Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens

[Duries Air Freshener]

41 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:

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. 

There hasn’t been anything to make me change my mind mate.

I’m not ashamed to admit that my reasons are primarily about identity, culture, history, tradition and a way of life.  I’m involved in organisations that have Britishness at their very core.

These sort of factors matter much more to me than taxation, currency, the economy or the EU’s ERASMUS scheme etc.

Whilst for a lot of Scots Pipe Bands, Bannockburn, the Declaration of Arbroath and songs of the Jacobites will stir the emotions; I value different bands, different historical events, different battles and different songs.

This doesn’t mean I don’t care about Scotland though, as my family lineage goes back to various parts of this beautiful nation that I adore and care about deeply.  I don’t think I could ever leave Scotland.

It also goes to England too though, and Wales.  Then having married a Northern Irish woman completed the Staunch jigsaw!

Most of my mates are Nationalists and I would trust them with anything.  I respect their point of view too, but we just look at it from completely different angles.

As much as I’d be gutted if Independence ever happened, I’d still be happy for friends of mine who have wanted it their whole lives.

I went off on one there mate but I hope you see where I’m coming from! I agree about the SNP fanboys btw.  They won’t go against their cult leader.

[sophia]

13 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

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.

I must admit, although urinary is known, the niceties and nuances of union and unitary are above this humble observer.

Would I be correct in assuming that this now permanently prevents @The_Kincardine from employing this trope?

[Kenneth840]

4 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

There hasn’t been anything to make me change my mind mate.

I’m not ashamed to admit that my reasons are primarily about identity, culture, history, tradition and a way of life.  I’m involved in organisations that have Britishness at their very core.

These sort of factors matter much more to me than taxation, currency, the economy or the EU’s ERASMUS scheme etc.

Whilst for a lot of Scots Pipe Bands, Bannockburn, the Declaration of Arbroath and songs of the Jacobites will stir the emotions; I value different bands, different historical events, different battles and different songs.

This doesn’t mean I don’t care about Scotland though, as my family lineage goes back to various parts of this beautiful nation that I adore and care about deeply.  I don’t think I could ever leave Scotland.

It also goes to England too though, and Wales.  Then having married a Northern Irish woman completed the Staunch jigsaw!

Most of my mates are Nationalists and I would trust them with anything.  I respect their point of view too, but we just look at it from completely different angles.

As much as I’d be gutted if Independence ever happened, I’d still be happy for friends of mine who have wanted it their whole lives.

I went off on one there mate but I hope you see where I’m coming from! I agree about the SNP fanboys btw.  They won’t go against their cult leader.

I absolutely respect your view mate. I only want to claim back my Scottish culture and heritage that is being stolen from me. 

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 hour ago, Kenneth840 said:

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. 

Sorry to jump in here, but there hasn’t really been anything to change my mind.

However, if there were more nationalists like yourself I would certainly look on things a bit more favourably.

What I dislike is the fundamental nastiness and hostility which most of the nationalists on here tend to portray.

Its very hard to have a reasonable discussion without being subjected to abuse.

Strangely, I tend to agree much more with people from the Alba party who seem to eschew the social conservatism which I agree with.

At the end of the day, if we were to become independent, I would certainly do my best to make it a success but culturally and emotionally I feel very British and am happy with the way things are.at present.

[BFTD]

Christ, it's turned into a mutual support session for greeting-faced miseries.

At least SpongeBob Phil posted dreadful pictures to raise a laugh.

[welshbairn]

This is lovely, Alba, UKIP and the Scottish Family Party all pals together! 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

4 hours ago, Kenneth840 said:

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. 

Literally none of the arguments that lost the last referendum have been examined or progressed, some of the posters on here that seem to believe in this perennially broken clock that's tick tocking away have a go at Unionists for not making a positive case for the Union without realising they're not making a positive case for Indy themselves when the onus is actually on them to not accept the status quo and convince people to vote their way of thinking. 

Their primary argument seems to be "you're scared of a referendum" which is barely worth entertaining. 

[BFTD]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

This is lovely, Alba, UKIP and the Scottish Family Party all pals together! 

There's hope for Scotland's future yet. Just think what they could achieve.

[lichtgilphead]

8 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Literally none of the arguments that lost the last referendum have been examined or progressed,

Yeah, under the Great British Union, we are still members of the EU, with all the benefits it brings.

Thank god we didn't vote Yes, and have to leave as predicted by the Yoons.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

9 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Yeah, under the Great British Union, we are still members of the EU, with all the benefits it brings.

Thank god we didn't vote Yes, and have to leave as predicted by the Yoons.

If people were silly enough to have voted Yes we would also be out of the EU... you seem to believe you're an intelligent person so surely you saw the possibility of a referendum on the EU matter in the foreseeable future? I did and I voted No whilst being aware we would probably have a UK wide vote on EU membership in the future. It seems you're just upset that your side has lost on both occasions, thankfully democracy isn't defined as "things that lichtgilphead wants to happen"...

I think the currency and pensions issues were the big hitters though. These issues are still there and so is the EU one Brexit or no Brexit. 

Impressed you managed a post aimed at me without making something up or coming across like a seething raging mess though so well done in that respect.  

[Zern]

16 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

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.

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.

At no point i have argued that Westminster is required to recognise a right to secession or that Holyrood wasn't created to operate within legislative bounds. I am happy to correct your misunderstanding on this. What i was criticising was the attitude that cast its net wide for objections to any sort of referendum on independence specifically without any consideration of what the Scottish Parliament is; namely a European-style democratic government with elected representatives. These are not functionaries appointed to some extended Scottish Office and as such it is worth some consideration within the constitutional debate. I think this is only reinforced by Boris Johnson's official response which contained no reference to the law they were exercising.

To illustrate this i would ask you a simple question. Is the Prime Minister able to dismiss the First Minister of Scotland?

At present it is hard to fault Holyrood's actions, they've constantly engaged with Westminster on this issue and it is Westminster who are being obstructionist. I point to international law and examples of secession to acknowledge that those other routes exist and not controversial to note that those begin with civil disobedience of legal restrictions. Am i to think badly of those who protested because technically what they did was against the law?

Quote

 

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. 

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.

 

Not to be cheeky, but i've yet to encounter a treaty that wasn't specific to its own conditions. Conditions and specificity are what they are all about.

I'm also old enough to remember when political divides led to car-bombs and executions, with no reference to law. We negotiated a peace by recognising the other side not ignoring them. And whilst i would like everything to be remain peaceful that doesn't appear to be an attitude shared by Westminster. Who, let me remind you, has had to be FORCED to comply with the GFA and NIP by combined pressure from the USA, EU and Ireland. Something that sets such precedent would seem to apply with the situation in Scotland especially since it is so readily recognised. I don't think you can argue that Westminster lacks the ability to do such things.

Quote

 

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.

 

I would love to see how you reach that conclusion that the majority are against, when last time i checked the anti-referendum parties only managed to secure 45% of the seats in Holyrood. I would argue that this result is more accurate representation of the public attitudes towards an independence referendum especially given that is not outside the error margins of most polls that have been conducted.

On that basis it is legitimate for Holyrood to press for the powers to do this.

 

[Ad Lib]

17 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

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. 

I don't "ignore the proportional vote in favour of FPTP". I explicitly acknowledged that pro-referendum parties won a majority of the regional list vote in the 2021 Election (though by a smaller margin than Unionists won the popular vote in the constituency ballot). The point is that if the majority of Scots wanted a second referendum, we would expect to see the majority of Scots voting for pro-referendum parties on both ballots.

Instead, what we saw was aggressive tactical voting by Unionists on the constituency ballot with the explicit intention of denying the SNP a working majority off solely constituency seats.

17 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

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.

In the vast majority of constitutional orders, the decision to hold a referendum is based on the authority gained in elections.

I agree with you that there is a democratic mandate for a second Scottish independence referendum on the basis of the 2021 election results, because I believe that power should rest with Holyrood. But the bottom line is that we're not going to see one unless and until the majority of Scots want one and vote, clearly and consistently, accordingly.

What matters is not the support or otherwise for independence, but the support or otherwise for a referendum.

On either measure, opinion polling and recent elections do not clear the hurdle in a way that is indisputable.

17 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

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. 

Okay, here's my prediction: there will not be a legally held Scottish independence referendum before the next Holyrood elections. And Nicola Sturgeon will not hold a referendum that lacks a legal basis.

Let's see who's proven right.

[williemillersmoustache]

8 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I don't "ignore the proportional vote in favour of FPTP". I explicitly acknowledged that pro-referendum parties won a majority of the regional list vote in the 2021 Election (though by a smaller margin than Unionists won the popular vote in the constituency ballot). The point is that if the majority of Scots wanted a second referendum, we would expect to see the majority of Scots voting for pro-referendum parties on both ballots.

Instead, what we saw was aggressive tactical voting by Unionists on the constituency ballot with the explicit intention of denying the SNP a working majority off solely constituency seats.

 

I agree with you that there is a democratic mandate for a second Scottish independence referendum on the basis of the 2021 election results, because I believe that power should rest with Holyrood. But the bottom line is that we're not going to see one unless and until the majority of Scots want one and vote, clearly and consistently, accordingly.

What matters is not the support or otherwise for independence, but the support or otherwise for a referendum.

On either measure, opinion polling and recent elections do not clear the hurdle in a way that is indisputable.

Okay, here's my prediction: there will not be a legally held Scottish independence referendum before the next Holyrood elections. And Nicola Sturgeon will not hold a referendum that lacks a legal basis.

Let's see who's proven right.

There was ultra aggressive tactical voting. Libdems and tories and Labour all happily rutting away together, to deny a pro indepence majority and they failed. Because there is a pro independence majority in Holyrood.

I'm going to say this just one more time as it remains the case, there is only one way to accurately gauge support for a binary choice and that is by referendum. Neither multiparty votes nor adding one vote and ignoring another then licking your finger and sticking it in the air achieves this. The support is there, otherwise we'd have Douglas Ross or that Labour guy Ricard Langoustine as FM. 

And you have ignored the list vote because if the opposite was true I'm sure this argument of yours would be turned on its head and suddenly the constituencies wouldn't matter its the proportional list that counts. 

Perhaps your prediction will come to pass, I think not but that will be because the Scottish government have chosen to ignore the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate, not because of what amounts to little more than frankly desperate numberwang. 

[Ad Lib]

27 minutes ago, Zern said:

At no point i have argued that Westminster is required to recognise a right to secession or that Holyrood wasn't created to operate within legislative bounds. I am happy to correct your misunderstanding on this. What i was criticising was the attitude that cast its net wide for objections to any sort of referendum on independence specifically without any consideration of what the Scottish Parliament is; namely a European-style democratic government with elected representatives. These are not functionaries appointed to some extended Scottish Office and as such it is worth some consideration within the constitutional debate. I think this is only reinforced by Boris Johnson's official response which contained no reference to the law they were exercising.

To illustrate this i would ask you a simple question. Is the Prime Minister able to dismiss the First Minister of Scotland?

Wow, this is full of non-sequiturs and falsehoods.

(1) The Scottish Parliament is not a government. The Scottish Government is a government. The Scottish Parliament is a legislature of limited competence which owes its existence to and depends upon a statute for its powers.

(2) That the Scottish Parliament is "European-style" whatever that means is constitutionally irrelevant.

(3) The Prime Minister cannot dismiss the First Minister because of section 45 of the Scotland Act 1998, which the UK Parliament passed, provides all of the rules for the appointment and dismissal of First Ministers. The only person who can dismiss a First Minister is the Queen, as the First Minister holds office at "Her Majesty's pleasure".

In any case, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if the Prime Minister could sack the First Minister.

The only thing that matters, as a matter of constitutional law, is that the Scottish Parliament cannot do anything beyond its legislative competence and that the Scottish Government cannot exercise functions that do not belong to it.

27 minutes ago, Zern said:

At present it is hard to fault Holyrood's actions, they've constantly engaged with Westminster on this issue and it is Westminster who are being obstructionist. I point to international law and examples of secession to acknowledge that those other routes exist and not controversial to note that those begin with civil disobedience of legal restrictions. Am i to think badly of those who protested because technically what they did was against the law?

Again with a load of salad and nonsense. It's not relevant to international law whether Westminster is being "obstructionist". International law allows sovereign states to be obstructionist towards internal secession movements. You and I agree there is a lack of wisdom in such an approach, but it's allowed, and nothing in international law is going to change that.

I am passing absolutely no judgment on anyone who has protested anything. I'm simply saying that their protest is irrelevant to the role of international law in secession disputes.

27 minutes ago, Zern said:

Not to be cheeky, but i've yet to encounter a treaty that wasn't specific to its own conditions. Conditions and specificity are what they are all about.

I'm also old enough to remember when political divides led to car-bombs and executions, with no reference to law. We negotiated a peace by recognising the other side not ignoring them. And whilst i would like everything to be remain peaceful that doesn't appear to be an attitude shared by Westminster. Who, let me remind you, has had to be FORCED to comply with the GFA and NIP by combined pressure from the USA, EU and Ireland. Something that sets such precedent would seem to apply with the situation in Scotland especially since it is so readily recognised. I don't think you can argue that Westminster lacks the ability to do such things.

It's just as well no one is saying that "Westminster" lacks the ability to do anything, then, isn't it?

What matters is what it decides it wants to do.

And right now, it wants to deny the Scottish Government a second referendum on Scottish independence.

27 minutes ago, Zern said:

I would love to see how you reach that conclusion that the majority are against, when last time i checked the anti-referendum parties only managed to secure 45% of the seats in Holyrood. I would argue that this result is more accurate representation of the public attitudes towards an independence referendum especially given that is not outside the error margins of most polls that have been conducted.

On that basis it is legitimate for Holyrood to press for the powers to do this.

At the Scottish Parliamentary Elections in 2021, at which there was 63% turnout, the combined constituency vote of the three largest pro-Union anti-referendum parties was 50.42% or 1,364,734. I readily accept that on the regional list, the picture was the reverse (the three largest pro-referendum parties polled 50.12% or 1,359,611.

At the last UK Parliamentary Elections in 2019, at which there was a 68% turnout, the three largest Unionist parties polled 53.2% of the popular vote or 1,468,194.

Whether you like it or not, this suggests that there is not clear majority support for a second independence referendum.

We could also look to recent opinion polling, such as the YouGov poll from a month ago which suggested that just 36% of people in Scotland want an independence referendum in 2023 (40% if you strip out don't knows).

Or the five ComRes polls carried out between September 2021 and March 2022 in which, after stripping out don't knows, there has been a consistent preference against the holding of a second independence referendum at all, let alone with a given timescale.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, and Holyrood is entirely within its rights to seek a section 30 Order, it has no right to be granted it and it does not have clear majority support of the Scottish people behind it. Now there are plenty of things that Governments can and should be able to do without clear majority support behind it (whether at Bute House or Downing Street) because we live in a representative democracy without absolute proportional representation.

But the fundamental reason why another referendum isn't progressing is because there isn't clear majority support for it. In those circumstances, UK Governments feel able to reject it (whether or not that is a wise thing to do).

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

There was ultra aggressive tactical voting. Libdems and tories and Labour all happily rutting away together, to deny a pro indepence majority and they failed. Because there is a pro independence majority in Holyrood.

But they did succeed in denying the SNP a single-party majority.

What you're failing to grasp is that, as far as the Unionists in office are concerned, a pro-referendum majority is a necessary but insufficient condition for the granting of powers to the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum.

Whether or not they're shifting goalposts and being c***s about it (and they are) there's nothing you can do about that, other than meet their other, more onerous, conditions.

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

I'm going to say this just one more time as it remains the case, there is only one way to accurately gauge support for a binary choice and that is by referendum. Neither multiparty votes nor adding one vote and ignoring another then licking your finger and sticking it in the air achieves this. The support is there, otherwise we'd have Douglas Ross or that Labour guy Ricard Langoustine as FM. 

This is a non-sequitur. You say that elections aren't a reliable mechanism for support for things and then set the threshold for whether there is support for things based on how Unionists do in an election.

We're not going to have a referendum on holding a referendum. The Scottish electorate hardly went into the Holyrood elections unaware that the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems were against a second independence referendum and would oppose it regardless of circumstances (it was in all three manifestos).

What is clear is that on popular vote alone, voters turned out in greater numbers, and even to the point of aggressive tactical voting, to deny the SNP a constituency majority, and did so in numbers that gave the constituency popular vote to Unionists.

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

And you have ignored the list vote because if the opposite was true I'm sure this argument of yours would be turned on its head and suddenly the constituencies wouldn't matter its the proportional list that counts. 

I haven't ignored it. The point is that if there isn't a clear majority on both ballots, when the election was explicitly fought on the basis of parties' positions on independence, then there isn't a clear majority for the referendum. There is a clear Parliamentary majority but not a clear majority in the country.

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Perhaps your prediction will come to pass, I think not but that will be because the Scottish government have chosen to ignore the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate, not because of what amounts to little more than frankly desperate numberwang. 

I must say I find this branch of Scottish nationalism absolutely fascinating, thinking that the SNP-led Government, headed by Nicola Sturgeon, is somehow "ignoring the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate" by pursuing all permissible legal avenues to the holding of a second independence referendum.

You do you.

[williemillersmoustache]

Now its a clear majority that's needed.  Soon it will be a sustained majority. Then a decarbonised majority, a free range majority and 4 part dramatised majority on Netflix.

 

[williemillersmoustache]

2 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

But they did succeed in denying the SNP a single-party majority.

What you're failing to grasp is that, as far as the Unionists in office are concerned, a pro-referendum majority is a necessary but insufficient condition for the granting of powers to the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum.

Whether or not they're shifting goalposts and being c***s about it (and they are) there's nothing you can do about that, other than meet their other, more onerous, conditions.

This is a non-sequitur. You say that elections aren't a reliable mechanism for support for things and then set the threshold for whether there is support for things based on how Unionists do in an election.

We're not going to have a referendum on holding a referendum. The Scottish electorate hardly went into the Holyrood elections unaware that the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems were against a second independence referendum and would oppose it regardless of circumstances (it was in all three manifestos).

What is clear is that on popular vote alone, voters turned out in greater numbers, and even to the point of aggressive tactical voting, to deny the SNP a constituency majority, and did so in numbers that gave the constituency popular vote to Unionists.

I haven't ignored it. The point is that if there isn't a clear majority on both ballots, when the election was explicitly fought on the basis of parties' positions on independence, then there isn't a clear majority for the referendum. There is a clear Parliamentary majority but not a clear majority in the country.

I must say I find this branch of Scottish nationalism absolutely fascinating, thinking that the SNP-led Government, headed by Nicola Sturgeon, is somehow "ignoring the repeated and explicit instructions from the electorate" by pursuing all permissible legal avenues to the holding of a second independence referendum.

You do you.

Denied a single parry majority in a parliament specifically designed to prevent them.

Now we need both ballots. You are as inconsistent and cynical as any tory or baroness on this. 

Quote

What you're failing to grasp is that, as far as the Unionists in office are concerned, a pro-referendum majority is a necessary but insufficient condition for the granting of powers to the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum.

There's no reason at all to believe this is true. There is nothing that will be sufficient for some and suggesting there's some grounding or intellectual basis for this view is just insulting. 

 

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Denied a single parry majority in a parliament specifically designed to prevent them.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they see that as mission accomplished.

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Now we need both ballots. You are as inconsistent and cynical as any tory or baroness on this.

I'm not saying you need that.

I'm saying that you cannot say that the majority of Scots want another referendum, when neither the popular vote in the last several Scotland-wide elections demonstrate this, nor the opinion polling.

A respectable argument can be made that you do not need the support of a majority of Scots to have a democratic mandate for another referendum. Indeed, that is literally my personal opinion.

But it's not going to get you anywhere with this lot.

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

There's no reason at all to believe this is true. There is nothing that will be sufficient for some and suggesting there's some grounding or intellectual basis for this view is just insulting. 

Except there is an intellectual basis for their view, even though I disagree with it and even though they keep moving the goalposts. As I explained earlier, pre-commitment strategies, from the mildest of restrictions (e.g. a minimum waiting period between referendums) to the most extreme (a constitutional prohibition on secession referendums) are legitimate and widely internationally recognised prerogatives of sovereign states.

You and I might think that they are extremely foolish in the context of Scotland and the UK, but the bottom line is you have no remedy but to keep meeting the conditions that Unionists set until it becomes sufficiently electorally prohibitive for them to adopt foolish positions.

If they say a Parliamentary majority isn't enough? Go win a single-party Parliamentary majority. If they say a minority of the popular vote isn't enough, go and win a majority of the popular vote.

And think about this strategically: their arguments about timing and thresholds are subject to diminishing returns the longer time passes and the more of them you clear: to the extent that it would look stupid in the eyes of the median voter for them to continue to insist upon it. If they push this too hard they will fulfil their own prophecy with the SNP winning a majority off a majority of the vote.

Instead, what you're doing is trying to discredit the constitutionally sensible approach of Nicola Sturgeon, which respects the law of the land at a time when, bluntly, it looks like if a referendum were to be held tomorrow Yes would probably lose. Only losing for a second time actually would kill off the debate for generations, as we saw in Quebec, as Unionists dig into a "we said no, we said it again, we meant it".

[BFTD]

29 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Now its a clear majority that's needed.  Soon it will be a sustained majority. Then a decarbonised majority, a free range majority and 4 part dramatised majority on Netflix.

A red-white-and-blue majority?  

This is all off-topic, but still much more interesting than the laugh-free content provided thus far. Hopefully Ad Lib sticks around.

[williemillersmoustache]

This is just the "actually you need yet another election after the all the elections that have been held and lost by the no to a referendum side, in the hope that next time we'll win" argument.

There is no intellectual basis for this, its just denial. Long winded and polite denial, but plain denial all the same.  

I almost take your point on meeting each of these spurious criteria and the diminishing returns for the Unionist side. But there's no basis to think that as each of these are put up another won't rise in its place. And that's what I meant by there being no reason to believe that if we met these goals there would be a sudden and damescene conversation from WM. Particularly when there has been no attempt to set these goals or criteria, it's just no. You haven't met them. Whatever they are. 

It's also weird you think I'm trying to discredit the FM or her approach.