ICTChris Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 4 minutes ago, ClydeTon said: I've got to the point of not-caring with the SNP. Election after election it's "give us a mandate to demand a referendum!", then "demand" quickly turns to "please UK, can we have a referendum please..." and then they retreat to the comfortable residence of Westminster or Holyrood for the next 5 years and do the usual business, just to pull the same stunt again come the next election. The only other move made was the court case which was just moronic anyway. What is the alternative approach the SNP could take? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 3 minutes ago, ICTChris said: What is the alternative approach the SNP could take? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClydeTon Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 7 minutes ago, ICTChris said: What is the alternative approach the SNP could take? They need to cross the first hurdle which is actually trying to think of alternatives, which they haven't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Farter Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 20 minutes ago, ClydeTon said: they retreat to the comfortable residence of Westminster or Holyrood for the next 5 years and do the usual business When Mhairi Black said recently she felt some of her colleagues had become too comfortable in Westminster, did you interpret that as her meaning they'd become less motivated by independence? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 Just now, ClydeTon said: They need to cross the first hurdle which is actually trying to think of alternatives, which they haven't. Have you considered that they have tried to think of alternatives but decided that the alternatives they thought of weren't any good? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClydeTon Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 17 minutes ago, Freedom Farter said: When Mhairi Black said recently she felt some of her colleagues had become too comfortable in Westminster, did you interpret that as her meaning they'd become less motivated by independence? I think the SNP Westminster group aren't in with much of a choice, ultimately, it's Holyrood that should be acting. The SNP are happy enough, in my eyes, to just be the Devolution Party and govern from Holyrood - (because the calls for Independence win votes nearly every time) - knowing that, post-independence, there would be no "National Party" (in it's current form), and therefore they're mostly far from power, compared to now. I might be a bit cynical here, I do realise, but if they really cared they'd be pestering WM constantly and picking proverbial fights, not just pushing through the policies of The Greens and making enemies everywhere. Sturgeon was a leader but unable to get over the final hurdle (independence), Humza isn't a leader and can't do the latter. 19 minutes ago, ICTChris said: Have you considered that they have tried to think of alternatives but decided that the alternatives they thought of weren't any good? If they decide just to give up and keep using Independence to win votes, without acting upon it, then they shouldn't be leading the independence cause. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkieRR Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 41 minutes ago, Left Back said: ALBA? Flatlining in the polls, more parliamentarians (albeit defectees) than voters? That ALBA? This suspicion of the word 'national' superheats my urine. It's basically fuelled by the same Labour nudge-wink innuendo about Independence supporters that brought them down to one MP. 'National = Nationalism and all Nationalism is the same INCLUDING HITLER AND FRANCO AND MUSSOLINI!!!!' Not helped by references in the likes of The Guardian to the 'Scotish Nationalist Party' which are only very quietly corrected. Is Hopeless Humza concerned about the 'National' in the National LIbrary of Scotland, the National Galleries and Museums of same, the Scottish national fitba teams or rugby teams etc etc etc? Perhaps he could wait for Sir Keir 'Peter Butterworth' Starmer to stop frotting his Union Flag and asked him what he'd consider a suitable replacement for 'National'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 23 minutes ago, KirkieRR said: ALBA? Flatlining in the polls, more parliamentarians (albeit defectees) than voters? That ALBA? This suspicion of the word 'national' superheats my urine. It's basically fuelled by the same Labour nudge-wink innuendo about Independence supporters that brought them down to one MP. 'National = Nationalism and all Nationalism is the same INCLUDING HITLER AND FRANCO AND MUSSOLINI!!!!' Not helped by references in the likes of The Guardian to the 'Scotish Nationalist Party' which are only very quietly corrected. Is Hopeless Humza concerned about the 'National' in the National LIbrary of Scotland, the National Galleries and Museums of same, the Scottish national fitba teams or rugby teams etc etc etc? Perhaps he could wait for Sir Keir 'Peter Butterworth' Starmer to stop frotting his Union Flag and asked him what he'd consider a suitable replacement for 'National'. I meant more her approach of simply deciding to start independence negotiations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 1 hour ago, Left Back said: I meant more her approach of simply deciding to start independence negotiations. She would be talking to an empty room unless you think UDI is the way forward. No one on the Unionist side is going to enter into "negotiations". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 1 hour ago, ClydeTon said: If they decide just to give up and keep using Independence to win votes, without acting upon it, then they shouldn't be leading the independence cause. What should they do to act upon it? What are the steps they should be taking? As far as I can see it, there are several avenues that would be open for pro-independence campaigners that are different to what the current Scottish government has done. - The de facto referendum: Declare in your campaign for the next Westminister or Holyrood election that this is a 'de facto' referendum on independence and when you win the most seats or pro-independence candidates get the most votes or whatever your test is, you say you are going to open negotiations for independence afterwards. - The 'wildcat' referendum: Declare your intention to hold a referendum on independence without agreement from Westminister. The Scottish Government would organise a nationwide poll and say that this was indyref2, if/when Yes wins then they start independence negotiations. - UDI: Simply declare independence without any further votes and start negotiations, or don't even bother with negotiations and start building a wall at the border probably. The issues with all of these are completely obvious and barely need stating - Scotland can only become independent via a process agreed with the UK government and that agreement is not going to be given. The specific set of circumstances that lead to the agreements to hold the 2014 independence referendum are not likely to happen again. The other option would be something akin to what Alba proposed before the 2021 Holyrood election - pack out the Scottish Parliament with pro-independence MSPs, have a national commission on independence, legal action, diplomatic pressure, public demonstrations etc. I honestly don't think that this approach would have widespread support in Scotland but what do I know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrExile Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 2 hours ago, Freedom Farter said: When Mhairi Black said recently she felt some of her colleagues had become too comfortable in Westminster, did you interpret that as her meaning they'd become less motivated by independence? She probably meant them not realising they are about to lose their seats at the next election. Should be following her example and heading back north for a place at the Holyrood trough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 3 hours ago, ICTChris said: What is the alternative approach the SNP could take? Start throwing the opposition out of high rise buildings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houston_bud Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 6 hours ago, ICTChris said: Scotland can only become independent via a process agreed with the UK government and that agreement is not going to be given. The specific set of circumstances that lead to the agreements to hold the 2014 independence referendum are not likely to happen again. I agree with the second point in here, the bar for another referendum is higher - you can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it's true. I think if support for independence became so overwhelming, then it would be impossible to ignore. The SNP themselves spoke about getting it consistently above 60% in the past. If the SNP (or a combination of pro independence parties) hit those type of numbers for a few elections on the bounce (Holyrood, Westminster, Holyrood for example) then it couldn't be ignored. Even hitting, say, c. 55% consistently would be hard to ignore. At the moment, it's pretty easy for whoever is in power at Westminster to point at the SNP's popular vote in elections as never getting over 50%. The percentage of people who voted yes in 2014 and the percentage of people who have voted for pro independence parties in elections since then has stayed pretty static - maybe increased by a couple of percentage points, and will likely go down a bit at this years election. The SNP need to be more honest with their hard core support, that independence isn't just round the corner, but that they're trying to grow support for it so it can't be ignored. But they're worried that'll lose them voted to the likes of Alba. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 16 minutes ago, houston_bud said: I agree with the second point in here, the bar for another referendum is higher - you can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it's true. I think if support for independence became so overwhelming, then it would be impossible to ignore. The SNP themselves spoke about getting it consistently above 60% in the past. If the SNP (or a combination of pro independence parties) hit those type of numbers for a few elections on the bounce (Holyrood, Westminster, Holyrood for example) then it couldn't be ignored. Even hitting, say, c. 55% consistently would be hard to ignore. At the moment, it's pretty easy for whoever is in power at Westminster to point at the SNP's popular vote in elections as never getting over 50%. The percentage of people who voted yes in 2014 and the percentage of people who have voted for pro independence parties in elections since then has stayed pretty static - maybe increased by a couple of percentage points, and will likely go down a bit at this years election. The SNP need to be more honest with their hard core support, that independence isn't just round the corner, but that they're trying to grow support for it so it can't be ignored. But they're worried that'll lose them voted to the likes of Alba. Re your last para - there was a piece in the Graun by Sturgeon’s old COS a couple of weeks back that’s probably relevant to it. Whether she’s still active in or even still in the party I’m not sure https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/08/scotland-independence-snp-yes-vote-referendum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houston_bud Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 8 minutes ago, carpetmonster said: Re your last para - there was a piece in the Graun by Sturgeon’s old COS a couple of weeks back that’s probably relevant to it. Whether she’s still active in or even still in the party I’m not sure https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/08/scotland-independence-snp-yes-vote-referendum The SNP aren't the only party to tell their faithful comforting lies but it would be refreshing for at least one party to be a bit more honest, even if it cost them a few votes in the short term. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Just now, houston_bud said: The SNP aren't the only party to tell their faithful comforting lies but it would be refreshing for at least one party to be a bit more honest, even if it cost them a few votes in the short term. Long-termism probably hasn’t been a thing since Attlee and Bevan founded the NHS. 24/7 news and the internet make me gloomy that anyone else will give it a bash in future. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, carpetmonster said: Re your last para - there was a piece in the Graun by Sturgeon’s old COS a couple of weeks back that’s probably relevant to it. Whether she’s still active in or even still in the party I’m not sure https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/08/scotland-independence-snp-yes-vote-referendum For various reasons which I won't go into here, there's many in the SNP that now wouldn't believe Liz Lloyd if she said the sky was blue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 16 hours ago, ICTChris said: What should they do to act upon it? What are the steps they should be taking? As far as I can see it, there are several avenues that would be open for pro-independence campaigners that are different to what the current Scottish government has done. - The de facto referendum: Declare in your campaign for the next Westminister or Holyrood election that this is a 'de facto' referendum on independence and when you win the most seats or pro-independence candidates get the most votes or whatever your test is, you say you are going to open negotiations for independence afterwards. - The 'wildcat' referendum: Declare your intention to hold a referendum on independence without agreement from Westminister. The Scottish Government would organise a nationwide poll and say that this was indyref2, if/when Yes wins then they start independence negotiations. - UDI: Simply declare independence without any further votes and start negotiations, or don't even bother with negotiations and start building a wall at the border probably. The issues with all of these are completely obvious and barely need stating - Scotland can only become independent via a process agreed with the UK government and that agreement is not going to be given. The specific set of circumstances that lead to the agreements to hold the 2014 independence referendum are not likely to happen again. The other option would be something akin to what Alba proposed before the 2021 Holyrood election - pack out the Scottish Parliament with pro-independence MSPs, have a national commission on independence, legal action, diplomatic pressure, public demonstrations etc. I honestly don't think that this approach would have widespread support in Scotland but what do I know. The other route is complete non-cooperation - stop playing by the rules at Westminster and disrupt as much as possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 10 hours ago, houston_bud said: I agree with the second point in here, the bar for another referendum is higher - you can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it's true. I think if support for independence became so overwhelming, then it would be impossible to ignore. The SNP themselves spoke about getting it consistently above 60% in the past. If the SNP (or a combination of pro independence parties) hit those type of numbers for a few elections on the bounce (Holyrood, Westminster, Holyrood for example) then it couldn't be ignored. Even hitting, say, c. 55% consistently would be hard to ignore. At the moment, it's pretty easy for whoever is in power at Westminster to point at the SNP's popular vote in elections as never getting over 50%. The percentage of people who voted yes in 2014 and the percentage of people who have voted for pro independence parties in elections since then has stayed pretty static - maybe increased by a couple of percentage points, and will likely go down a bit at this years election. The SNP need to be more honest with their hard core support, that independence isn't just round the corner, but that they're trying to grow support for it so it can't be ignored. But they're worried that'll lose them voted to the likes of Alba. The bar will just get moved again - it's what the Unionists have always done. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: The other route is complete non-cooperation - stop playing by the rules at Westminster and disrupt as much as possible. What does that mean in practice? Go down the Sinn Fein route of not taking seats? Throwing the mace about, ala Ron Brown? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.