Indyref 2 (2)

[ParisInAKilt]

How many more years do they need?

[Ally Bongo]

https://www.snp.org/the-snps-nec-agrees-resolution-to-be-debated-at-special-conference/

If this is adopted they can fuck right off

I am not voting for another referendum

[Orraloon]

13 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

https://www.snp.org/the-snps-nec-agrees-resolution-to-be-debated-at-special-conference/

If this is adopted they can fuck right off

I am not voting for another referendum

There are two options in there. Are you opposed to both of them?

[scotlad]

Sounds like they're trying to row back. 😒

[PapofGlencoe]

I can see the logic going for a defacto vote when it's fairly clear it's what the people want.  And it isn't entirely the SNP's fault Scots are stubbornly not supporting at 60% plus like real countries would supporting their own sovereignty.

But they do need to campaign to change people's minds.  I agree with Shepphard etc that the prospecus needs pushed more than the process.  But they've not done this.  And if they claim to, it's not reached ordinary people.

If polls are to be believed we're 50/50 to even pushing a majority.  you either believe in your ability to campaign and change minds or you don't.  They don't believe in themselves to make the case.

A declaration to confirm a defacto vote after set conditions are met is the least Sturgeon could have done after the court ruling.  It all seems cackhanded to announce and then back track.  Looks weak.

 

The key issue is international acceptance.  I believe there is a dawning realisation that "winning" 55% will not bring about change.  There's more to lose than win at the moment.  It will only happen when the support is earth shatteringly obvious.  Even then it's not actually "likely" but may be "possible".

We're up a creek because getting to those levels of support is some time away, unless something happens or even more crazily the SNP start independence campaigns, off if ever and possibly after the idea of "nations" losing significance.  I'll be long gone anyway!

won't stop me protesting with my vote until then though.

Edited January 14, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[Freeedom]

If we continue on the SNPs trajectory it will be a generation before we have any chance of independence. 

They have wasted so much time refusing to even make the most basic of arguments to the general public about the benefits of independence. They have no plan, no clue and independence is nowhere near the top of their priority list. The SNP have done more damage with their inaction dampening  people's enthusiasm with talk of process rather than the positivity that filled the 2014 campaign

[Malcolm]

25 minutes ago, Freeedom said:

If we continue on the SNPs trajectory it will be a generation before we have any chance of independence. 

They have wasted so much time refusing to even make the most basic of arguments to the general public about the benefits of independence. They have no plan, no clue and independence is nowhere near the top of their priority list. The SNP have done more damage with their inaction dampening  people's enthusiasm with talk of process rather than the positivity that filled the 2014 campaign

in addition they are alienating the public with legislation such as as the gender reform bill.  It’s almost as if they exist to pass loony left legislation rather than pursue independence.

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I can see the logic going for a defacto vote when it's fairly clear it's what the people want.  And it isn't entirely the SNP's fault Scots are stubbornly not supporting at 60% plus like real countries would supporting their own sovereignty.

But they do need to campaign to change people's minds.  I agree with Shepphard etc that the prospecus needs pushed more than the process.  But they've not done this.  And if they claim to, it's not reached ordinary people.

If polls are to be believed we're 50/50 to even pushing a majority.  you either believe in your ability to campaign and change minds or you don't.  They don't believe in themselves to make the case.

A declaration to confirm a defacto vote after set conditions are met is the least Sturgeon could have done after the court ruling.  It all seems cackhanded to announce and then back track.  Looks weak.

 

The key issue is international acceptance.  I believe there is a dawning realisation that "winning" 55% will not bring about change.  There's more to lose than win at the moment.  It will only happen when the support is earth shatteringly obvious.  Even then it's not actually "likely" but may be "possible".

We're up a creek because getting to those levels of support is some time away, unless something happens or even more crazily the SNP start independence campaigns, off if ever and possibly after the idea of "nations" losing significance.  I'll be long gone anyway!

won't stop me protesting with my vote until then though.

Agree with much of this. 

 I dont blame the SNP for not actively campaigning  for an election we are not allowed to have.  Can you imagine the furore,’ Nats spending time and money on an illegal referendum blah blah blah’.

The way to win people over is to show good leadership, Is that not how Alex Salmond managed to get the vote up ? The people that need to be convinced now will not stick ‘yes’ on a ballot slip just because they feel Scottish and dislike Westminster. They need to feel the government is capable of running the country on its own. I think they are doing ok, they have made mistakes but compared to the shambles in Westminster they are relatively stable. 

But they need a big win. They should be concentrating on answers to the currency. It is possible to run a country AND focus on one major obstacle. That one issue is worth 10 percentage points IMO.

[Malcolm]

27 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Agree with much of this. 

 I dont blame the SNP for not actively campaigning  for an election we are not allowed to have.  Can you imagine the furore,’ Nats spending time and money on an illegal referendum blah blah blah’.

The way to win people over is to show good leadership, Is that not how Alex Salmond managed to get the vote up ? The people that need to be convinced now will not stick ‘yes’ on a ballot slip just because they feel Scottish and dislike Westminster. They need to feel the government is capable of running the country on its own. I think they are doing ok, they have made mistakes but compared to the shambles in Westminster they are relatively stable. 

But they need a big win. They should be concentrating on answers to the currency. It is possible to run a country AND focus on one major obstacle. That one issue is worth 10 percentage points IMO.

if they did stuff like that and reverse the gender reform legislation I might be interested in voting for them.

[AlfieMoon]

 

1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I can see the logic going for a defacto vote when it's fairly clear it's what the people want.  And it isn't entirely the SNP's fault Scots are stubbornly not supporting at 60% plus like real countries would supporting their own sovereignty.

But they do need to campaign to change people's minds.  I agree with Shepphard etc that the prospecus needs pushed more than the process.  But they've not done this.  And if they claim to, it's not reached ordinary people.

If polls are to be believed we're 50/50 to even pushing a majority.  you either believe in your ability to campaign and change minds or you don't.  They don't believe in themselves to make the case.

A declaration to confirm a defacto vote after set conditions are met is the least Sturgeon could have done after the court ruling.  It all seems cackhanded to announce and then back track.  Looks weak.

 

The key issue is international acceptance.  I believe there is a dawning realisation that "winning" 55% will not bring about change.  There's more to lose than win at the moment.  It will only happen when the support is earth shatteringly obvious.  Even then it's not actually "likely" but may be "possible".

We're up a creek because getting to those levels of support is some time away, unless something happens or even more crazily the SNP start independence campaigns, off if ever and possibly after the idea of "nations" losing significance.  I'll be long gone anyway!

won't stop me protesting with my vote until then though.

This latest from the SNP is an absolute disaster waiting to happen and terrible decision making. 
 

As you’ve said - it makes them look weak.
 

The mere mention of using the next WM GE to secure a ‘mandate’ is already setting that path - as by mentioning that as an option is basically a concession that they don’t currently have a mandate - which they do, and have argued they do for the past number of years.  

The even bigger problem is that they are putting the option to a vote. If they membership decide they just want a de-facto based on WM GE alone, then the SNP have essentially delegitimised that route/vote so they’re already setting it up to fail.
 

They are in effect handing over the biggest strategic decision for decades into the hands of a membership - and simultaneously hindering the decision by  the weakening of the hand as a result of the leadership decision making today. People can be misty eyed about democracy and empowering the membership, but I’m afraid that IMO the strategy for this should 100% be set by the leadership. They are the ones getting paid to do the job. They have the polls, the data, research, focus groups, statisticians, strategists. They know exactly which scenario has a greater chance of victory. Yet they want to leave this open to the membership to decide?? Absolutely mental. 

 

[scotlad]

The SNP, for their faults, have become very good at one thing: winning elections. They normally have a good grasp of strategy so why they've played this so poorly is a bit of a mystery.

Now that a Labour government in Westminster looks a racing certainty they possibly don't fancy their chances of getting >50% of the vote share in a WM election (it was and is an unnecessarily high bar, IMO).

Making a HR election a plebiscite vote has a few advantages and in theory they could have set the ball rolling there as soon as the supreme court judgement was announced. That moment has passed though and if they tried to revisit it now it'd leave them looking desperate. It's all a bit of a mess. 

[aaid]

2 hours ago, Malcolm said:

if they did stuff like that and reverse the gender reform legislation I might be interested in voting for them.

No-one is buying that line, mate. 

[aaid]

5 hours ago, Orraloon said:

There are two options in there. Are you opposed to both of them?

Exactly.  Two options.  Option 1, a majority vote leads to a request for a referendum.  Option 2, is for the SG to open negotiations over independence.

Am I missing something here?

[Ally Bongo]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

Exactly.  Two options.  Option 1, a majority vote leads to a request for a referendum.  Option 2, is for the SG to open negotiations over independence.

Am I missing something here?

Clearly missing what the obvious outcome is going to be - Option 1 gives you a clue

And if you are still not sure listen to the likes of Wishart, Smith, McDonald et al who are clearly pushing the desired outcome which comes from their boss

Meanwhile

 

 

[ParisInAKilt]

We just need one more or 2 more mandates for a referendum, honestly just keep voting for us please, no other options anyway if you want independence 

[Caledonian Craig]

7 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Clearly missing what the obvious outcome is going to be - Option 1 gives you a clue

And if you are still not sure listen to the likes of Wishart, Smith, McDonald et al who are clearly pushing the desired outcome which comes from their boss

Meanwhile

 

 

His bluster was used in 2014 and it did not get independence.

[mcguffin]

8 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Clearly missing what the obvious outcome is going to be - Option 1 gives you a clue

And if you are still not sure listen to the likes of Wishart, Smith, McDonald et al who are clearly pushing the desired outcome which comes from their boss

Meanwhile

 

 

Thanks for the link. That's a great speech. Insightful, funny, optimistic.

I particularly liked Alex Salmond's idea for the Scottish Government to drag their heels in allowing the stone of destiny--'the symbol of Scotland's sovereignty'--to be shipped down south for King Charles's coronation. Funny idea on the surface. But what an opportunity for the Scottish government to make a statement to the world's media about Westminster assuming Scotland's cooperation while denying it a democratic vote?

The world's media seem to love a 'Royal story' and would cover it for sure, and it would be be worth it just to see/hear  the London-based media/radio talkshows  and whatnot go apoplectic 😀

[ParisInAKilt]

Maybe the SNP need to decide what they actually want, a part to mange a devolved Scotland or a party that can achieve independence. 

Keep this up and eventually people will just vote labour and independence will be lost and so will their power. 

But hey, least a few people will have made money and got some nice jobs out of it. 

[Malcolm]

18 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Maybe the SNP need to decide what they actually want, a part to mange a devolved Scotland or a party that can achieve independence. 

Keep this up and eventually people will just vote labour and independence will be lost and so will their power. 

But hey, least a few people will have made money and got some nice jobs out of it. 

fair analysis.

[Caledonian Craig]

18 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Maybe the SNP need to decide what they actually want, a part to mange a devolved Scotland or a party that can achieve independence. 

Keep this up and eventually people will just vote labour and independence will be lost and so will their power. 

But hey, least a few people will have made money and got some nice jobs out of it. 

If people are really so ready to vote Tory-lite (Labour) then they do not want independence.

[aaid]

1 hour ago, mcguffin said:

Thanks for the link. That's a great speech. Insightful, funny, optimistic.

I particularly liked Alex Salmond's idea for the Scottish Government to drag their heels in allowing the stone of destiny--'the symbol of Scotland's sovereignty'--to be shipped down south for King Charles's coronation. Funny idea on the surface. But what an opportunity for the Scottish government to make a statement to the world's media about Westminster assuming Scotland's cooperation while denying it a democratic vote?

The world's media seem to love a 'Royal story' and would cover it for sure, and it would be be worth it just to see/hear  the London-based media/radio talkshows  and whatnot go apoplectic 😀

Alex Salmond could make a start by resigning from the Privy Council if he’s no longer a monarchist. 

[ParisInAKilt]

23 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

If people are really so ready to vote Tory-lite (Labour) then they do not want independence.

You can say that but eventually people will vote elsewhere or are you telling people to vote snp forever?

[Ally Bongo]

Stephen Flynn - I think a UK General Election is the best way to do it and i'll explain why in a minute ...blah blah blah 16 year olds and EU Nationals blah blah blah Dissolving Holyrood blah blah blah

Would have been easier to say that's what Nicola has decided

[Caledonian Craig]

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

You can say that but eventually people will vote elsewhere or are you telling people to vote snp forever?

People who truly want independence will never vote for a unionist party. And if they do then they are not truly committed to independence. We have heard Starmer's stance on Scottish independence - he says GTF.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Caledonian Craig

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

Alex Salmond could make a start by resigning from the Privy Council if he’s no longer a monarchist. 

Why do you say he is no longer a monarchist? What evidence is there to show that he ever was a monarchist? I would be interested to read about what is in the public domain about his views on the monarchy. 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Orraloon