose.

[Zern]

15 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

It’s not the job of judges to rule on morality. It’s the job of judges to rule on what the law is.

There is no relevant international law in this dispute. Whether or not Scotland has a legal right to hold a secession referendum, just as with Quebec and Catalonia, is a question of domestic constitutional law.

We can argue until the cows come home about whether that domestic constitutional law is virtuous (and I think it isn’t) but they are the rules of the game Scotland accepted when it ratified the Treaty of Union.

It is legitimate for constitutional structures to include what are known as precommitment strategies. Sometimes they produce harmonious outcomes. Sometimes they clearly don’t. But ultimately that’s a political question, not a legal one.

 

In an ideal world i am certain there are judgements rendered with purity of law and no regard to mundane realities, but we know this is not the case. Legal history is littered with judgements that are little more than thinly disguised political objectives. The attitude i was taking issue with was one where the widening of consideration goes far beyond what would be expressed in a law itself, to purpose and ramifications without giving due weight to the proposition that the intent of the parliament itself was for Scottish political expression to be given representative recognition.

I disagree that there is no international law on this, as there are plenty of examples of where a states secede and gain recognition against the constitutional wishes of their former states. The UK has practically defined itself with such examples. Such routes exist, but are only done when all other paths are blocked.

We have a situation where the UK Government is staffed with bad actors armed with bad faith and i am aware that that won't be addressed legally. It does appear that there is limited room for political means to resolve. That not something that is desirable. Stymieing the political means of expression only leads to alternate routes being pursued. We don't have to look far to see what that can lead to. With Sin Fein gaining political ground in Northern Ireland we can soon see another devolved parliament demanding a border poll. Theirs is guaranteed. The UK, through the the GFA, has ratified and described under what terms these polls should be conducted. They have set the time between the holding of such polls as 7 years. That would seem to be relevant piece of UK law when widening the discussion, but it is ignored. 7 years seem a good compromise between those who want a decade and those who want one every session of parliament.

[Ad Lib]

5 hours ago, Zern said:

In an ideal world i am certain there are judgements rendered with purity of law and no regard to mundane realities, but we know this is not the case. Legal history is littered with judgements that are little more than thinly disguised political objectives. The attitude i was taking issue with was one where the widening of consideration goes far beyond what would be expressed in a law itself, to purpose and ramifications without giving due weight to the proposition that the intent of the parliament itself was for Scottish political expression to be given representative recognition.

This is complete word salad. The Scottish Parliament was deliberately created to be a body of limited legislative competence, and those limits were explicitly set out with reference to purposes and effects of legislative provisions.

And, as a starting position, aspects of the constitution were explicitly reserved, including the Union and the Westminster Parliament.

5 hours ago, Zern said:

I disagree that there is no international law on this, as there are plenty of examples of where a states secede and gain recognition against the constitutional wishes of their former states. The UK has practically defined itself with such examples. Such routes exist, but are only done when all other paths are blocked.

You clearly don’t understand the difference between the way that international law treats colonies and similar territories, compared to how it treats sub-state nations which are not colonies.

Go and read the Quebec Secession Reference, where it makes completely clear that international law does not require constitutions to recognise a right of secession for their states’ constituent parts. Only a total denial of self-determination could even begin to engage those expectations. Scotland is not even close to that, as the very existence of the Scottish Parliament is testament.

5 hours ago, Zern said:

We have a situation where the UK Government is staffed with bad actors armed with bad faith and i am aware that that won't be addressed legally. It does appear that there is limited room for political means to resolve. That not something that is desirable. Stymieing the political means of expression only leads to alternate routes being pursued. We don't have to look far to see what that can lead to. With Sin Fein gaining political ground in Northern Ireland we can soon see another devolved parliament demanding a border poll. Theirs is guaranteed. The UK, through the the GFA, has ratified and described under what terms these polls should be conducted. They have set the time between the holding of such polls as 7 years. That would seem to be relevant piece of UK law when widening the discussion, but it is ignored. 7 years seem a good compromise between those who want a decade and those who want one every session of parliament.

The provisions of the Northern Ireland Act (a) aren’t about secession, but of replacing one union with another (b) are the product of an international treaty and (c) are specific to its own conditions.

The bottom line is that a narrow majority of Scots don’t want independence and a slightly bigger majority don’t particularly want a referendum in the this Scottish Parliamentary term.

Until that changes you’re not going to get much sympathy from Unionists about demands for another referendum, or for that matter the international community. It may well be foolish for UK Governments to adopt this position, and it may prove self-fulfilling, but it’s not illegitimate or unlawful.

[Kenneth840]

23 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

From what I gather, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, they recognise that any attempted bypass of the section 30 will still eventually require a court case.  I don't see how the Nats could win it considering the Scottish Parliament is an arm of Westminster and created by Westminster.  They wouldn't have allowed it to come into fruition with the ability to break away part of it's territory.

Are BB and PAB not basically saying a referendum should be held with or without consent then see if it gets challenged and take it from there?  This isn't the same as saying a section 30 isn't required IMO.

From what I have read, Peter Bell and Barrhead Boy have always stated that a section 30 is not required.  Assert the competency of the Scottish parliament as the voice of the Scottish people and dissolve the Union.  

2 countries signed it and 2 can dissolve it.  From what I gather, the idea of a section 30 means that we are giving our sovereignty away to England.  Asking for permission from England.  Did the UK ask for permission to leave the EU!

The referendum that is planned (is it though) for 2023 will be a unionists dream.  The Scottish government has done nothing to convince anyone that Independence would be better than the status quo, so it is destined to be lost.  

Alex Salmond set the wheels in motion and started Scotland on the correct path. Sadly Nicola Sturgeon has taken us backwards. 

 

 

[williemillersmoustache]

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The bottom line is that a narrow majority of Scots don’t want independence and a slightly bigger majority don’t particularly want a referendum in the this Scottish Parliamentary term.

Most of your posts are actually quite informative, other than the output of the wee angry walnuts (latest if more lasting) flounce off from the Scottish political scene, but this is an assertion and not one based upon anything other than hope and a little bit of your own personal preferences.

[Duries Air Freshener]

8 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:

From what I have read, Peter Bell and Barrhead Boy have always stated that a section 30 is not required.  Assert the competency of the Scottish parliament as the voice of the Scottish people and dissolve the Union.  

2 countries signed it and 2 can dissolve it.  From what I gather, the idea of a section 30 means that we are giving our sovereignty away to England.  Asking for permission from England.  Did the UK ask for permission to leave the EU!

The referendum that is planned (is it though) for 2023 will be a unionists dream.  The Scottish government has done nothing to convince anyone that Independence would be better than the status quo, so it is destined to be lost.  

Alex Salmond set the wheels in motion and started Scotland on the correct path. Sadly Nicola Sturgeon has taken us backwards. 

 

 

I’ll take your word for it regarding Peter A Bell and Barrhead Boy, so fair play to you there.

I agree that ScotGov hasn’t done any sort of campaigning at all.  You’d expect policies to be ironed out too, but they haven’t been.

[Kenneth840]

1 minute ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

I’ll take your word for it regarding Peter A Bell and Barrhead Boy, so fair play to you there.

I agree that ScotGov hasn’t done any sort of campaigning at all.  You’d expect policies to be ironed out too, but they haven’t been.

Thing that gets me is the Snp fanboys on here that believe all is ok, fine.  Reminds me of the meme with the dog and fire.  There is no sense talking to them. 

As a unionist, has there been anything the past 8 years to make you change your mind and vote for an Independent Scotland.  Be honest. 

[Ad Lib]

42 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Most of your posts are actually quite informative, other than the output of the wee angry walnuts (latest if more lasting) flounce off from the Scottish political scene, but this is an assertion and not one based upon anything other than hope and a little bit of your own personal preferences.

I have absolutely no idea what walnuts have to do with this?

It’s not based on either “hope” or “personal preferences” (indeed, it is in spite of them). That conclusion is based on the 2021 and 2016 Scottish Parliamentary elections, the 2019 and 2017 UK General Elections, and the overwhelming majority of opinion polling to have been conducted in the last two years.

[williemillersmoustache]

30 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I have absolutely no idea what walnuts have to do with this?

It’s not based on either “hope” or “personal preferences” (indeed, it is in spite of them). That conclusion is based on the 2021 and 2016 Scottish Parliamentary elections, the 2019 and 2017 UK General Elections, and the overwhelming majority of opinion polling to have been conducted in the last two years.

Weird how a) a former lib dem would ignore the proportional vote in favour of FPTP and b) that you don't remember that the somewhat disparaging title of angry walnut was cited as one of the reasons David was driven from Scotland. A bit niche the second one maybe. 

Anyhoo, the only way to accurately gauge opinion on a binary choice is by holding a referendum, not a multiparty constituency vote and not by opinion polls. Although if you like opinion polls you can always take the 30% of pro indy labour voters out of your calculations which would i think neatly tip those scales. 

The debate on process is interesting and indicative of the wider problem but the mandate/support for/desire to have one is done. We do, there is, it is inarguable. Many reasonable unionist commentators agree and have conceded such in public and all unionists in private know it to be true. If unionist parties wanted to halt a referendum and StopRaEssEnnPeeeeeeee (as they have usually campaigned on at all opportunities) all they had to do was win an election. Something they have conspicuously failed to do. Even by working hand in hand in certain instances. 

To do or ague otherwise is just holding your breath and stamping your feet. Cherry picking opinion polls, or giving them such an elevated credence they somehow counter actual votes made in elections or ignoring the inconvenient list vote is I am afraid no better. 

Edited May 1, 2022 by williemillersmoustache