Scottish Independence

[degenerated]

What a waste of £20m , people desperate for money, food, heating etc but she carried on with her campaign.

Democracy does not apply to her. We, the Scottish people, voted to remain in the UK. Get it, First Minister ? Time to stand down.It's not her campaign, she was elected. By the people of Scotland to carry on that campaign.

[weecounty hibby]

What a waste of £20m , people desperate for money, food, heating etc but she carried on with her campaign.

Democracy does not apply to her. We, the Scottish people, voted to remain in the UK. Get it, First Minister ? Time to stand down.
We spend more than that combating Westminster austerity. Child poverty payments etc. You get the opportunity to make her stand down every few years in elections. Fortunately most people in Scotland trust her to do the right things for scotland

[WhileTheChief..]

Sorry I didn't mean to be snide. I was trying to make the point that there needs to be a process to determine how we have a referendum. Your posts provided a very good example of the "pluck a number from the air" approach which needs to be addressed, I think.

Salmond's 'once in a generation' seemed appropriate and fair to me. It's pretty close to plucking a number from the air I suppose.

Point is, it's still too soon.

If it wasn't, and the time was right, it would be reflected consistently in the polls and the mood of the country.

[grunt]

Point is, it's still too soon. I disagree. Politely, of course.

[WhileTheChief..]

I disagree. Politely, of course.

:aok: All good.

[JeMeSouviens]

It’s a fact if you only look at the votes you claim should be counted and ignore the numbers.

The unionist parties received more votes in 2021 than the nationalists, yes or no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The nationalists got votes from a greater number of voters, yes or no?

[degenerated]

The nationalists got votes from a greater number of voters, yes or no?I would say normalists rather than nationalists.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1590739920548933632?t=jXG4JSoSXpcXqUUrK1QF-Q&s=19


"The parties pledging a second referendum in their 2021 manifestos were: Alba, Greens, Libertarian, Restore Scotland, Scotia Future, SNP, and TUSC. Put them all together and they received a total of 2,698,892 votes, out of the 5,419,544 votes cast, which is 49.8% of the vote."

Someone is wrong.

That's only constituency votes. Add the regional list votes and divide the total by 2 and you get a majority overall in favour of the parties you mentioned.

[Stairway 2 7]

Green party voters are split on wanting independence, so can't really be counted imo. For many people saving the planet supersedes every other decision

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,less-than-half-of-scottish-green-voters-in-favour-of-independence

Scottish Greens voters hold mixed views on independence, with their support for Scotland going it alone less than clear-cut.

An opinion poll by Lord Ashcroft Polls found that only 43 per cent of those who intended to vote Green in a constituency supported independence, while 46 per cent were against it.

Of those likely to vote Green in the regional list vote 68 per cent would support independence, while 23 per cent would vote against it

[JeMeSouviens]

Green party voters are split on wanting independence, so can't really be counted imo. For many people saving the planet supersedes every other decision

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,less-than-half-of-scottish-green-voters-in-favour-of-independence

Scottish Greens voters hold mixed views on independence, with their support for Scotland going it alone less than clear-cut.

An opinion poll by Lord Ashcroft Polls found that only 43 per cent of those who intended to vote Green in a constituency supported independence, while 46 per cent were against it.

Of those likely to vote Green in the regional list vote 68 per cent would support independence, while 23 per cent would vote against it

Labour usually splits about 2:1 in favour of the Union. Libs about 5:1, Tories 19:1. SNP 9:1 for Indy. All parties have minorities that don't support their constitutional position.

Maybe we should have some kind of special binary choice vote to decide where people stand? :dunno:

[Since90+2]

Green party voters are split on wanting independence, so can't really be counted imo. For many people saving the planet supersedes every other decision

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,less-than-half-of-scottish-green-voters-in-favour-of-independence

Scottish Greens voters hold mixed views on independence, with their support for Scotland going it alone less than clear-cut.

An opinion poll by Lord Ashcroft Polls found that only 43 per cent of those who intended to vote Green in a constituency supported independence, while 46 per cent were against it.

Of those likely to vote Green in the regional list vote 68 per cent would support independence, while 23 per cent would vote against it

The green regional list vote will be massively higher than constituency, so if 68% on the regional list are pro independence you can be sure the majority of green voters are Yes votes.

I wonder how many Labour voters on the regional list would be independence supporters?

[JeMeSouviens]

That's only constituency votes. Add the regional list votes and divide the total by 2 and you get a majority overall in favour of the parties you mentioned.

You think there were over 5M votes cast? Even one of Putin's referendums wouldn't have found that many. :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

That's only constituency votes. Add the regional list votes and divide the total by 2 and you get a majority overall in favour of the parties you mentioned.

I'd doubt that. There's only 5.5m people in Scotland, no?

Did the Qataris do the counting?

[degenerated]

Green party voters are split on wanting independence, so can't really be counted imo. For many people saving the planet supersedes every other decision

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,less-than-half-of-scottish-green-voters-in-favour-of-independence

Scottish Greens voters hold mixed views on independence, with their support for Scotland going it alone less than clear-cut.

An opinion poll by Lord Ashcroft Polls found that only 43 per cent of those who intended to vote Green in a constituency supported independence, while 46 per cent were against it.

Of those likely to vote Green in the regional list vote 68 per cent would support independence, while 23 per cent would vote against itLabour voters are split on independence, probably a far larger number of pro indy labour voters than green voters in total.

[JeMeSouviens]

The green regional list vote will be massively higher than constituency, so if 68% on the regional list are pro independence you can be sure the majority of green voters are Yes votes.

I wonder how many Labour voters on the regional list would be independence supporters?

:agree:

In 2021 Green list about 8%, Green constituency a little over 1%.

[James310]

That's only constituency votes. Add the regional list votes and divide the total by 2 and you get a majority overall in favour of the parties you mentioned.

🤣

[Stairway 2 7]

Labour usually splits about 2:1 in favour of the Union. Libs about 5:1, Tories 19:1. SNP 9:1 for Indy. All parties have minorities that don't support their constitutional position.

Maybe we should have some kind of special binary choice vote to decide where people stand? :dunno:

Yes so it's nonsense straight up counting party votes and saying its a defacto referendum. Many also tactically vote for someone they wouldn't necessarily vote for.

[grunt]

Yes so it's nonsense straight up counting party votes and saying its a defacto referendum. Many also tactically vote for someone they wouldn't necessarily vote for.
Perhaps people might tactically vote for independence? Like some people (I'm guessing) probably also voted tactically for Brexit?

[Ozyhibby]

Green party voters are split on wanting independence, so can't really be counted imo. For many people saving the planet supersedes every other decision

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,less-than-half-of-scottish-green-voters-in-favour-of-independence

Scottish Greens voters hold mixed views on independence, with their support for Scotland going it alone less than clear-cut.

An opinion poll by Lord Ashcroft Polls found that only 43 per cent of those who intended to vote Green in a constituency supported independence, while 46 per cent were against it.

Of those likely to vote Green in the regional list vote 68 per cent would support independence, while 23 per cent would vote against it

Did the green manifesto include a commitment for another referendum?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

We knew that in 2014 too and most of Scotland was fine with it.

Remember, Westminster isn't going against the will of the Scottish people here, despite what Sturgeon and Blackford continually say.

The Uk Gov is sticking up for everyone that voted No. Surely they've got an obligation to do so and you can understand it, if not like it?

Imagine for a second that you were a No voter. How would you feel if Westminster just rolled over to the will of the Scottish Gov and totally ignored you and everyone else like you, to please the minority.

It's not as black and white that some of you guys make out.

But to not even be allowed to ask the question? That’s a democratic deficiency.

J

[Bristolhibby]

Er, that's not the point i'm making at all :confused:

Saying democracy is dead because you don't get your own way????

No, democracy is dead when you can’t even ask a question.

Who knows what the result would be.

Democracy didn’t end in 2014. A few things have moved on since then.

J

[Bristolhibby]

We're still in your Union aren't we? :dunno:

And out of the EU.

J

[Just Alf]

Yes so it's nonsense straight up counting party votes and saying its a defacto referendum. Many also tactically vote for someone they wouldn't necessarily vote for.They've still to announce what the manifesto is going to be, but reading Sturgeon's announcement... if it truly is just 'vote for us if you want Scotland to be independent ' as the single item on it then I can't see why a 'no' person would tactically vote for them?

[Bristolhibby]

And do you get to implement manifesto pledges that you have no legal authority to promise or deliver on?

Why not? How else do laws get changed. It was once illegal to be married and gay. That got changed.

J

[Bristolhibby]

Salmond's 'once in a generation' seemed appropriate and fair to me. It's pretty close to plucking a number from the air I suppose.

Point is, it's still too soon.

If it wasn't, and the time was right, it would be reflected consistently in the polls and the mood of the country.

The polls or A Poll?

Surely the latter.

J

[grunt]

Keir Starmer's spokesman says the Scottish people do have a right to decide whether to leave the Union, but declines to say how that is possible given Westminster won't allow a vote." It is for those who want to break up the United Kingdom to set out how they propose to do so".

[Bristolhibby]

Yes so it's nonsense straight up counting party votes and saying its a defacto referendum. Many also tactically vote for someone they wouldn't necessarily vote for.

If only Scotland had a legal way to ask the question.

J

[JeMeSouviens]

Keir Starmer's spokesman says the Scottish people do have a right to decide whether to leave the Union, but declines to say how that is possible given Westminster won't allow a vote." It is for those who want to break up the United Kingdom to set out how they propose to do so".

ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, war is peace

[Since90+2]

Keir Starmer's spokesman says the Scottish people do have a right to decide whether to leave the Union, but declines to say how that is possible given Westminster won't allow a vote." It is for those who want to break up the United Kingdom to set out how they propose to do so".

Well they already have, they proposed a referendum to let the people of Scotland decide.

Starmer completely sidestepping the issue.

[Ozyhibby]

Keir Starmer's spokesman says the Scottish people do have a right to decide whether to leave the Union, but declines to say how that is possible given Westminster won't allow a vote." It is for those who want to break up the United Kingdom to set out how they propose to do so".

He didn’t really say that did he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Unionists appear to be enjoying a fair bit of gloating today but the denial of democracy will be a slow burner that will constantly erode the union. I think in time they will look back with regret on today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

He didn’t really say that did he?

Keir Starmer's spokesman

[Scorrie]

Unionists appear to be enjoying a fair bit of gloating today but the denial of democracy will be a slow burner that will constantly erode the union. I think in time they will look back with regret on today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you may be right. Not even being allowed to ask the question is, in my view, very poor and could well annoy a lot of people. Turning this on its head, when is the right time? It does show the relative weakness of the Scottish Parliament in that it has to ask permission to undertake this matter. I think the next GE will be very important in determining the next stage of this issue

[Ozyhibby]

I think you may be right. Not even being allowed to ask the question is, in my view, very poor and could well annoy a lot of people. Turning this on its head, when is the right time? It does show the relative weakness of the Scottish Parliament in that it has to ask permission to undertake this matter. I think the next GE will be very important in determining the next stage of this issue

The whole debate now moves to a pro or anti democracy debate. I know which side I would want to be on there. There will be some unionists who will feel a little uncomfortable being on the side of the argument they are.
The Yes campaign need to rebrand now as a pro democracy campaign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Legal blogger David Allen Green

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FiQWx3-XoAAVsRK?format=png&name=900x900

[grunt]

In essence, we now have a situation where, should it ever wish, England could unilaterally secede from the Union but Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can't.

How can that possibly be fair?

[Ozyhibby]

In essence, we now have a situation where, should it ever wish, England could unilaterally secede from the Union but Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can't.

How can that possibly be fair?

I think Northern Ireland can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

I think Northern Ireland can.

Point.

[Steven79]

Point.

Only if Westminster agrees.

England is the only nation that can vote the UK out of existence.

[The Tubs]

I think Northern Ireland can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It shows what violence achieves in the UK.

[The Tubs]

Only if Westminster agrees.

England is the only nation that can vote the UK out of existence.

Or maybe not.

[Scorrie]

Only if Westminster agrees.

England is the only nation that can vote the UK out of existence.

I’d vote for that!

[Steven79]

We knew that in 2014 too and most of Scotland was fine with it.

Remember, Westminster isn't going against the will of the Scottish people here, despite what Sturgeon and Blackford continually say.

The Uk Gov is sticking up for everyone that voted No. Surely they've got an obligation to do so and you can understand it, if not like it?

Imagine for a second that you were a No voter. How would you feel if Westminster just rolled over to the will of the Scottish Gov and totally ignored you and everyone else like you, to please the minority.

It's not as black and white that some of you guys make out.

That's utter rubbish.

We didn't go Independent in 2014 and since then many things have changed.

Should we not get to vote in an election again either?

[Ozyhibby]

It shows what violence achieves in the UK.

That’s what scares me the most. You take away democracy and what fills the void? It’s terrifying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scorrie]

That’s what scares me the most. You take away democracy and what fills the void? It’s terrifying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was my thinking as well. The legal route has been closed. What takes its place?

[Steven79]

Or maybe not.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factfind-border-poll-5375996-Mar2021/

Taken together, the GFA essentially acknowledges that the island as a whole supports unity but that the central question is whether Northern Ireland would consent to such.
Therefore, it is explicitly stated in the GFA that the holding of a border poll is within the power of the NI Secretary:

'"If at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."



Essentially, it means that a border poll can be held if the NI Secretary feels it is likely that it would be passed. If one is held, there can’t be another for another seven years.

[He's here!]

My gut reaction is get it up you Sturgeon. What a waste of time and money when, as a lawyer, she will have known fine well the SG would be laughed out of court.

Problem is that the outcome is probably one she privately welcomes as it gives her another couple of years' leeway in which she can continue to stoke the politics of grievance. Provided the faithful can be kept believing that the battle lies just around the corner (rather than seeing her as a grand old Duke of York) then she's not run out of road just yet.

What she appears unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge is that it's no longer Westminster which is standing in her way eight years after the UK government gave the green light for a referendum. It's the Scottish people, who stubbornly refuse to provide her with a clear and overwhelming majority in favour of independence.

[He's here!]

That's utter rubbish.

We didn't go Independent in 2014 and since then many things have changed.

Should we not get to vote in an election again either?


It's not utter rubbish. It's the simple truth. Democracy has not been denied here no matter how many times the SNP say so.

[Steven79]

My gut reaction is get it up you Sturgeon. What a waste of time and money when, as a lawyer, she will have known fine well the SG would be laughed out of court.

Problem is that the outcome is probably one she privately welcomes as it gives her another couple of years' leeway in which she can continue to stoke the politics of grievance. Provided the faithful can be kept believing that the battle lies just around the corner (rather than seeing her as a grand old Duke of York) then she's not run out of road just yet.

What she appears unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge is that it's no longer Westminster which is standing in her way eight years after the UK government gave the green light for a referendum. It's the Scottish people, who stubbornly refuse to provide her with a clear and overwhelming majority in favour of independence.

It's not her who is stopping one being held it's the Tories as they know they would lose.

Not having an referendum or election because you feel you will lose is not democracy.

[Steven79]

It's not utter rubbish. It's the simple truth. Democracy has not been denied here no matter how many times the SNP say so.

So the 2021 election in Scotland didn't count?

Neither did all of the previous elections in Scotland?

Is the only result that counts the vote in 2014?

Jesus!

[grunt]

My gut reaction is get it up you Sturgeon. Nice. Good to see manners in the independence debate.


What a waste of time and money when, as a lawyer, she will have known fine well the SG would be laughed out of court.I don't see anyone laughing on here. It's not remotely amusing.

[WhileTheChief..]

That's utter rubbish.

We didn't go Independent in 2014 and since then many things have changed.

Should we not get to vote in an election again either?

It’s not rubbish at all. You’ve just ignored every point I made and had a wee rant.

If there’s another No result at the next referendum, do you just wait a few years and say things have changed again? Repeat until Yes? That can’t be a good outlook for the country.

I guess if enough people in Scotland feel as strongly as some of you about this, we’ll see a huge groundswell of opinion demanding the right to a vote. Mass protests etc. That kinda thing.

My gut feeling is that nothing will change. There’s not enough people feel passionately enough about it.

Nobody seems willing to offer any suggestion as to why support for Indy hasn’t grown more? That’s where the SNPs focus should be. I doubt they’ll win any more votes by sticking to the blame Westminster line.

[grunt]

Democracy has not been denied here no matter how many times the SNP say so.

Did the SNP include a manifesto pledge to hold another referendum?

Did the SNP become the biggest party in Holyrood?

Did the SNP and Greens together form a majority of pro independence parties in Holyrood?

Are we "allowed" another referendum?

[ronaldo7]

My gut reaction is get it up you Sturgeon. What a waste of time and money when, as a lawyer, she will have known fine well the SG would be laughed out of court.

Problem is that the outcome is probably one she privately welcomes as it gives her another couple of years' leeway in which she can continue to stoke the politics of grievance. Provided the faithful can be kept believing that the battle lies just around the corner (rather than seeing her as a grand old Duke of York) then she's not run out of road just yet.

What she appears unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge is that it's no longer Westminster which is standing in her way eight years after the UK government gave the green light for a referendum. It's the Scottish people, who stubbornly refuse to provide her with a clear and overwhelming majority in favour of independence.

You're a charmer too.

:na na:

[Steven79]

Nobody seems willing to offer any suggestion as to why support for Indy hasn’t grown more? That’s where the SNPs focus should be. I doubt they’ll win any more votes by sticking to the blame Westminster line.

That's the fault of the SNP as they have failed to drum up support when it should have been pretty easy considering the mess that Westminster was in.

[Jack]

The Mother of All Parliaments and the death of democracy.

[ronaldo7]

It’s not rubbish at all. You’ve just ignored every point I made and had a wee rant.

If there’s another No result at the next referendum, do you just wait a few years and say things have changed again? Repeat until Yes? That can’t be a good outlook for the country.

I guess if enough people in Scotland feel as strongly as some of you about this, we’ll see a huge groundswell of opinion demanding the right to a vote. Mass protests etc. That kinda thing.

My gut feeling is that nothing will change. There’s not enough people feel passionately enough about it.

Nobody seems willing to offer any suggestion as to why support for Indy hasn’t grown more? That’s where the SNPs focus should be. I doubt they’ll win any more votes by sticking to the blame Westminster line.

That's not what's being suggested. A clear and demonstrable change happened. Brexit. If that hadn't happened, I don't think we'd be here. IMO

[Ozyhibby]

My gut reaction is get it up you Sturgeon. What a waste of time and money when, as a lawyer, she will have known fine well the SG would be laughed out of court.

Problem is that the outcome is probably one she privately welcomes as it gives her another couple of years' leeway in which she can continue to stoke the politics of grievance. Provided the faithful can be kept believing that the battle lies just around the corner (rather than seeing her as a grand old Duke of York) then she's not run out of road just yet.

What she appears unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge is that it's no longer Westminster which is standing in her way eight years after the UK government gave the green light for a referendum. It's the Scottish people, who stubbornly refuse to provide her with a clear and overwhelming majority in favour of independence.

I would say the SNP got the maximum today that they could have hoped for. The Supreme Court made a ruling rather than send it back which is what the UK govt wanted. They will be very happy with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigwheel]

That's not what's being suggested. A clear and demonstrable change happened. Brexit. If that hadn't happened, I don't think we'd be here. IMO

Correct. And anyone who doesn’t acknowledge this is simply driving their own agenda ..

As soon England voted to take the UK out of the EU against the other countries wishes, every part of the UK should have the right to determine their future again .

[James310]

That's the fault of the SNP as they have failed to drum up support when it should have been pretty easy considering the mess that Westminster was in.

You are probably the only Indy supporter on here that recognises that. Most will gloss over it, it's a good point though and is never addressed. Just why has support for Independence never increased in any significant way when you look back at the last 8 years.

[grunt]

Nobody seems willing to offer any suggestion as to why support for Indy hasn’t grown more? That’s where the SNPs focus should be. I doubt they’ll win any more votes by sticking to the blame Westminster line.


That's the fault of the SNP as they have failed to drum up support when it should have been pretty easy considering the mess that Westminster was in.

You'd have thought so wouldn't you? But just have a look at our own forum, and look at how many posters appear to be afraid that Scotland is too wee, too poor, too stupid, to be an independent country.

[grunt]

You are probably the only Indy supporter on here that recognises that. Most will gloss over it, it's a good point though and is never addressed. Just why has support for Independence never increased in any significant way when you look back at the last 8 years.
It's a good question, but one out of all of us you're in the best position to answer?

[ronaldo7]

You are probably the only Indy supporter on here that recognises that. Most will gloss over it, it's a good point though and is never addressed. Just why has support for Independence never increased in any significant way when you look back at the last 8 years.

We only seem to hear about the Indy numbers, and why they've not grown dramatically. Fair enough, but why has the Unionist numbers fallen since 2014?

[JeMeSouviens]

It’s not rubbish at all. You’ve just ignored every point I made and had a wee rant.

If there’s another No result at the next referendum, do you just wait a few years and say things have changed again? Repeat until Yes? That can’t be a good outlook for the country.

I guess if enough people in Scotland feel as strongly as some of you about this, we’ll see a huge groundswell of opinion demanding the right to a vote. Mass protests etc. That kinda thing.

My gut feeling is that nothing will change. There’s not enough people feel passionately enough about it.

Nobody seems willing to offer any suggestion as to why support for Indy hasn’t grown more? That’s where the SNPs focus should be. I doubt they’ll win any more votes by sticking to the blame Westminster line.

If the people keep voting for a referendum then that's what they should get.

Tend to agree nothing will change quickly but it keeps chipping away at the union. Indy support hasn't grown more because we're in a troubled economic position and enough people here don't have the confidence for a big change (can't blame folk for that when so many are struggling). The border situation (imo) makes the short to medium term outlook much harder but the medium to long term outlook much better vs rUK.

[grunt]

Joanna Cherry https://joannacherry.scot/news/supreme-court

[James310]

We only seem to hear about the Indy numbers, and why they've not grown dramatically. Fair enough, but why has the Unionist numbers fallen since 2014?

Have they? Poll of polls suggests it's about 45/55 so no change.

But why do you think support for Independence hasn't really moved much?

[James310]

It's a good question, but one out of all of us you're in the best position to answer?

Not sure what you mean?

[Ozyhibby]

You are probably the only Indy supporter on here that recognises that. Most will gloss over it, it's a good point though and is never addressed. Just why has support for Independence never increased in any significant way when you look back at the last 8 years.

Days like today will help grow support for Indy. It was about 30% 10 years ago and now it’s at 49-50%. That’s growth.
Support for the union continues to drop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Joanna Cherry https://joannacherry.scot/news/supreme-court

:top marks

[ronaldo7]

Have they? Poll of polls suggests it's about 45/55 so no change.

But why do you think support for Independence hasn't really moved much?

We're about 50/50 just now. Things like today will move the dial again. The get it up ye Sturgeon brigade will also help.:aok:

[bigwheel]

Joanna Cherry https://joannacherry.scot/news/supreme-court

When you read such a clear view as this ..it leads me to wonder if the SNP will make the next election, and election on independence..will the be explicit , that if they win by a defined majority, then they will take the right to declare independence ?? Could be historic times ahead

[ronaldo7]

When you read such a clear view as this ..it leads me to wonder if the SNP will make the next election, and election on independence..will the be explicit , that if they win by a defined majority, then they will take the right to declare independence ?? Could be historic times ahead

Special conference to be held early next year to clear a way forward. I think Joanna is laying the groundwork.

The people who live in Scotland will determine our future and it's time for the promised Constitutional Convention to be convened to take matters forward.

[Ozyhibby]

Have they? Poll of polls suggests it's about 45/55 so no change.

But why do you think support for Independence hasn't really moved much?

Where is this poll of polls?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Days like today will help grow support for Indy. It was about 30% 10 years ago and now it’s at 49-50%. That’s growth.
Support for the union continues to drop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which makes you wonder why she never referred this to the Supreme Court years ago. You could have had a good few years head start.

[The Modfather]

Have they? Poll of polls suggests it's about 45/55 so no change.

But why do you think support for Independence hasn't really moved much?

Probably for the same reason the no side hasn’t grown. Most people are set either side of the fence and there’s probably not that big a middle ground genuinely willing to go either way depending on the arguments put forward.

There’s no point pretending it’s not disappointing for yes not to have substantially increased. However the official campaigning hasn’t yet started. I wouldn’t fancy coming up with the no sides strategy for that. Easy to ask questions and cast doubt about independence, however how do you answer the difficult questions of the post Brexit managed decline and moving further to the right union in the here and now.

[grunt]

Not sure what you mean?
It would appear that you are opposed to Scottish independence. If I'm wrong I apologise.

So why haven't you changed your mind in the last 8 years?

[Ozyhibby]

Which makes you wonder why she never referred this to the Supreme Court years ago. You could have had a good few years head start.

Support is built gradually over time. No one single act gets us to Indy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Given the uncertainty of the opinion polls just now, I think she will secretly be quite pleased about the ruling. It gives her more time to build a more solid case for Independence.

It might even be the case that they played for this result.

Yep, having to beg for democracy will not go down well with many Scots on both sides of the divide in Scotland.

[James310]

It would appear that you are opposed to Scottish independence. If I'm wrong I apologise.

So why haven't you changed your mind in the last 8 years?

Because I don't think there is a coherent case for it.

[James310]

Where is this poll of polls?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was on a polling website, I will try and locate it.

[grunt]

Because I don't think there is a coherent case for it.Scotland. Too small, too poor, too stupid?

Or perhaps you just like the political direction of the UK Govt? Maybe you prefer the clarity of Starmer's Labour and his commitment to make Brexit work?

Just wondering.

[Ozyhibby]

It was on a polling website, I will try and locate it.

Great, will be an interesting read.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Scotland. Too small, too poor, too stupid?

Or perhaps you just like the political direction of the UK Govt? Maybe you prefer the clarity of Starmer's Labour and his commitment to make Brexit work?

Just wondering.

Or likes the fact that low income people in the UK are 25% poorer than our European neighbours and middle income people are 20% poorer. Maybe he’s rich and doesn’t care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SteveHFC]

Went past Holyrood just now and there’s a small crowd gathering from both sides.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'd doubt that. There's only 5.5m people in Scotland, no?

Did the Qataris do the counting?

Sorry, I didn't look at the figures. However, I did analysis of the votes at the last scottish elections and using the method I mentioned, adding constituency and list votes together and divided by 2 there was a majority for independence seeking parties. It was a narrow majority, below 20,000, but a majority non the less.

[James310]

Scotland. Too small, too poor, too stupid?

Or perhaps you just like the political direction of the UK Govt? Maybe you prefer the clarity of Starmer's Labour and his commitment to make Brexit work?

Just wondering.

Too big, too rich and too clever I would say.

The line you use was coined by John Swinney, I don't think it works.

[James310]

Or likes the fact that low income people in the UK are 25% poorer than our European neighbours and middle income people are 20% poorer. Maybe he’s rich and doesn’t care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No point taking part today if this is the level of "debate" aimed at me.

[grunt]

Too big, too rich and too clever I would say.

Now I'm afraid it's me that doesn't know what you mean.

[Steven79]

The thing I fear the most is that Westminster will Ulsteris Scotland if it looks like they have no chance of keeping us chained to them.

That lot clearly haven't learned lessons from ireland 100 years ago and when the chips are down they will show their true colours.

[Ozyhibby]

Sorry, I didn't look at the figures. However, I did analysis of the votes at the last scottish elections and using the method I mentioned, adding constituency and list votes together and divided by 2 there was a majority for independence seeking parties. It was a narrow majority, below 20,000, but a majority non the less.

It was pretty much split down the middle, just like Scotland is.
There were a majority voted for pro Indy party’s on the list vote and a majority voted for pro union candidates on the constituency vote. Neither is more important than the other.
It was 50-50.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Yep, having to beg for democracy will not go down well with many Scots on both sides of the divide in Scotland.

Not only Scots. Some English see the light and understand the situation.

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1595430398267465729

[Ozyhibby]

Kenny Farquharson: Referendum ruling poses a challenge for Rishi Sunak

Kenny FarquharsonNovember 23 2022, 4.00pm
The court was brutal in rejecting Scotland’s right to self-determination. Scotland is not a colony, said the justices. Scotland is not oppressed. Scotland is not denied meaningful control over its own affairs.

Belief in democracy places burdens on politicians. As a bare minimum it requires the government to provide democratic means for citizens to pursue legitimate aims.

If politicians fail to provide those democratic means they risk those citizens choosing means that are undemocratic.

Which brings us back to my initial question: is Scotland’s presence within the UK voluntary? If yes, what are the legal means by which Scotland can voluntarily leave?

There is, as yet, no convincing answer from the UK government. This is unsustainable.

Nicola Sturgeon, in her press conference today, said: “This ruling confirms that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer, if it ever was, a reality.”

She was right, and the implications for the British state can no longer be ducked. She was also right when she said the court judgment asks as many questions of the prime minister as it does of her.

The judgment poses a challenge to Sunak’s credentials as a democrat, which should trump his credentials as a unionist and a Conservative.

To be blunt, and to say out loud what is usually said sotto voce, the UK government risks civil unrest and violence if independence supporters are denied a democratic path to achieving their legitimate aims.

The UK government has been here before and responded with a deftness of touch that won international plaudits. In the Good Friday Agreement it provided the nationalist community in Northern Ireland with a legal, constitutional, peaceful means of exiting the UK, if that was the majority view.

A wise prime minister, whether Tory or Labour, would put Scotland on a comparable footing to Northern Ireland. This would take much of the heat out of Scotland’s constitutional debate. The focus would be on whether independence was a good or bad idea, rather than on whether democracy was being denied.

Sunak has shown himself willing to reject the orthodoxy of his two immediate predecessors. As he seeks a calmer, more rational, more reasonable style of government he has signalled a constructive approach to the impasse at Stormont and negotiations with Brussels.

A similar realism is now required for Scotland.

From the Times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

My gut reaction is get it up you Sturgeon. What a waste of time and money when, as a lawyer, she will have known fine well the SG would be laughed out of court.

Problem is that the outcome is probably one she privately welcomes as it gives her another couple of years' leeway in which she can continue to stoke the politics of grievance. Provided the faithful can be kept believing that the battle lies just around the corner (rather than seeing her as a grand old Duke of York) then she's not run out of road just yet.

What she appears unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge is that it's no longer Westminster which is standing in her way eight years after the UK government gave the green light for a referendum. It's the Scottish people, who stubbornly refuse to provide her with a clear and overwhelming majority in favour of independence.

I said it at 11:30

Let the carnage begin. 🙄

[ronaldo7]

The thing I fear the most is that Westminster will Ulsteris Scotland if it looks like they have no chance of keeping us chained to them.

That lot clearly haven't learned lessons from ireland 100 years ago and when the chips are down they will show their true colours.

I think David Torrance used the term a few years ago, and it chilled me to the core. Unfortunately, that's the way we're heading unless someone in the UK gov can get democracy back on track. We did it in 2011 after an election win for the SNP with a manifesto promise, it can be done again.

I hope those crowing this evening don't party too hard, as others are keeping their powder dry.

[Moulin Yarns]

Now I'm afraid it's me that doesn't know what you mean.

We are apparently too big, etc to stand on our own two feet and need to support our bigger neighbours 🙄


Imagine England without Scotland's resources!!

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/opinion/james-obrien-scorns-uk-governments-decision-to-block-scotland-from-referendum/


Goan yersel James 😁

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1595458553925767169?s=46&t=8nyMoqXXrCo7tnRvNZrOFQ

No way out according to Douglas Ross.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Kenny Farquharson: Referendum ruling poses a challenge for Rishi Sunak

Kenny FarquharsonNovember 23 2022, 4.00pm
The court was brutal in rejecting Scotland’s right to self-determination. Scotland is not a colony, said the justices. Scotland is not oppressed. Scotland is not denied meaningful control over its own affairs.

Belief in democracy places burdens on politicians. As a bare minimum it requires the government to provide democratic means for citizens to pursue legitimate aims.

If politicians fail to provide those democratic means they risk those citizens choosing means that are undemocratic.

Which brings us back to my initial question: is Scotland’s presence within the UK voluntary? If yes, what are the legal means by which Scotland can voluntarily leave?

There is, as yet, no convincing answer from the UK government. This is unsustainable.

Nicola Sturgeon, in her press conference today, said: “This ruling confirms that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer, if it ever was, a reality.”

She was right, and the implications for the British state can no longer be ducked. She was also right when she said the court judgment asks as many questions of the prime minister as it does of her.

The judgment poses a challenge to Sunak’s credentials as a democrat, which should trump his credentials as a unionist and a Conservative.

To be blunt, and to say out loud what is usually said sotto voce, the UK government risks civil unrest and violence if independence supporters are denied a democratic path to achieving their legitimate aims.

The UK government has been here before and responded with a deftness of touch that won international plaudits. In the Good Friday Agreement it provided the nationalist community in Northern Ireland with a legal, constitutional, peaceful means of exiting the UK, if that was the majority view.

A wise prime minister, whether Tory or Labour, would put Scotland on a comparable footing to Northern Ireland. This would take much of the heat out of Scotland’s constitutional debate. The focus would be on whether independence was a good or bad idea, rather than on whether democracy was being denied.

Sunak has shown himself willing to reject the orthodoxy of his two immediate predecessors. As he seeks a calmer, more rational, more reasonable style of government he has signalled a constructive approach to the impasse at Stormont and negotiations with Brussels.

A similar realism is now required for Scotland.

From the Times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Civil unrest and violence? Irresponsible guff.

[Ozyhibby]

Civil unrest and violence? Irresponsible guff.

Could never happen right enough.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

Could never happen right enough.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope. History shows when humans are denied democracy they always just lie down, shut up and take it.

[Callum_62]

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1595458553925767169?s=46&t=8nyMoqXXrCo7tnRvNZrOFQ

No way out according to Douglas Ross.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIt's totally voluntary, there just isnt a way out [emoji23]

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

It was on a polling website, I will try and locate it.

Politico is the best ‘basket’ of polls site with historical comparison axis. It’s virtually neck and neck and has been for quite some time with a consistent 9% swayable either way.

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/315759278_10218741982014956_8727519167134228836_n. jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=4l9UqzLL-ooAX9ah2j9&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBm0NUpU5JIfcTCtuGBMqhp_PEGQUnVrriaZ7rBS4K5 SQ&oe=63837BC1

from jan last year, today is a better result than what i thought it was going to be, i honestly thought it would be a 'let this run for several more years', we know exactly where we stand now :agree:

[Ozyhibby]

It's totally voluntary, there just isnt a way out [emoji23]

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

I know he has form for changing his mind but it’s almost in the same sentence there.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Politico is the best ‘basket’ of polls site with historical comparison axis. It’s virtually neck and neck and has been for quite some time with a consistent 9% swayable either way.

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/

I think it’s only fair to let James show us his poll of polls which show 55/45.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Graphs and stats

https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/scottish-independence-polls/

The latest monthly polling averages on Scottish independence show ‘No’ campaigners to have a narrow lead of 1.6% over ‘Yes’ campaigners. Excluding those who declare themselves to be undecided (currently around 5% of the electorate) the latest polling averages places the ‘No’ side at 50.8% and the ‘Yes’ side at 49.2%.

[Stairway 2 7]

I think it’s only fair to let James show us his poll of polls which show 55/45.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wasn't far off that in September if the link above is correct, a lot closer now.

[The Tubs]

Civil unrest and violence? Irresponsible guff.

Ken, it would be like bampots invading the US congress. Never going to happen.

[James310]

It wasn't far off that in September if the link above is correct, a lot closer now.

Indeed, was about 45/55 a few months ago.

Agreed closer now, but hardly moved in any significant way over 8 years (glossed over again by people as to why) which was my point.

[Ozyhibby]

Indeed, was about 45/55 a few months ago.

Agreed closer now, but hardly moved in any significant way over 8 years (glossed over again by people as to why) which was my point.

So why has it moved in favour of Indy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Nice. Good to see manners in the independence debate.

I don't see anyone laughing on here. It's not remotely amusing.The celebration of your own country being told it can only make big decisions when another country allows it to is very odd behaviour indeed.

[JeMeSouviens]

The celebration of your own country being told it can only make big decisions when another country allows it to is very odd behaviour indeed.

His own country is Britain. It's the one doing the allowing or not.

[Stairway 2 7]

So why has it moved in favour of Indy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sharp that quick has to be the tories multiple clusterfs

[James310]

So why has it moved in favour of Indy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because of Brexit, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss etc you would surely assume, but nowhere near the numbers you would expect or if an Indy supporter hope for.

[Ozyhibby]

“Today, our independence movement also becomes Scotland’s democracy movement.”
Nicola Sturgeon tonight.

What a gift this will be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

My gut reaction is get it up you Sturgeon. What a waste of time and money when, as a lawyer, she will have known fine well the SG would be laughed out of court.

Problem is that the outcome is probably one she privately welcomes as it gives her another couple of years' leeway in which she can continue to stoke the politics of grievance. Provided the faithful can be kept believing that the battle lies just around the corner (rather than seeing her as a grand old Duke of York) then she's not run out of road just yet.

What she appears unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge is that it's no longer Westminster which is standing in her way eight years after the UK government gave the green light for a referendum. It's the Scottish people, who stubbornly refuse to provide her with a clear and overwhelming majority in favour of independence.

It 100% is Westminster st adding in the way, as the only legal way to leave the union is if Westminster votes for it and allows it.

If that’s not a prisoner and guard relationship, I don’t know what is.

J

[Bristolhibby]

You are probably the only Indy supporter on here that recognises that. Most will gloss over it, it's a good point though and is never addressed. Just why has support for Independence never increased in any significant way when you look back at the last 8 years.

And if you look back say, 10 years what does that curve look like?

When it came down to it and the campaigning that gap closed like no tomorrow.

J

[Just Alf]

That's not what's being suggested. A clear and demonstrable change happened. Brexit. If that hadn't happened, I don't think we'd be here. IMO
Correct. And anyone who doesn’t acknowledge this is simply driving their own agenda ..

As soon England voted to take the UK out of the EU against the other countries wishes, every part of the UK should have the right to determine their future again .This very thread gives an excellent indication of it.... after the referendum there was a 'sort of' acceptance, discussion and arguments certainly began to fade away... look at the posts soon after the Brexit vote though (and ever since) and you can see a clamour for the indy question to get asked once more.

[WeeRussell]

Indeed, was about 45/55 a few months ago.

Agreed closer now, but hardly moved in any significant way over 8 years (glossed over again by people as to why) which was my point.

For those that are obsessed with polls… A move from 10% difference to little over 1.5… isn’t that a relatively HUGE shift?

[Stairway 2 7]

For those that are obsessed with polls… A move from 10% difference to little over 1.5… isn’t that a relatively HUGE shift?

It's been going up and down that back and forwards for a year. Probably says the right figure is somewhere in between

[WeeRussell]

It's been going up and down that back and forwards for a year. Probably says the right figure is somewhere in between

👍 and that over reliance on what someone’s poll says at any given time maybe isn’t the best reason to defend denying democracy.

[Kato]

The UK Govt have already set their autocratic tone so the announcement today is hardly surprising.

Threatening to come out of the ECHR, ignoring the Dublin Treaty, ignoring the warnings regarding the GFA before the brexit referendum then continuing to damage it after, the change in the Law regarding peaceful protest, the closing of safe routes for refugees whilst demonising them, the attempts to legalise paid lobbying for cronies, having a combative stance with workers reps at all times, defunding access to legal representation, underfunding the legal system itself, attempting to ridicule those who speak for minorities and looking after the industrialists and bankers first and foremost.

All this fomenting confrontation. Its almost as though they want trouble on the streets, then they can really crack down.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Civil unrest and violence? Irresponsible guff.


My gut reaction is get it up you Sturgeon.

:wink:

[Scorrie]

It's totally voluntary, there just isnt a way out [emoji23]

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Hotel Caledonia!

[Since90+2]

If anyone seriously thinks Unionist would support a referendum if opinion polls showed it they are fooling nobody, themselves included.

If they don't respect nationwide democratic elections let's not pretend they'd respect opinion polls. We know it and deep down they know it too.

[Since90+2]

The UK Govt have already set their autocratic tone so the announcement today is hardly surprising.

Threatening to come out of the ECHR, ignoring the Dublin Treaty, ignoring the warnings regarding the GFA before the brexit referendum then continuing to damage it after, the change in the Law regarding peaceful protest, the closing of safe routes for refugees whilst demonising them, the attempts to legalise paid lobbying for cronies, having a combative stance with workers reps at all times, defunding access to legal representation, underfunding the legal system itself, attempting to ridicule those who speak for minorities and looking after the industrialists and bankers first and foremost.

All this fomenting confrontation. Its almost as though they want trouble on the streets, then they can really crack down.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Let's not forget the illegal shutting down of parliament to try and push Brexit through.

They don't care about democracy and they've brought along the easily led with them.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Buchanan St steps, land of the Weeg

we ain't going away Supreme Court of Westminster

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/316201472_5733241196732664_8745705693757059328_n.j pg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=wpV0jcJc4DYAX_xJAGL&tn=vIvSFNl06GFFe0Qb&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfA9jr8GH2teyzh4-xUoixgWzKiUuB4Vv-e343coWCQPbg&oe=63831AA1


wee nic was in the capital

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1595495816457764866?s=46&t=GdAQp5zZCYy16uhNoEcClg
Early poll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Buchanan St steps, land of the Weeg

we ain't going away Supreme Court of Westminster

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/316201472_5733241196732664_8745705693757059328_n.j pg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=wpV0jcJc4DYAX_xJAGL&tn=vIvSFNl06GFFe0Qb&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfA9jr8GH2teyzh4-xUoixgWzKiUuB4Vv-e343coWCQPbg&oe=63831AA1




The same Supreme Court that upheld Gina Miller's case against the UK government over Brexit and the same Supreme Court which declared Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament illegal? Hardly a reliable friend of Westminster.

Just because they didn't bend the rules to suit Scottish nationalists doesn't make their decision wrong.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/23/the-guardian-view-on-scotland-and-the-constitution-a-crisis-is-brewing?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1669231714

Premise of the article is nonsense given the SNP is a very popular government who run the best public services in the UK but an important point at the end about unionists having to start thinking about actually defending their precious union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Since90+2]

The same Supreme Court that upheld Gina Miller's case against the UK government over Brexit and the same Supreme Court which declared Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament illegal? Hardly a reliable friend of Westminster.

Just because they didn't bend the rules to suit Scottish nationalists doesn't make their decision wrong.

🤣

You must be a parody account, surely?

[Moulin Yarns]

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1595495816457764866?s=46&t=GdAQp5zZCYy16uhNoEcClg
Early poll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

😁👍 Let's build on the 51%

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/316801706_10160403496425420_1424100675151374581_n. jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=6uX8SiWaQ3EAX-qGgER&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBipz2L_Knn_8Y8R1M9ShxzpE__Dw37ekP3VGpvTtPt Wg&oe=638351E2

[Skol]

There is of course an easy solution to the current impasse. That however requires sturgeon to change her strategy and try to find a way to win over more of the no voters instead of continuing to play to the yes voters desires.

It has always puzzled me why sturgeon goes out of her way to encourage alienating the very people she needs to win over.

I would like one of the impacts of today to be a clear set of agreed criteria for a referendum to be held as the current situation just gives rise to more grievance.

[CropleyWasGod]

There is of course an easy solution to the current impasse. That however requires sturgeon to change her strategy and try to find a way to win over more of the no voters instead of continuing to play to the yes voters desires.

It has always puzzled me why sturgeon goes out of her way to encourage alienating the very people she needs to win over.

I would like one of the impacts of today to be a clear set of agreed criteria for a referendum to be held as the current situation just gives rise to more grievance.

I said this a while back when May or Johnson was PM. Sunak should say "have your referendum, but do it within 6 months". IMO that would be the end of it. Delaying it just adds fuel to the grievance culture that you describe.

[He's here!]

��

You must be a parody account, surely?

Why so? The Supreme Court can only rule according to the law.

Sturgeon's doomed mission is well summed up here:

It could soon be game over for Nicola Sturgeon | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-could-soon-be-game-over-for-nicola-sturgeon/)

[Mcbizz1998]

Buchanan St steps, land of the Weeg

we ain't going away Supreme Court of Westminster

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/316201472_5733241196732664_8745705693757059328_n.j pg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=wpV0jcJc4DYAX_xJAGL&tn=vIvSFNl06GFFe0Qb&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfA9jr8GH2teyzh4-xUoixgWzKiUuB4Vv-e343coWCQPbg&oe=63831AA1


wee nic was in the capital

Wow. A couple hundred sad sacks out waving flags on a cold Wednesday night. I’m sure Westminster unionists will be terrified.

[degenerated]

Why so? The Supreme Court can only rule according to the law.

Sturgeon's doomed mission is well summed up here:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-could-soon-be-game-over-for-nicola-sturgeon/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BLND%20%2020221123%20%20AirBnb%20%20S M+CID_249480560a44cb6bf3ee0e8041f9eb48Alex massie has written his article again :yawn:

[Since90+2]

Why so? The Supreme Court can only rule according to the law.

Sturgeon's doomed mission is well summed up here:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-could-soon-be-game-over-for-nicola-sturgeon/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BLND%20%2020221123%20%20AirBnb%20%20S M+CID_249480560a44cb6bf3ee0e8041f9eb48

Because the things you mention were illegal acts by a Westminster government, the thing Scotland are trying to escape.

[Since90+2]

Wow. A couple hundred sad sacks out waving flags on a cold Wednesday night. I’m sure Westminster unionists will be terrified.

Yeah, imagine being out wearing the colours of something you support. It'll never catch on...

[James310]

Alex massie has written his article again :yawn:

It's about the events of today, so how can it be the same article?

[cabbageandribs1875]

Wow. A couple hundred sad sacks out waving flags on a cold Wednesday night. I’m sure Westminster unionists will be terrified.


you'll know all about sad sacks eh, are SNP still nazi's btw









*awaits all innocence

[grunt]

Alex massie has written his article again :yawn:

He really is a one trick pony.

[Skol]

He really is a one trick pony.

It’s like shooting fish in a barrel ;-)

[degenerated]

He really is a one trick pony.With a very tired trick.

[James310]

He really is a one trick pony.

He makes some good points.

"It may be that, as the nationalists aver, the court’s insistence the law is the law will provoke a Caledonian revolt. This rests upon the theory that the best way to persuade the Scottish people they want a new independence referendum is to tell them they can’t have one. This may say rather more about those making this argument than it does about those they wish to persuade. As matters stand, however, there is no indication voters previously opposed to a referendum will decide they want one because Lord Reed has told Holyrood there cannot be one without the consent of the British government.*"

I think there is some merit in this, again I think the only people who will agree with Nicola Sturgeon are the people who already agree with her. She is again talking to her own side and her own side only. We have seen that today, huge support from the people who already support her, no to little support from those who don't. We have very few undecided on here, would be interesting to see if today makes them more likely to vote Yes. Of course time will tell but I don't see a huge amount of people changing their mind because a Supreme Court judge ruled the law is reserved to Westminster on such matters.

[Skol]

He makes some good points.

"It may be that, as the nationalists aver, the court’s insistence the law is the law will provoke a Caledonian revolt. This rests upon the theory that the best way to persuade the Scottish people they want a new independence referendum is to tell them they can’t have one. This may say rather more about those making this argument than it does about those they wish to persuade. As matters stand, however, there is no indication voters previously opposed to a referendum will decide they want one because Lord Reed has told Holyrood there cannot be one without the consent of the British government.*"

I think there is some merit in this, again I think the only people who will agree with Nicola Sturgeon are the people who already agree with her. We have seen that today, huge support from the people who already support her, no to little support from those who don't. We have very few undecided on here, would be interesting to see if today makes them more likely to vote Yes. Of course time will tell but I don't see a huge amount of people changing their mind because a Supreme Court judge ruled the law is reserved to Westminster on such matters.

This is what I have. Said for some time. Sturgeon needs to stop appealing to those already voting yes and figure out how she can appeal to some of the no voters. Building a convincing lead in the polls would then make it difficult for whoever is pm at the time to say no. Whilst yes is polling behind no, it’s an easy decision to say no

[James310]

This is what I have. Said for some time. Sturgeon needs to stop appealing to those already voting yes and figure out how she can appeal to some of the no voters. Building a convincing lead in the polls would then make it difficult for whoever is pm at the time to say no. Whilst yes is polling behind no, it’s an easy decision to say no

I added a small update to say today she was talking to her own side and her own side only, obviously they agree with her. The difficult bit is for her to talk to the other side, so far she doesn't seem interested in doing that at all.

[Ozyhibby]

He makes some good points.

"It may be that, as the nationalists aver, the court’s insistence the law is the law will provoke a Caledonian revolt. This rests upon the theory that the best way to persuade the Scottish people they want a new independence referendum is to tell them they can’t have one. This may say rather more about those making this argument than it does about those they wish to persuade. As matters stand, however, there is no indication voters previously opposed to a referendum will decide they want one because Lord Reed has told Holyrood there cannot be one without the consent of the British government.*"

I think there is some merit in this, again I think the only people who will agree with Nicola Sturgeon are the people who already agree with her. She is again talking to her own side and her own side only. We have seen that today, huge support from the people who already support her, no to little support from those who don't. We have very few undecided on here, would be interesting to see if today makes them more likely to vote Yes. Of course time will tell but I don't see a huge amount of people changing their mind because a Supreme Court judge ruled the law is reserved to Westminster on such matters.

Polls are not going to jump either way on this news. It’s just a slow grind in one direction towards Indy. Today is just another reason.
Maybe there are not that many minds left to change and it’s just demographics that is doing the work? Either way, at least the Indy side is out promoting their vision while unionists spend their time denying democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

We have very few undecided on here, would be interesting to see if today makes them more likely to vote Yes. Of course time will tell but I don't see a huge amount of people changing their mind because a Supreme Court judge ruled the law is reserved to Westminster on such matters.


This is what I have. Said for some time. Sturgeon needs to stop appealing to those already voting yes and figure out how she can appeal to some of the no voters. Building a convincing lead in the polls would then make it difficult for whoever is pm at the time to say no. Whilst yes is polling behind no, it’s an easy decision to say no

So help us out here. You both say that you don't mind being told that democracy isn't important in Scotland and that you both are happy to be ruled by the Conservatives in London, who couldn't frankly give a flying duck for what you think.

So help me, what would make you change your mind and decide that actually, Scotland deserves to run its own affairs?

[Ozyhibby]

So help us out here. You both say that you don't mind being told that democracy isn't important in Scotland and that you both are happy to be ruled by the Conservatives in London, who couldn't frankly give a flying duck for what you think.

So help me, what would make you change your mind and decide that actually, Scotland deserves to run its own affairs?

Those minds are not there to be changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Those minds are not there to be changed.

That's a defeatist attitude.

[Ozyhibby]

That's a defeatist attitude.

I was talking about them two specifically. [emoji6]
The referendum is very winnable and I believe Yes would win. That’s why they are fighting so hard not to have one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

I was talking about them two specifically. [emoji6]
The referendum is very winnable and I believe Yes would win. That’s why they are fighting so hard not to have one.
So was I. :wink:

[James310]

So help us out here. You both say that you don't mind being told that democracy isn't important in Scotland and that you both are happy to be ruled by the Conservatives in London, who couldn't frankly give a flying duck for what you think.

So help me, what would make you change your mind and decide that actually, Scotland deserves to run its own affairs?

Where did we say we don't mind democracy isn't important in Scotland, that's you interpreting your version of what we are saying. Same as your other assertion, your interpretation of what we are saying.

I like 50%+ of Scots are yet to be convinced, maybe ask questions of your own party why they have failed to do that rather than looking to blame X or Y.

[archie]

Those minds are not there to be changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Change can happen in both directions.

[grunt]

Where did we say we don't mind democracy isn't important in Scotland, that's you interpreting your version of what we are saying. Same as your other assertion, your interpretation of what we are saying.If you are saying that a party elected on a mandate for a second referendum can't have one then you are saying that democracy doesn't apply in Scotland.


I like 50%+ of Scots are yet to be convinced, maybe ask questions of your own party why they have failed to do that rather than looking to blame X or Y.I'm asking you. What would it take to convince you to change? I'm interested.

[grunt]

Change can happen in both directions.
If you are suggesting that people can change from Yes to No, the evidence would indicate otherwise. More people have changed from No to Yes. Which doesn't make your comment wrong, just irrelevant.

[James310]

If you are saying that a party elected on a mandate for a second referendum can't have one then you are saying that democracy doest apply in Scotland.

I'm asking you. What would it take to convince you to change? I'm interested.

A coherent and detailed plan explaining how me and my family will be impacted both positively and negatively. A couple of leaflets with graphs of Norway and Denmark doesn't cut it.

[Skol]

So help us out here. You both say that you don't mind being told that democracy isn't important in Scotland and that you both are happy to be ruled by the Conservatives in London, who couldn't frankly give a flying duck for what you think.

So help me, what would make you change your mind and decide that actually, Scotland deserves to run its own affairs?

Show me where I said that

[grunt]

A coherent and detailed plan explaining how me and my family will be impacted both positively and negatively. A couple of leaflets with graphs of Norway and Denmark doesn't cut it.
Perhaps that's impossible to provide. It may depend on how negotiations go after the vote. Is the alternative really so compelling?

[James310]

Show me where I said that

You didn't, I didn't.

[archie]

If you are saying that a party elected on a mandate for a second referendum can't have one then you are saying that democracy doest apply in Scotland.

That's not quite right. The question was the powers of the Scottish Parliament. That was clarified today. TBH it isn't much of a surprise given the law officers wouldn't sign off the Bill. On the wider democracy point, you appear to be arguing that a manifesto committment entitles the Scottish Government to do anything it likes. That can't be right. Do you accept there are any legitimate constraints on the powers of the Scottish Government?

[Ozyhibby]

Change can happen in both directions.

The last ten years it’s all been one direction. And I’m not seeing anyone even trying to win people over to the unionist side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Perhaps that's impossible to provide. It may depend on how negotiations go after the vote. Is the alternative really so compelling?

The White Paper was exceptionally detailed, it's possible. I totally agree the current situation with the Tory's in Westminster is shambolic and has been for a while, that doesn't mean people will just jump out with no plan or details on what happens next. I think we will see a Labour government soon enough and people will pause and access their options again.

[Skol]

You didn't, I didn't.

It’s sadly typical of the nationalist response.


To answer the question though there are three things for me

1) make a better job of devolution and stop blaming Westminster for everything.

2) let’s see a full costed case

3) is most important and an acknowledgement of the risks and how they will be mitigated

Oh. There is a fourth. Stop demonising no voters. We are not the enemy.

[archie]

If you are suggesting that people can change from Yes to No, the evidence would indicate otherwise. More people have changed from No to Yes. Which doesn't make your comment wrong, just irrelevant.

Well it's not irrelevant as the rather sour point is how to persuade no voters who are really entrenched. There was no sense that the independence supporters here might also be entrenched.

[Bristolhibby]

Wow. A couple hundred sad sacks out waving flags on a cold Wednesday night. I’m sure Westminster unionists will be terrified.

Cringe

[grunt]

Show me where I said that


Why would I believe independence was going to be the holy grail they promised

If you don't believe independence will be positive I inferred that you are happy with the status quo and being ruled from Westminster. In that case - and because you're arguing about it now - I guess you're happy we're not "allowed" another referendum.

Pick me up on individual comments if you like, but please tell me if I'm wrong with the wider view. You're happy with today's news, right?

[James310]

If you don't believe independence will be positive I inferred that you are happy with the status quo and being ruled from Westminster. In that case - and because you're arguing about it now - I guess you're happy we're not "allowed" another referendum.

Pick me up on individual comments if you like, but please tell me if I'm wrong with the wider view. You're happy with today's news, right?

Can't you be angry at Westminster and what's going on and voice there is no coherent plan for Independence at the same time. Can't both be true?

[grunt]

The White Paper was exceptionally detailed, it's possible. I totally agree the current situation with the Tory's in Westminster is shambolic and has been for a while, that doesn't mean people will just jump out with no plan or details on what happens next. I think we will see a Labour government soon enough and people will pause and access their options again.
Thank you. A Labour Govt that wants to make Brexit work. Not for me.

And to add, on reflection I think your characterisation of the Tories as shambolic is overly generous. They are right wing fascists. I want nothing to do with them.

[grunt]

Can't you be angry at Westminster and what's going on and voice there is no coherent plan for Independence at the same time. Can't both be true?
That's a good point. But if you're angry with WM (and I am), what's your suggested way out? Labour? Really???

[Bristolhibby]

That's not quite right. The question was the powers of the Scottish Parliament. That was clarified today. TBH it isn't much of a surprise given the law officers wouldn't sign off the Bill. On the wider democracy point, you appear to be arguing that a manifesto committment entitles the Scottish Government to do anything it likes. That can't be right. Do you accept there are any legitimate constraints on the powers of the Scottish Government?

And yet no democratic way to challenge those constraints.

I’ve said previously, just because something is illegal doesn't mean changing it shouldn’t be a commitment in a manifesto.

Being gay and Gay marriage was illegal, that’s been changed through parties proposing it not be.

J

[James310]

That's a good point. But if you're angry with WM (and I am), what's your suggested way out? Labour? Really???

I would be happy with a Labour government yes. It would reset politics and I would like to see what they can do with power. Obviously you will disagree!

[grunt]

That's not quite right. The question was the powers of the Scottish Parliament. That was clarified today. TBH it isn't much of a surprise given the law officers wouldn't sign off the Bill. On the wider democracy point, you appear to be arguing that a manifesto committment entitles the Scottish Government to do anything it likes. That can't be right. Do you accept there are any legitimate constraints on the powers of the Scottish Government?
Sorry I missed this reply, too much going on for this old head.

Yes I accept there are legitimate constraints, but this is not one of them. If you are saying that Scotland can't decide its own future because WM doesn't allow us to, what does that say about Scotland's place in the union? I don't want a Scotland tied to England, whether it be this current criminal Tory Govt or the upcoming Labour Govt.

Neither of them has our best interests at heart. Scotland has shown over the last few years that our political direction is different to England. We want more immigration, we want more social inclusion, we want to be more outgoing in our relations with our European neighbours, and we want more support for those who are less well off. We want a greener future. We're different to England, and it's time to recognise that.

[archie]

And yet no democratic way to challenge those constraints.

I’ve said previously, just because something is illegal doesn't mean changing it shouldn’t be a commitment in a manifesto.

Being gay and Gay marriage was illegal, that’s been changed through parties proposing it not be.

J

I think you are mixing two things up. Parties can campaign on manifesto commitments, but they should be for elections to the political entity that can deliver them. The campaigns you cite were aimed at the appropriate parliament. By your reasoning a party could stand for Edinburgh Council on a manifesto to declare war on Iceland. If elected would it affront democracy when Westminster didn't allow them to declare war?

[grunt]

I would be happy with a Labour government yes. It would reset politics and I would like to see what they can do with power. Obviously you will disagree!
I'm afraid Labour's lily livered response to Brexit, their cowardly support for Tory anti immigration policies and their flat contempt for the Scottish people and their wishes has rather soured my view of Labour. Ian Murray was pathetic in Parliament today trying to toady up to his front bench. One MP in Scotland tells you how they are thought of here. Good luck with Labour.

[grunt]

I think you are mixing two things up. Parties can campaign on manifesto commitments, but they should be for elections to the political entity that can deliver them. The campaigns you cite were aimed at the appropriate parliament. By your reasoning a party could stand for Edinburgh Council on a manifesto to declare war on Iceland. If elected would it affront democracy when Westminster didn't allow them to declare war?Is this the best you can do?

[He's here!]

It's about the events of today, so how can it be the same article?

Exactly. Dismissing anything that doesn't chime with their veiws as same old same old without actually reading it is the default reaction on here from some.

Massie's a good writer and today's piece is spot on IMHO.

[James310]

I'm afraid Labour's lily livered response to Brexit, their cowardly support for Tory anti immigration policies and their flat contempt for the Scottish people and their wishes has rather soured my view of Labour. Ian Murray was pathetic in Parliament today trying to toady up to his front bench. One MP in Scotland tells you how they are thought of here. Good luck with Labour.

Contemp for Scottish people or Scottish Nationalists? Not everyone in Scotland supports the SNP, they aren't Scotland and aren't the "Scottish People"

[Ozyhibby]

Is this the best you can do?

Murdo Fraser road tested it on the radio today. Even the BBC presenter didn’t fall for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Sorry I missed this reply, too much going on for this old head.

Yes I accept there are legitimate constraints, but this is not one of them. If you are saying that Scotland can't decide its own future because WM doesn't allow us to, what does that say about Scotland's place in the union? I don't want a Scotland tied to England, whether it be this current criminal Tory Govt or the upcoming Labour Govt.

Neither of them has our best interests at heart. Scotland has shown over the last few years that our political direction is different to England. We want more immigration, we want more social inclusion, we want to be more outgoing in our relations with our European neighbours, and we want more support for those who are less well off. We want greener future. We're different to England, and it's time to recognise that.To address the democracy point, it's not me who drafted or interpreted the legislation. So it is a matter for Westminster. I know you don't like that, but it's where we are. Is it democratic? I think that's a wider debate than the thud and blunder today. What I would say is that I don't think the UK arrangements are out of kilter with comparable countries. I think your argument is weakened by the fact that the UK did permit a referendum and there is no constutional barrier to it happening again. That becomes a political rather than constitutional issue. BTW I am not unsighted on the impasse at the moment.

[Ozyhibby]

Contemp for Scottish people or Scottish Nationalists? Not everyone in Scotland supports the SNP, they aren't Scotland and aren't the "Scottish People"

Not many Scottish people voting Labour these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Is this the best you can do?

Well refute the points then.

[archie]

Murdo Fraser road tested it on the radio today. Even the BBC presenter didn’t fall for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well refute the point then.

[He's here!]

So help us out here. You both say that you don't mind being told that democracy isn't important in Scotland and that you both are happy to be ruled by the Conservatives in London, who couldn't frankly give a flying duck for what you think.

So help me, what would make you change your mind and decide that actually, Scotland deserves to run its own affairs?

Not everyone (myself included) views this issue exclusively through a political lens and hence 'changing your mind' doesn't really come into it. In fact I'd guess a significant proportion of no voters simply prefer being British than not being and are not especially interested in Scotland running its own affairs. I've said it countless times on here but there's a whole lot more to being part of the UK than who happens to run the country.

[archie]

Not many Scottish people voting Labour these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Over half a million in the last GE

[bigwheel]

Not everyone (myself included) views this issue exclusively through a political lens and hence 'changing your mind' doesn't really come into it. In fact I'd guess a significant proportion of no voters simply prefer being British than not being and are not especially interested in Scotland running its own affairs. I've said it countless times on here but there's a whole lot more to being part of the UK than who happens to run the country.

Wonder why people have much, or any affinity with feeling British, unless they agree with the politics of todays isolationist Britain. I’m taking your point in board as a fair point. But, I have almost zero affinity with being British . Means little or nothing to me. I’m not even sure what Britishness is these days. Not sure there is such a thing any more in a very divided environment. It currently smacks of old empire thinking, which feels arrogant and negative to me personally. Neither am I zealous about my Scottishness either. I lived and worked in England for years and lived and worked internationally too. I liked to feel a global citizen, and enjoyed feeling part of a European collaborative community. That’s been taken (or made much harder ) from me. Both of those categories didn’t feel narrow or yearning for some bygone time when we dominated the commonwealth…they felt forward looking and progressive. The complete opposite of Britishness in todays world.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kato]

The same Supreme Court that upheld Gina Miller's case against the UK government over Brexit and the same Supreme Court which declared Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament illegal? Hardly a reliable friend of Westminster.

Just because they didn't bend the rules to suit Scottish nationalists doesn't make their decision wrong.What are the rules they didn't bend?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Why so? The Supreme Court can only rule according to the law.

Sturgeon's doomed mission is well summed up here:

It could soon be game over for Nicola Sturgeon | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-could-soon-be-game-over-for-nicola-sturgeon/)"It maybe that", "but it seems likely", "from which it follows that" - he strangles his conjecture well.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Crunchie]

Did they?

I can say for certainty it was the Unionist parties who said the only way to stay in the UK was to vote No. And yet we had our European citizenship removed just a few years later due to England voting to inflict incredible self harm.

It was one of many arguments to remain at the time, just like the YES side were banking on north sea oil.

[Callum_62]

He makes some good points.

" As matters stand, however, there is no indication voters previously opposed to a referendum will decide they want one because Lord Reed has told Holyrood there cannot be one without the consent of the British government.*"



Since the judgement was passed today that's surely just made up?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

The White Paper was exceptionally detailed, it's possible. I totally agree the current situation with the Tory's in Westminster is shambolic and has been for a while, that doesn't mean people will just jump out with no plan or details on what happens next. I think we will see a Labour government soon enough and people will pause and access their options again.

I think there should have been a second Brexit referendum. First one to decide on whether the idea of leaving was popular and the second to sign off on whatever deal was agreed with the EU. That was down to the complete lack of detail on what we were voting on. I'm still not sure I know now we are potentially chasing a Swiss style deal.

The Indi referendum had teh white paper which may not have had the detail you needed but certainly attempted to give an idea of what direction we would go and that has had more detail added since. Perhaps not enough for you but for those of us where democracy is the main reason for wanting Indi, or getting shot of the Tories as our government despite it being 70 years since we voted for them, or the high road to the far right England is taking while we take the low road to a fairer society the details so far are more than sufficient.

Yes, an Independent Scottish Government might not be all power to the people but I am sure it would be better than the alternative. I think we, as a nation, have so much good luck in terms of our natural resource and also the fact the country is definitely more about us rather than I unlike our neighbours to the south. Yes, it is leap into semi darkness but I can see light where I will land. At the moment we are walking in the abyss for eternity.

Would you vote Yes to this Question or similar with the understanding that there would be a second referendum when terms were agreed, or not, with the EU other nations and there was further clarity on other uncertainties. It could also come with a timescale where the vote would not be held for a specified period.
Do you support the idea of an Independent Scotland?

[archie]

Did they?

I can say for certainty it was the Unionist parties who said the only way to stay in the UK was to vote No. And yet we had our European citizenship removed just a few years later due to England voting to inflict incredible self harm.It was at the time. While I regret it, I have to accept the result of the subsequent referendum.

[archie]

I think there should have been a second Brexit referendum. First one to decide on whether the idea of leaving was popular and the second to sign off on whatever deal was agreed with the EU. That was down to the complete lack of detail on what we were voting on. I'm still not sure I know now we are potentially chasing a Swiss style deal.

The Indi referendum had teh white paper which may not have had the detail you needed but certainly attempted to give an idea of what direction we would go and that has had more detail added since. Perhaps not enough for you but for those of us where democracy is the main reason for wanting Indi, or getting shot of the Tories as our government despite it being 70 years since we voted for them, or the high road to the far right England is taking while we take the low road to a fairer society the details so far are more than sufficient.

Yes, an Independent Scottish Government might not be all power to the people but I am sure it would be better than the alternative. I think we, as a nation, have so much good luck in terms of our natural resource and also the fact the country is definitely more about us rather than I unlike our neighbours to the south. Yes, it is leap into semi darkness but I can see light where I will land. At the moment we are walking in the abyss for eternity.

Would you vote Yes to this Question or similar with the understanding that there would be a second referendum when terms were agreed, or not, with the EU other nations and there was further clarity on other uncertainties. It could also come with a timescale where the vote would not be held for a specified period.
Do you support the idea of an Independent Scotland?

The SNP is totally opposed to a confirmatory referendum.

[Callum_62]

To address the democracy point, it's not me who drafted or interpreted the legislation. So it is a matter for Westminster. I know you don't like that, but it's where we are. Is it democratic? I think that's a wider debate than the thud and blunder today. What I would say is that I don't think the UK arrangements are out of kilter with comparable countries. I think your argument is weakened by the fact that the UK did permit a referendum and there is no constutional barrier to it happening again. That becomes a political rather than constitutional issue. BTW I am not unsighted on the impasse at the moment.

What other countries have the same set up and are comparable to the UK?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

The SNP is totally opposed to a confirmatory referendum. Good for them. My point is more about whether decisions have been made and my reply was to a poster who says he needs more detail. That is different to someone who is always voting no regardless or at least I think it is. I may have voted yes to a similar question for Brexit if I had the security of a second vote.

[archie]

What other countries have the same set up and are comparable to the UK?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'same set up' but off the top of my head: Germany, Australia, Spain and US expressly forbid secession. I'm sure there are many more.

[archie]

Good for them. My point is more about whether decisions have been made and my reply was to a poster who says he needs more detail. That is different to someone who is always voting no regardless or at least I think it is. I may have voted yes to a similar question for Brexit if I had the security of a second vote.

I think the rationale is that it provides an incentive for the rUK to push a really hard deal to subvert the initial vote. But a number of constitution academics have argued for the confirmatory vote, on the grounds that people don't fully know what they are voting for, which is your point.

[wookie70]

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'same set up' but off the top of my head: Germany, Australia, Spain and US expressly forbid secession. I'm sure there are many more. Aren't Germany, Australia and USA federal systems. I suppose Spain could be described as similar with a small part or parts being controlled by other parts despite a strong movement for Independence. I wouldn't say the other three examples are even close to the UK siruation

[wookie70]

I think the rationale is that it provides an incentive for the rUK to push a really hard deal to subvert the initial vote. But a number of constitution academics have argued for the confirmatory vote, on the grounds that people don't fully know what they are voting for, which is your point. I wouldn't require one myself but I can see an argument for one. It would take away any argument about the government of the day spending time and money on Indi if that first vote was Yes. The constitutional question would be answered and the practical one would remain with time to secure deals etc not as pressing as there would always be a second vote

[The Tubs]

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'same set up' but off the top of my head: Germany, Australia, Spain and US expressly forbid secession. I'm sure there are many more.

So they would be nothing like the UK.

The UK’s unwritten constitution wasn’t fit for the job 40 years ago and it’s going to continue holding the people of Britain back till something finally bursts.

[archie]

So they would be nothing like the UK.

The UK’s unwritten constitution wasn’t fit for the job 40 years ago and it’s going to continue holding the people of Britain back till something finally bursts.

Why are they 'nothing like the UK'?

[archie]

Aren't Germany, Australia and USA federal systems. I suppose Spain could be described as similar with a small part or parts being controlled by other parts despite a strong movement for Independence. I wouldn't say the other three examples are even close to the UK siruation
Yes. But it's illegal for these states to secede.

[The Tubs]

Why are they 'nothing like the UK'?

expressly forbid secession

[StevieC]

This is what I have. Said for some time. Sturgeon needs to stop appealing to those already voting yes and figure out how she can appeal to some of the no voters. Building a convincing lead in the polls would then make it difficult for whoever is pm at the time to say no. Whilst yes is polling behind no, it’s an easy decision to say no

Building a convincing lead in the polls would make it easier for them to say no … because they know they would lose. The reason we were allowed to have a referendum the last time was because the polls said we didn’t have a cat in hells chance of winning it.
There is NO way that a UK government is going to give the go ahead for a referendum they don’t have a cat in hells chance of winning.

Why do you think they are denying the opportunity to have one just now … because it’s too close to call. Better to keep repeating “once in a generation” ad nauseum.

[ronaldo7]

There is of course an easy solution to the current impasse. That however requires sturgeon to change her strategy and try to find a way to win over more of the no voters instead of continuing to play to the yes voters desires.

It has always puzzled me why sturgeon goes out of her way to encourage alienating the very people she needs to win over.

I would like one of the impacts of today to be a clear set of agreed criteria for a referendum to be held as the current situation just gives rise to more grievance.

An easy solution to the impasse you say.

How about we continue with the democracy which was used in 2011, when the then Ukgov respected the result of the election and provided a section 30 to the Scotland act.

We already have the solution. It's been done before 11 years ago.

What rules have changed since then?

Just saying now is not the time won't last forever, although we're still struggling to get the Tories/Labour to say what the Democratic route out of the impasse is.

[Skol]

Building a convincing lead in the polls would make it easier for them to say no … because they know they would lose. The reason we were allowed to have a referendum the last time was because the polls said we didn’t have a cat in hells chance of winning it.
There is NO way that a UK government is going to give the go ahead for a referendum they don’t have a cat in hells chance of winning.

Why do you think they are denying the opportunity to have one just now … because it’s too close to call. Better to keep repeating “once in a generation” ad nauseum.
That is a pretty odd view to take. A clear lead could not be ignored. Right now there isn’t even a lead and therefore it is easy to say no.

As I said before though and grunt chose to ignore. We should have clear agreed criteria

[Skol]

An easy solution to the impasse you say.

How about we continue with the democracy which was used in 2011, when the then Ukgov respected the result of the election and provided a section 30 to the Scotland act.

We already have the solution. It's been done before 11 years ago.

What rules have changed since then?

Just saying now is not the time won't last forever, although we're still struggling to get the Tories/Labour to say what the Democratic route out of the impasse is.
Did the snp respect the democratic outcome ? No they campaigned immediately. Despite the massive open goal of Brexit. Johnson and truss, sturgeon barely moved the dial.

[Hibrandenburg]

Did the snp respect the democratic outcome ? No they campaigned immediately. Despite the massive open goal of Brexit. Johnson and truss, sturgeon barely moved the dial.

Of course they respected the outcome of the referendum, we're still tied in the "Union" aren't we? Democracy doesn't end after you've lost a vote, you pick up the pieces and try to prevail next time round.

[James310]

Building a convincing lead in the polls would make it easier for them to say no … because they know they would lose. The reason we were allowed to have a referendum the last time was because the polls said we didn’t have a cat in hells chance of winning it.
There is NO way that a UK government is going to give the go ahead for a referendum they don’t have a cat in hells chance of winning.

Why do you think they are denying the opportunity to have one just now … because it’s too close to call. Better to keep repeating “once in a generation” ad nauseum.

I think the opposite, they can say No now because that reflects the thinking of the people of Scotland. There is little support for a referendum next year even from SNP supporters and there is no evidence of any kind of majority for Independence.

As soon as that changes it makes it far more difficult and almost impossible to say no.

[James310]

https://twitter.com/lokiscottishrap/status/1595549176112218114?t=uCQ-ErQCVw4g86fc6qfviA&s=19

I am sure his points will be ignored/glossed over but this is from a prominent Indy supporter, this should worry the SNP.

[ronaldo7]

Did the snp respect the democratic outcome ? No they campaigned immediately. Despite the massive open goal of Brexit. Johnson and truss, sturgeon barely moved the dial.

Instead of your deflection. Can you answer the question please.

[ronaldo7]

That is a pretty odd view to take. A clear lead could not be ignored. Right now there isn’t even a lead and therefore it is easy to say no.

As I said before though and grunt chose to ignore. We should have clear agreed criteria

Is this the new rule then. A lead can't be ignored. Where is that written down?

We've got an agreed criteria which you seem to be ignoring

[Stairway 2 7]

https://twitter.com/lokiscottishrap/status/1595549176112218114?t=uCQ-ErQCVw4g86fc6qfviA&s=19

I am sure his points will be ignored/glossed over but this is from a prominent Indy supporter, this should worry the SNP.

That's very good

[James310]

I also think this is true.

https://twitter.com/Cat_Headley/status/1595489319288029186?t=HOrRn69YG2tRTgW4T2CNog&s=19

"To brand one side of this already incredibly polarised,divisive and bitter debate “supporters of Scottish democracy” and by inference,the other side “the opponents of Scottish democracy” is insulting and unbecoming of the FM. Civic and joyous,indeed.

And aside from its offensiveness,this seems like an incredibly ill-judged tactic to take to convert undecided voters. It lends more credit to the theory that all decisions FM has made in last six months on this have been about existing supporters not new ones."

It reinforces the point Skol has been making, all this does is appeal to her existing support. You won't ever win Indy if that's your plan.

[archie]

expressly forbid secession

Yes. Unlike the UK.

[Ozyhibby]

I also think this is true.

https://twitter.com/Cat_Headley/status/1595489319288029186?t=HOrRn69YG2tRTgW4T2CNog&s=19

"To brand one side of this already incredibly polarised,divisive and bitter debate “supporters of Scottish democracy” and by inference,the other side “the opponents of Scottish democracy” is insulting and unbecoming of the FM. Civic and joyous,indeed.

And aside from its offensiveness,this seems like an incredibly ill-judged tactic to take to convert undecided voters. It lends more credit to the theory that all decisions FM has made in last six months on this have been about existing supporters not new ones."

It reinforces the point Skol has been making, all this does is appeal to her existing support. You won't ever win Indy if that's your plan.

You mean Labour people are getting uncomfortable standing against democracy? Never saw that coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Yes. Unlike the UK.

Exactly like the UK now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

You mean Labour people are getting uncomfortable standing against democracy? Never saw that coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's obviously not what she is saying. If you think this approach is a winning formula and will finally lead to getting majority support for Indy then crack on, others have their doubts. Much easier for you to again put people into comfortable little boxes and labels though.

You have utter blind faith in the SNP, a quality to be admired and questioned at the same time.

[Callum_62]

I also think this is true.

https://twitter.com/Cat_Headley/status/1595489319288029186?t=HOrRn69YG2tRTgW4T2CNog&s=19

"To brand one side of this already incredibly polarised,divisive and bitter debate “supporters of Scottish democracy” and by inference,the other side “the opponents of Scottish democracy” is insulting and unbecoming of the FM. Civic and joyous,indeed.

And aside from its offensiveness,this seems like an incredibly ill-judged tactic to take to convert undecided voters. It lends more credit to the theory that all decisions FM has made in last six months on this have been about existing supporters not new ones."

It reinforces the point Skol has been making, all this does is appeal to her existing support. You won't ever win Indy if that's your plan.You don't think folk see it the same way?

James Obrien seems too - many others I know do too

With the apparent new rules we are supposedly to follow:

What If yes starts to lead in the polls say 55/45 over the next 3 months

Is that then a lead enough to say well yeah, your right now?

At what point is it anti democratic to deny Scotland and the will of parliment one of its main pillars of re election?

Folk might make a reactionary piece of reporting right now but it lays the ground for highlighting just how anti democratic it is (particularity if yes starts to lead)

I personally think its anti democratic right now as all the UK gov has done is change the goalposts and imo will continue to change the goalposts making it impossible for us to have a democratic way out if we so chose



Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

I also think this is true.

https://twitter.com/Cat_Headley/status/1595489319288029186?t=HOrRn69YG2tRTgW4T2CNog&s=19

"To brand one side of this already incredibly polarised,divisive and bitter debate “supporters of Scottish democracy” and by inference,the other side “the opponents of Scottish democracy” is insulting and unbecoming of the FM. Civic and joyous,indeed.

And aside from its offensiveness,this seems like an incredibly ill-judged tactic to take to convert undecided voters. It lends more credit to the theory that all decisions FM has made in last six months on this have been about existing supporters not new ones."

It reinforces the point Skol has been making, all this does is appeal to her existing support. You won't ever win Indy if that's your plan.

😂

She mentions 2011, when yes were on 28% but we still had a referendum through the agreed criteria.

What's changed?

[James310]

You don't think folk see it the same way?

James Obrien seems too - many others I know do too

With the apparent new rules we are supposedly to follow:

What If yes starts to lead in the polls say 55/45 over the next 3 months

Is that then a lead enough to say well yeah, your right now?

At what point is it anti democratic to deny Scotland and the will of parliment one of its main pillars of re election?

Folk might make a reactionary piece of reporting right now but it lays the ground for highlighting just how anti democratic it is (particularity if yes starts to lead)

I personally think its anti democratic right now as all the UK gov has done is change the goalposts and imo will continue to change the goalposts making it impossible for us to have a democratic way out if we so chose



Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Or course people see it differently. (Who is James O'Brien)

The goalposts weren't moved, the law has been the same since the Scotland Act was introduced all those years ago. Yesterday was an interpretation of the law confirming the goalposts have been where they always have been. The goalposts would be moved if the law was changed, it hasn't.

[James310]

😂

She mentions 2011, when yes were on 28% but we still had a referendum through the agreed criteria.

What's changed?

There is no consensus across civic Scotland, there was last time. And Salmond delivered an overall majority, something Sturgeon failed on.

[Ozyhibby]

There is no consensus across civic Scotland, there was last time. And Salmond delivered an overall majority, something Sturgeon failed on.

Polls the way they are, there never will be consensus across civic Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

Or course people see it differently. (Who is James O'Brien)

The goalposts weren't moved, the law has been the same since the Scotland Act was introduced all those years ago. Yesterday was an interpretation of the law confirming the goalposts have been where they always have been. The goalposts would be moved if the law was changed, it hasn't.The UK government have moved the goalposts from 2011 - no one can surely argue that

Anyway what is this new defined criteria to allow a referendum in your eyes?

We have what is usually required in parliment - that's been dismissed

So what are the rules now? What's the route to allow the Scot Parliment who were placed there by the Scottish people it's will?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[James310]

The UK government have moved the goalposts from 2011 - no one can surely argue that

Anyway what is this new defined criteria to allow a referendum in your eyes?

We have what is usually required in parliment - that's been dismissed

So what are the rules now? What's the route to allow the Scot Parliment who were placed there by the Scottish people it's will?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

No goalposts have been moved as no law has been changed, the law has been the same since the SNP voted for it in 1998.

I thought people knew my approach! If there is clear evidence the majority of people have changed their mind we have a referendum, that can be measured by things like the polls and yes elections.

Before people say why use polls etc, tell me how Nicola Sturgeon would have judged people had changed their minds when she said.

"To propose another referendum without strong evidence that a significant number of those who voted No have changed their minds would be wrong and we won’t do it. It would not be respecting the decision that people made."

How exactly would she have judged when a significant number of people had changed their mind, nobody has answered that one.

And my solution was of course the same one the SNP wanted.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13877169.snp-want-polls-show-60-support-independence-whole-year-calling-referendum/

"SNP want polls to show 60% support for independence for a whole year before calling referendum"

To be honest we have been round this many times, if people don't like my answer then that's absolutely fine, but it won't make my answer different.

[ronaldo7]

There is no consensus across civic Scotland, there was last time. And Salmond delivered an overall majority, something Sturgeon failed on.

We've got more MSPs in parliament today who support independence than we had in Salmonds day.

So your argument seems to be the more parliamentarians in support of independence we get, the less likely we are to have a referendum.

[J-C]

Over half a million in the last GE

About 1/6 of the voting population then.

[James310]

https://twitter.com/ProfTomkins/status/1595700411620532226?t=NFIBEHSP1cMQpmtcILxTQw&s=19

Again another good take, the hard work is in persuading those that need persuaded. Something Nicola Sturgeon doesn't seem interested in, she seems more interested in keeping her own supporters happy and the restless ones on side.

[archie]

The UK government have moved the goalposts from 2011 - no one can surely argue that

Anyway what is this new defined criteria to allow a referendum in your eyes?

We have what is usually required in parliment - that's been dismissed

So what are the rules now? What's the route to allow the Scot Parliment who were placed there by the Scottish people it's will?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

The rules haven't changed. Salmond was able to agree a section 30 with a Tory government.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/ProfTomkins/status/1595700411620532226?t=NFIBEHSP1cMQpmtcILxTQw&s=19

Again another good take, the hard work is in persuading those that need persuaded. Something Nicola Sturgeon doesn't seem interested in, she seems more interested in keeping her own supporters happy and the restless ones on side.

Don’t bother winning elections, just get a lead with a couple of polling companies. Great take.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

About 1/6 of the voting population then.

By that token the SNP was only endorsed by about 30% of the voting population. Hardly a ringing endorsement for change if you want to use those rules.

[James310]

Don’t bother winning elections, just get a lead with a couple of polling companies. Great take.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So how would Nicola Sturgeon have judged people had significantly changed their mind, because she said that?

Again you ignore the substance and pick a cheap and easy sound byte.

[Ozyhibby]

So how would Nicola Sturgeon have judged people had significantly changed their mind, because she said that?

Again you ignore the substance and pick a cheap and easy sound byte.

Here is some substance for you. The Scottish Parliament and the majority of Scottish mp’s want a referendum but they are being denied one by the English Parliament.
Democracy is more important in England than it is in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Here is some substance for you. The Scottish Parliament and the majority of Scottish mp’s want a referendum but they are being denied one by the English Parliament.
Democracy is more important in England than it is in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is just noise. Whether you like it or not, the power to hold a referendum on the constitution rests with the UK parliament. The previous first minister was able to agree this.

[JeMeSouviens]

That channel 4 poll that was referenced yesterday. I suspect it's a bit of a rogue result because it frankly it's too good to be true, but it claims to be a representative sample of >1000 Scottish voters and the question was "would you vote for the SNP at the next GE if your vote would be used as a mandate to negotiate independence with the UK government?"

Yes - 51%
No - 33%
DK - 16%


ex-DK that's 60% Yes! Stunning.

But ... caveats ... the data was collected and crunched astoundingly quickly which is a bit of a red flag and tbh I don't know anything about the pollster "Find Out Now" or if they have any track record at all in Scotland?

Be very interesting to see if there's any uptick in the more regular polling series.

[James310]

Here is some substance for you. The Scottish Parliament and the majority of Scottish mp’s want a referendum but they are being denied one by the English Parliament.
Democracy is more important in England than it is in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So how would Nicola Sturgeon have judged people had significantly changed their minds?

If you can't or won't answer just say.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'same set up' but off the top of my head: Germany, Australia, Spain and US expressly forbid secession. I'm sure there are many more.

None of your examples are much like the UK. They all have a written constitution for a start. None of them were formed by a treaty agreed between 2 formerly independent states. Germany, Aus and US are all federations. I suppose Spain is the closest but the fact that Castille effectively conquered the rest makes a huge difference, imo.

[Ozyhibby]

So how would Nicola Sturgeon have judged people had significantly changed their minds?

If you can't or won't answer just say.

She doesn’t have to. The parliament has voted for it and she has to deliver on the manifesto she was elected on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

This is just noise. Whether you like it or not, the power to hold a referendum on the constitution rests with the UK parliament. The previous first minister was able to agree this.

That's not true. At the time, both sides of the Edinburgh agreement explicitly parked and refused to concede their position on a Holyrood authorised ref.

[The Modfather]

So how would Nicola Sturgeon have judged people had significantly changed their minds?

If you can't or won't answer just say.

Through the electorate consistently returning a government with a mandate to hold a second referendum. Rather than returning a party that campaigned not to hold one.

[JeMeSouviens]

Did the snp respect the democratic outcome ? No they campaigned immediately. Despite the massive open goal of Brexit. Johnson and truss, sturgeon barely moved the dial.

Yes, they absolutely did. Not respecting the outcome would've meant declaring UDI, withdrawing from Westminster etc. They even participated in the window dressing of the Smith commission ffs.

[JeMeSouviens]

Well refute the points then.

As far as I'm aware, nobody thinks Edinburgh should have the autonomous ability to wage war against Iceland.

Up until recently, almost everybody accepted Scotland should have the autonomous ability to decide to be an independent state.

[ronaldo7]

So how would Nicola Sturgeon have judged people had significantly changed their minds?

If you can't or won't answer just say.

In 2011 we had 69 SNP, 2 greens, and Margo making 72

In 2021 we've had 64 SNP, and 8 greens making 72

No rules have been changed according to some unionists, so why are they denying democracy.

[James310]

She doesn’t have to. The parliament has voted for it and she has to deliver on the manifesto she was elected on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok so we just ignore what she said, fine I will remember that.

She can't deliver on something that's illegal. It's like what Archie said, might as well have a local councillor put in their manifesto they want to have a war with Iceland and then declare democracy is being ignored when we don't go to war with Iceland.

[archie]

That's not true. At the time, both sides of the Edinburgh agreement explicitly parked and refused to concede their position on a Holyrood authorised ref.
So there wasn't a referendum then? The Edinburgh agreement expressly agreed to a one time referendum. But by negotiation the power was given to the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum. That didn't mean that there could never be another referendum, but there would have to be further agreement. Salmond extracted a really good deal.

[James310]

In 2011 we had 69 SNP, 2 greens, and Margo making 72

In 2021 we've had 64 SNP, and 8 greens making 72

No rules have been changed according to some unionists, so why are they denying democracy.

Because people don't want a referendum and there is no majority support for Independence.

Here is a bunch of SNP voters, they are clear they support Indy but don't want a referendum next year.

https://twitter.com/martinmccluskey/status/1595334850478833664?t=Hy3vgMj2q3sRGEqsnaHUcQ&s=19


And in 2011 civic Scotland wanted one, that's not the case now.

I can keep repeating the same answer over and over if you like, the approach of if only you saw what I saw you would agree with me won't work.

[archie]

As far as I'm aware, nobody thinks Edinburgh should have the autonomous ability to wage war against Iceland.

Up until recently, almost everybody accepted Scotland should have the autonomous ability to decide to be an independent state.So it's not the principles that are important, just what people might think? That's hardly a refutation.

[JeMeSouviens]

So there wasn't a referendum then? The Edinburgh agreement expressly agreed to a one time referendum. But by negotiation the power was given to the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum. That didn't mean that there could never be another referendum, but there would have to be further agreement. Salmond extracted a really good deal.

No, Salmond never conceded that Holyrood couldn't hold a ref on its own. Similarly, the UK side never conceded it could. Both sides agreed a truce to hold an agreed ref.