10 Years Ago

[I Clavdivs]

There is no way Westminster will allow another Independence referendum as they know it will be lost (roughly 50/50 Yes No in polls) .They only granted it last time around as YES was hovering around the low 30's but got the fright of their lives when it rose during campaign.

Options would be UDI but would expect the unionist Bloc to abstain threatening  voracity of any vote.Other option is to challenge the Act of Union in the International Courts as well as making the blindingly obvious case that the Scottish people are sovereign and beholden to no one when it comes to deciding their own destiny .

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

19 minutes ago, I Clavdivs said:

There is no way Westminster will allow another Independence referendum as they know it will be lost (roughly 50/50 Yes No in polls) .They only granted it last time around as YES was hovering around the low 30's but got the fright of their lives when it rose during campaign.

Options would be UDI but would expect the unionist Bloc to abstain threatening  voracity of any vote.Other option is to challenge the Act of Union in the International Courts as well as making the blindingly obvious case that the Scottish people are sovereign and beholden to no one when it comes to deciding their own destiny .

 

I love the enthusiasm but its f**ked for decades. A nation of shitebags.

[jimbaxters]

39 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

I love the enthusiasm but its f**ked for decades. A nation of shitebags.

My thoughts exactly. We weren't resident in the UK so couldn't vote in the referendum but looked on in complete disbelief and despair at the hand wringing Scots. 

[Lex]

3 hours ago, GallowayBlue said:

There has been a pro-independence majority of Scottish MPs and MSPs for almost all of the last ten years and no referendum was granted.

How would you respond to this question from a recent poll?

“Thinking about the balance of power between the Westminster Parliament and Scottish Parliament, which parliament should have power to call a referendum on Scottish independence?”

Because the natural answer in the last ten years is there has just been one, which was true. No one in the run up to the last referendum said if we lose this one we'll get another go within the next few years. Politicians on both sides agreed it was once in a generation or even once in a lifetime, a generation is not ten years. A generation is 20 years though, which is why after the 2031 Scottish Parliamentary elections if there is a pro-indy majority in both houses of parliament there will be a very good argument for another referendum. 

As for your question I agree with Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 which states that constitutional matters are not devolved and the subsequent Supreme Court decision in 2022 which upheld it.

• the decision of the Supreme Court providing legal certainty that the Scottish Government has no power to hold an independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government through the mechanism of Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998; and

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

34 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

My thoughts exactly. We weren't resident in the UK so couldn't vote in the referendum but looked on in complete disbelief and despair at the hand wringing Scots. 

The thing is, i appreciate my previous post was from the benefit of hindsight, but many of us spent indy ref talking to a wall about how the UK was shifting further right and becoming a basket case, only to have people swallow nonsense about no east enders on the tv and the despicable lies about organ donation etc. if you chapped a voters door and told an old dear with limited ability to go and find facts for themselves, maybe housebound and isolated and told them that people were trying to take their pension away, no wonder they were scared. But the ‘soft nos’ the ‘soft nos’ are the ones who swallowed every single lie. Just like the curious leave voters in brexit.

[Alan Twelve]

37 minutes ago, Lex said:

Politicians on both sides agreed it was once in a generation or even once in a lifetime

This is nonsense and you know it's nonsense. Do you not pause and question what you're arguing for when your arguments rest on pish like this?

[BB_Bino]

38 minutes ago, Lex said:

Politicians on both sides agreed it was once in a generation or even once in a lifetime,

Not once, do I ever remember hearing anybody on any side saying this, until the Better Together campaign starting using it as a stick to beat the Yes campaign with after the referendum!

[Lex]

3 minutes ago, Alan Twelve said:

This is nonsense and you know it's nonsense. Do you not pause and question what you're arguing for when your arguments rest on pish like this?

There is literally no ambiguity about this at all. It was said several times by all of the leading campaigners in the YES movement and they're on video saying it. Understandably in a way, if they had said don't worry if we lose this one we'll get another shot in a few years then people would have been less likely to vote yes.

[Lex]

5 minutes ago, BB_Bino said:

Not once, do I ever remember hearing anybody on any side saying this, until the Better Together campaign starting using it as a stick to beat the Yes campaign with after the referendum!

Genuinely surprised I’m having to provide this. That’s the post truth internet world we live in I guess. It was said by them all several times. 

 

[GallowayBlue]

24 minutes ago, Lex said:

Genuinely surprised I’m having to provide this. That’s the post truth internet world we live in I guess. It was said by them all several times. 

 

To be fair, some of the cut offs in this clip are a bit suspect.

No opportunity for the additional context which I'm sure was given.

Also it is possible to have a "once in a generation opportunity" more frequently.

Aberdeen have the once in a generation opportunity to finish second this year. If they fail they can still have that once in a generation opportunity next year...

Regardless, in a democracy things are surely judged on votes rather than statements made by politicians many years ago?

Edited 6 hours ago by GallowayBlue

[Groundhopping Adventures]

It's been "a generation" since a team that wasn't English, Spanish, Italian or German won the Champions League. Doesn't mean it's going to happen this year or that it won't for twenty years after that

[GallowayBlue]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Because the natural answer in the last ten years is there has just been one, which was true. No one in the run up to the last referendum said if we lose this one we'll get another go within the next few years. Politicians on both sides agreed it was once in a generation or even once in a lifetime, a generation is not ten years. A generation is 20 years though, which is why after the 2031 Scottish Parliamentary elections if there is a pro-indy majority in both houses of parliament there will be a very good argument for another referendum. 

As for your question I agree with Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 which states that constitutional matters are not devolved and the subsequent Supreme Court decision in 2022 which upheld it.

• the decision of the Supreme Court providing legal certainty that the Scottish Government has no power to hold an independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government through the mechanism of Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998; and

Could go back and forward on the once in a generation stuff all day, however I'm more interested in the second part.

The question is not what is the position (which is what you've provided) but what should be the position.

Do you think that a decision on whether Scotland should have a referendum/be independent or not should be made in Scotland?

58% or respondents answered the Scottish Parliament should decide in the poll, so even as an (I presume) opponent of independence, it would be interesting to get your view on that.

I appreciate the back and forth, we're evidently not on the same side, but to me the decision over whether Scotland should be independent or not should ultimately be for people in Scotland to make.

I'm keen to learn from your different perspective why you don't think that should be the case.

Perhaps for some opponents of independence the UK approval requirement would act as a layer of protection from nationalist whims?

Coming from a place of genuine curiosity.

Edited 6 hours ago by GallowayBlue

[Fullerene]

57 minutes ago, Lex said:

Because the natural answer in the last ten years is there has just been one, which was true. No one in the run up to the last referendum said if we lose this one we'll get another go within the next few years. Politicians on both sides agreed it was once in a generation or even once in a lifetime, a generation is not ten years. A generation is 20 years though, which is why after the 2031 Scottish Parliamentary elections if there is a pro-indy majority in both houses of parliament there will be a very good argument for another referendum. 

As for your question I agree with Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 which states that constitutional matters are not devolved and the subsequent Supreme Court decision in 2022 which upheld it.

• the decision of the Supreme Court providing legal certainty that the Scottish Government has no power to hold an independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government through the mechanism of Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998; and

Why does it need to be both parliaments.  FPTP make the WM elections almost lucky dip and people might vote in a UK election for other reasons.

By contrast a majority in the Scottish elections where a fairer system means the majority is a real one should be the sole criteria.

[houston_bud]

23 minutes ago, Lex said:

There is literally no ambiguity about this at all. It was said several times by all of the leading campaigners in the YES movement and they're on video saying it. Understandably in a way, if they had said don't worry if we lose this one we'll get another shot in a few years then people would have been less likely to vote yes.

Salmond and Sturgeon also had placards with 'one opportunity' written on it for a photo op in Glasgow.

There's an awful lot of rewriting of history about the referendum - on both sides.

As for any in the future, I don't buy the 'Westminster will never allow it'. Westminster isn't some fixed thing, there will be different governments in the future with different pressures and priorities. Since the referendum support for independence hasn't seen any major shift. If support had continued to grow and independence supporting parties were picking up c. 60% or more in subsequent elections, then it would be come very difficult to ignore.

There was a devolution referendum in '79, then another in '98, the powers of the Scottish Parliament have not remained static since '99. So, I just don't accept that 'we won't be allowed another' and all the constitutional changes have already happened.

The SNP (and other independence supporting parties) have failed to really grow support for independence in the last 10 years. If people want another referendum, then they need to get more people to support it.

[houston_bud]

27 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

Why does it need to be both parliaments.  FPTP make the WM elections almost lucky dip and people might vote in a UK election for other reasons.

By contrast a majority in the Scottish elections where a fairer system means the majority is a real one should be the sole criteria.

I'd say a majority of votes for independence supporting parties in both Parliaments would be a very clear indication, and would make a very strong argument for another referendum.

[GallowayBlue]

9 minutes ago, houston_bud said:

Salmond and Sturgeon also had placards with 'one opportunity' written on it for a photo op in Glasgow.

There's an awful lot of rewriting of history about the referendum - on both sides.

As for any in the future, I don't buy the 'Westminster will never allow it'. Westminster isn't some fixed thing, there will be different governments in the future with different pressures and priorities. Since the referendum support for independence hasn't seen any major shift. If support had continued to grow and independence supporting parties were picking up c. 60% or more in subsequent elections, then it would be come very difficult to ignore.

There was a devolution referendum in '79, then another in '98, the powers of the Scottish Parliament have not remained static since '99. So, I just don't accept that 'we won't be allowed another' and all the constitutional changes have already happened.

The SNP (and other independence supporting parties) have failed to really grow support for independence in the last 10 years. If people want another referendum, then they need to get more people to support it.

Why do they need to get more people to support it?

Why is it not enough for the Scottish Parliament to be pro-independence referendum?

The UK isn't run by opinion polling.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

39 minutes ago, GallowayBlue said:

To be fair, some of the cut offs in this clip are a bit suspect.

No opportunity for the additional context which I'm sure was given.

Also it is possible to have a "once in a generation opportunity" more frequently.

Aberdeen have the once in a generation opportunity to finish second this year. If they fail they can still have that once in a generation opportunity next year...

Regardless, in a democracy things are surely judged on votes rather than statements made by politicians many years ago?

We have once in a generation storms every year now. Are the UK government going to stop the weather too?

[GallowayBlue]

1 minute ago, houston_bud said:

I'd say a majority of votes for independence supporting parties in both Parliaments would be a very clear indication, and would make a very strong argument for another referendum.

We also don't operate on majority of votes.

Labour will get to do as they please with 33% of the vote.

The UK and Scotland are Parliamentary democracies.

[houston_bud]

Just now, GallowayBlue said:

Why do they need to get more people to support it?

Why is it not enough for the Scottish Parliament to be pro-independence referendum?

The UK isn't run by opinion polling.

Because - rightly or wrongly - the law says the Scottish Parliament can't decide on that.

[houston_bud]

2 minutes ago, GallowayBlue said:

We also don't operate on majority of votes.

Labour will get to do as they please with 33% of the vote.

The UK and Scotland are Parliamentary democracies.

Yes, I know. 

You or me, or anyone else, wishing that the Scottish Parliament could make these decisions changes nothing. What will bring about another referendum is when public support has grown to a level that's difficult to ignore for whoever is in power in Westminster. That hasn't happened in the last ten years as support has barely shifted.