Indyref 2 (2)

[Caledonian Craig]

5 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

Did neither of you actually read the Wings link on how to do it ?

As said what happens thereafter dissolved Scottish Parliament and Scottish Election with pro-independence parties running on solely independence. Lets say there is a win by majority of 10 seats and we declare independence there is no way Westminster will sit there and say okay then trot on. Nice thought but obviously not that simple or else Salmond would have not it himself long before 2014 getting a referendum only on Cameron's say so.

[aaid]

6 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

Did neither of you actually read the Wings link on how to do it ?

Why are you so scared to actually say the words “Unilateral Declaration of Independence?

is it because more cases of UDI don’t succeed and in the cases where they have been successful they’ve been as a result of war.

UDI occurred in Palestine in 1988, how’s that going 35 years on.

Wings gives no answers to this, because there are no easy answers.  
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_independence#:~:text=A unilateral declaration of independence,from which it is seceding.

 

[Ally Bongo]

41 minutes ago, aaid said:

Why are you so scared to actually say the words “Unilateral Declaration of Independence?

 

 

 

Because technically it isnt

You are giving Westminster 3 months to agree to a referendum with the World watching on

Edited October 17, 2023 by Ally Bongo

[Caledonian Craig]

7 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Because technically it isnt

You are giving Westminster 3 months to agree to a referendum with the World watching on

Again though, if it was that straight forward/simple/achievable why did Salmond not implement it before having to wait for Cameron to say we could have a referendum? Or why didn't Sturgeon implement it after the Brexit vote or in ensuing years since then. Perhaps because it is not do-able?

Edited October 17, 2023 by Caledonian Craig

[PapofGlencoe]

I don't understand what is so difficult about saying if a majority of our people vote for unambiguous, pro-independence parties at a UK general election then we expect to declare independence  and expect London to respect the wishes of the Scottish people.

You can't force the other side to do anything, but you can make your own position clear.  We absolutely put on the table UDI only if our people vote for it.  At this stage, you can't be squemish and this threat is the only threat left.  The difference with catalonia is they did it without clear majority support and in an illegal election boycotted by half the population.  UK elections are legal and if the manifesto has one line in it, that this is trumpeted as a major change in tactic, then it cannot be disputed what people have voted for.  Thankfully in a UK election only one line is indeed needed.  We're never going to be in power there.  Government policy is for HR.  Westminster form now on will be Scotland testing it's place in the UK.

There's no other option other than deciding which Parliament's election you go for.  I suggest UK for very specific reasons both policy and international.

The only change to Sturgeon's plan really is that we are always allowing our people to make this vote at every UK election.  If we lose, we just go on to the next one.  It's baked in to allow our people the chance to express their view.  If Scots don't want it they won't vote for it.  If they do, they will.  At least it's a campaign and during this campaign London have to explain why they won't listen to our people.

Edited October 17, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[Ally Bongo]

42 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Again though, if it was that straight forward/simple/achievable why did Salmond not implement it before having to wait for Cameron to say we could have a referendum? Or why didn't Sturgeon implement it after the Brexit vote or in ensuing years since then. Perhaps because it is not do-able?

Sturgeon gets a pass until 31 January 2020.

That is when the "material change in circumstances" became official but by that time the SNP had been well and truly infiltrated.

Proof is that 2 months after the material change in circumstances Alex Salmond went on trial

There hasn't been a General Election since then but there was a Holyrood election in 2021 where if you remember the SNP told you to give them both your votes resulting in more Unionists being elected than less.

It took me a long time to see what was happening however there is no denying that the current SNP are an obstacle to Independence - and that was confirmed at the weekend

 

 

[PapofGlencoe]

8 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Sturgeon gets a pass until 31 January 2020.

That is when the "material change in circumstances" became official but by that time the SNP had been well and truly infiltrated.

Proof is that 2 months after the material change in circumstances Alex Salmond went on trial

There hasn't been a General Election since then but there was a Holyrood election in 2021 where if you remember the SNP told you to give them both your votes resulting in more Unionists being elected than less.

It took me a long time to see what was happening however there is no denying that the current SNP are an obstacle to Independence - and that was confirmed at the weekend

 

 

I do think Wings is potentially a bad actor and I find some of his stuff really unhelpful.

Unfortunately I cannot get my head round why the SNP's finances are as they are and his analysis does ring solid there.  In my view the SNP should be rolling in it given the amount of members they've had since 2007.  I do think there is undeniably something really odd about the finances.  I cannot understand how a party can be in deficit in a non election year given the members numbers, reduced as they are.  

If you look at what Spain did to the Catalan leaders and far left politicians, is it really so unfeasible London wouldn't infiltrate a credible threat?  I find it worth considering.

 

[aaid]

16 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I don't understand what is so difficult about saying if a majority of our people vote for unambiguous, pro-independence parties at a UK general election then we expect to declare independence  and expect London to respect the wishes of the Scottish people.

You can't force the other side to do anything, but you can make your own position clear.  We absolutely put on the table UDI only if our people vote for it.  At this stage, you can't be squemish and this threat is the only threat left.  The difference with catalonia is they did it without clear majority support and in an illegal election boycotted by half the population.  UK elections are legal and if the manifesto has one line in it, that this is trumpeted as a major change in tactic, then it cannot be disputed what people have voted for.  Thankfully in a UK election only one line is indeed needed.  We're never going to be in power there.  Government policy is for HR.  Westminster form now on will be Scotland testing it's place in the UK.

There's no other option other than deciding which Parliament's election you go for.  I suggest UK for very specific reasons both policy and international.

The only change to Sturgeon's plan really is that we are always allowing our people to make this vote at every UK election.  If we lose, we just go on to the next one.  It's baked in to allow our people the chance to express their view.  If Scots don't want it they won't vote for it.  If they do, they will.  At least it's a campaign and during this campaign London have to explain why they won't listen to our people.

For UDI to be successful it has to have overwhelming universal international recognition, for Scotland that means the EU - individual members as well as it’s institutions, the USA and the other Anglohone members of the Commonwealth.  There may well be a lot of sympathy for Scotland, but would any of them consider it to be in their geopolitical interests to intervene in a UK constitutional crisis, or would they simply sit on the sidelines and see how it sorted itself out.

All these magical thinking solutions seem to fall short somewhere and usually somewhere in the first stage.   To route to independence is actually very simple, it’s three steps; have a referendum; win the referendum; deliver independence.   It’s very difficult to actually achieve that though.  Don’t get me wrong, I‘m confident that if there was a vote tomorrow, we would win it, but the reality is that the only way we will ever get one is if it’s empirically obvious that support is at the level it was for the devolution referendum in 1997, and that was 75%.  

[PapofGlencoe]

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

For UDI to be successful it has to have overwhelming universal international recognition, for Scotland that means the EU - individual members as well as it’s institutions, the USA and the other Anglohone members of the Commonwealth.  There may well be a lot of sympathy for Scotland, but would any of them consider it to be in their geopolitical interests to intervene in a UK constitutional crisis, or would they simply sit on the sidelines and see how it sorted itself out.

All these magical thinking solutions seem to fall short somewhere and usually somewhere in the first stage.   To route to independence is actually very simple, it’s three steps; have a referendum; win the referendum; deliver independence.   It’s very difficult to actually achieve that though.  Don’t get me wrong, I‘m confident that if there was a vote tomorrow, we would win it, but the reality is that the only way we will ever get one is if it’s empirically obvious that support is at the level it was for the devolution referendum in 1997, and that was 75%.  

I agree with a lot of that but I think if we're anywhere near getting the SNP and others to over 50% anytime in the next 10/15/20 years then we are probably well on the way to that level of support anyway.  I'm not really putting this out there for the next election, it's a tactic for the long term.

But there does need to be an actual policy to deliver the pressure, which makes it any way realistic for voters as a live agenda item, which in turn is voted for.

what im worried about is that it begins to set in this idea "Scotland isn't allowed a referendum" after a heavy SNP defeat and the whole idea withers and dies as a futile effort.  My suggestion is the threat is needed to keep it as a potential way through.  

I agree there is every chance this may be a tool only to getting an actual referendum.  Noone wants to do UDI.

Edited October 17, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[Alibi]

The thing about the majority of seats proposal, and the criticism of it on the basis that by that yardstick we already have an apparent mandate for indy is that the last GE wasn't fought on a manifesto stating that a vote for indy parties was a vote for indy.  If the SNP were to have a one line manifesto and people voted for it, they would have an undeniable mandate for indy as WM elections are done under FPTP.  I would imagine the SNP would lose some seats as folk who vote SNP but don't want indy would revert to other parties, but a majority of seats based on a direct yes/no manifesto would be what was acceptable as a trigger prior to referendums becoming fashionable.  Of course getting a majority of votes would be even better but that's not the way WM elections work - however if that could be achieved, it would make the argument a lot simpler.

For the SNP, who are never going to be in government at WM, a WM election is an opportunity to do things differently.  and by that I don't mean Sturgeon's ridiculous "Stop Brexit" campaign in 2017.

[aaid]

1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I agree with a lot of that but I think if we're anywhere near getting the SNP and others to over 50% anytime in the next 10/15/20 years then we are probably well on the way to that level of support anyway.  I'm not really putting this out there for the next election, it's a tactic for the long term.

In 18 years we got from 52% in the 1979 referendum, to 75% in 1997.  It’s more than possible and it’s actually easier to test that support out now than it was in the 80s and 90s.

[PapofGlencoe]

25 minutes ago, aaid said:

In 18 years we got from 52% in the 1979 referendum, to 75% in 1997.  It’s more than possible and it’s actually easier to test that support out now than it was in the 80s and 90s.

I know but we always had the threat of voting SNP for independence hanging about which hadn't been rejected and/or legally blocked at that point.

My concern is it sets in that it doesn't matter if we vote SNP anymore, London will just say no.  Therefore, to many, the whole thing becomes pointless.

i don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, I just think there needs to be a better policy than "let's just campaign for something until it goes up to 70% in opinion polls".  that, of course, is true but I don't see it coming to fruition without setting out a path.   People I know are saying "we can't get independence, it's being blocked so let's just vote Labour".  For it to get there, in my view, there needs to be a policy we're willing to take to achieve it.  If no path is given, it'll go the way of socialism.  Something people used to be able to say proudly.  An old idea we had a go at but not for these times.

I think if the SNP said something like; we want to test the Union at every UK election as a defacto referendum; I think if that caught on it would bring political weight to the opinion polls.       

Edited October 17, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[Ally Bongo]

55 minutes ago, aaid said:

In 18 years we got from 52% in the 1979 referendum, to 75% in 1997.  It’s more than possible and it’s actually easier to test that support out now than it was in the 80s and 90s.

Electoral Calculus

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Electoral Calculus

Where are you seeing the SNP on 29%?

[Caledonian Craig]

3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Sturgeon gets a pass until 31 January 2020.

That is when the "material change in circumstances" became official but by that time the SNP had been well and truly infiltrated.

Proof is that 2 months after the material change in circumstances Alex Salmond went on trial

There hasn't been a General Election since then but there was a Holyrood election in 2021 where if you remember the SNP told you to give them both your votes resulting in more Unionists being elected than less.

It took me a long time to see what was happening however there is no denying that the current SNP are an obstacle to Independence - and that was confirmed at the weekend

 

 

It still not explain away why Salmond never implemented this plan if it were implementable pre-2014. He never chose that route either, if it is actually a route at all.

[Ally Bongo]

43 minutes ago, aaid said:

Where are you seeing the SNP on 29%?

They only got 27% at the Rutherglen & Hamilton West By Election which presumably is what Wings fed into the calculator

 

[aaid]

Just now, Ally Bongo said:

They only got 27% at the Rutherglen & Hamilton West By Election which presumably is what Wings fed into the calculator

 

For fuck sake, so it’s just completely made up.

[Caledonian Craig]

1 minute ago, Ally Bongo said:

They only got 27% at the Rutherglen & Hamilton West By Election which presumably is what Wings fed into the calculator

 

Not a wise by-election to go from considering that it had a mighty low turn-out compared to recent elections. 

[Ally Bongo]

45 minutes ago, aaid said:

For fuck sake, so it’s just completely made up.

When has he been wrong much ?

He must have some other recent polling info

[Caledonian Craig]

45 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

When has he been wrong much ?

He must have some other recent polling info

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Nowhere near 29% in any of these official polls so whose ass did Wings pull 29% from?

[Ally Bongo]

18 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Nowhere near 29% in any of these official polls so whose ass did Wings pull 29% from?

The latest poll on there is only up to 13th September 2023

So he either has inside info on a new poll or is making his own predictions yes

[Caledonian Craig]

2 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

The latest poll on there is only up to 13th September 2023

So he either has inside info on a new poll or is making his own predictions yes

So pure invention. Okay. I will stick to official polls and even those from unionist sources do not try twisting polls to such a level as 29%.

[Ally Bongo]

45 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

So pure invention. Okay. I will stick to official polls and even those from unionist sources do not try twisting polls to such a level as 29%.

You can be in denial as much as you like

Look at the empty seats in an already smaller conference hall today

[Caledonian Craig]

4 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

You can be in denial as much as you like

Look at the empty seats in an already smaller conference hall today

It is not about being in denial it is about not believing a post from wings who makes a claim about SNP support with no facts or polls to back it up and bringing up a figure lower than even unionist polls suggest. What is so wrong with that?

[Orraloon]

2 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

You can be in denial as much as you like

Look at the empty seats in an already smaller conference hall today

I've been saying for a while now that the party has gotten too big. We need to pare it back bit in order to get "more focused".