Indyref 2 (2)

[Orraloon]

1 minute ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

he alienated unionists correct, however he had 51% of indigenous scots vote for independence. 

Do you have a definition of "indigenous Scots"? Is there a granny rule involved?

[hampden_loon2878]

3 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Do you have a definition of "indigenous Scots"? Is there a granny rule involved?

look up the referendum data, you will find it in there

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

he alienated unionists correct, however he had 51% of indigenous scots vote for independence. 

51% of scots voted for independence, not Alex Salmond. I know a number of folk who voted Yes but didn’t like AS. He didn’t do it all on his own there was a massive support from the indy movement. I think you are as blinkered on Salmond as the people accused of being blinkered on Sturgeon.

The point I am making is we got so close with a leader who split opinion even within the YES side . It is not inconceivable to think a more likeable figurehead , with passion like Salmond  , could tip the scales. We need someone to give the public confidence. How  difficult can it be to get someone more charismatic than Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer ? 😱 At a time when  2 talking donkeys are leading the opposition we go into battle with Shrek 🙄

 

[Caledonian Craig]

15 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

51% of scots voted for independence, not Alex Salmond. I know a number of folk who voted Yes but didn’t like AS. He didn’t do it all on his own there was a massive support from the indy movement. I think you are as blinkered on Salmond as the people accused of being blinkered on Sturgeon.

The point I am making is we got so close with a leader who split opinion even within the YES side . It is not inconceivable to think a more likeable figurehead , with passion like Salmond  , could tip the scales. We need someone to give the public confidence. How  difficult can it be to get someone more charismatic than Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer ? 😱 At a time when  2 talking donkeys are leading the opposition we go into battle with Shrek 🙄

 

Spot on.

Also what a monumental faux pas by AS with his comment of once in a generation opportunity comment. Unionists now bring that up as a just reason to not allow us another referendum for a generation.

[StirlingEgg]

20 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Spot on.

Also what a monumental faux pas by AS with his comment of once in a generation opportunity comment. Unionists now bring that up as a just reason to not allow us another referendum for a generation.

Yes it's pretty dispiriting in hindsight when it's obvious the point he was making. A huge opportunity and we don't get them often given our UK leash. They seem to be able to turn a lot of fairly innocuous stuff against us and it manages to gain traction eg the porridge nonsense. 

[Caledonian Craig]

Just now, StirlingEgg said:

Yes it's pretty dispiriting in hindsight when it's obvious the point he was making. A huge opportunity and we don't get them often given our UK leash. They seem to be able to turn a lot of fairly innocuous stuff against us and it manages to gain traction eg the porridge nonsense. 

Indeed. And yet unionists make similar throwaway comments and get away with it. Thatcher stated Scotland could have its independence when they vote in enough pro-independence MPs. What happened there then?

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Spot on.

Also what a monumental faux pas by AS with his comment of once in a generation opportunity comment. Unionists now bring that up as a just reason to not allow us another referendum for a generation.

Tbf it was an unusually poor choice of words from him.  I imagine he was quite emotional in the aftermath of coming so close and was probably referring to how important that chance had been.

If enough people in Scotland want a referendum there is nothing unionists can do to stop it. Polls close to 60% regularly would be enough to force it. The problem is getting it there. 
It’s just very frustrating that at a time that neither of the leaders of the 2 main parties are at all popular, we ourselves have no real bite. Looking back David Cameron was a more formidable opponent than any of the current bunch. 

[Hertsscot]

23 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

If enough people in Scotland want a referendum there is nothing unionists can do to stop it. Polls close to 60% regularly would be enough to force it. 

I do wonder what future historians, say 100 years time, will make of Scotland's willingness to be held in a union that so obviously isn't working. Yes, you had all that oil and gas but you let your Southern neighbour take it and squander it , producing one of the most unequal societies in Europe in the process. No doubt those historians looking back will analyse the strategic mistakes of independence leaders but they'll still shake their heads at the lack of demand from ordinary Scots.

[hampden_loon2878]

19 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

51% of scots voted for independence, not Alex Salmond. I know a number of folk who voted Yes but didn’t like AS. He didn’t do it all on his own there was a massive support from the indy movement. I think you are as blinkered on Salmond as the people accused of being blinkered on Sturgeon.

The point I am making is we got so close with a leader who split opinion even within the YES side . It is not inconceivable to think a more likeable figurehead , with passion like Salmond  , could tip the scales. We need someone to give the public confidence. How  difficult can it be to get someone more charismatic than Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer ? 😱 At a time when  2 talking donkeys are leading the opposition we go into battle with Shrek 🙄

 

My point is, he was not nearly as decisive as most folk portray,, had salmond stayed on after the referendum I have no doubt in my mind we would be independent..I am not blinkered on salmond, i se him for what he is, damaged by a total witch hunt that hopefully come out in the wash 

there has been no one, and I mean no one, more decisive than sturgeon. She has torn the party into bits all over identity politics, it’s insane folk can’t see through this. 

Edited April 8 by hampden_loon2878

[Orraloon]

3 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Tbf it was an unusually poor choice of words from him.  I imagine he was quite emotional in the aftermath of coming so close and was probably referring to how important that chance had been.

 

He didn't say it after the referendum, it was before the referendum. The point of saying it was to emphasise to voters that the Tories had sanctioned this one off opportunity, and we might not get another chance for a long time.

He wasn't specifying any timescale before we can have another one, just emphasising how important the referendum was. And it wasn't an emotional poor choice of words, after the event. It was written into the "Scotlands Future" document. He was basically saying to voters, not to expect to get a second chance at this as there is no guarantee that Westminster will allow us to have another go. So far he has been proved correct. 

"557. If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?

The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.

It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent."

 

[TDYER63]

3 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

I do wonder what future historians, say 100 years time, will make of Scotland's willingness to be held in a union that so obviously isn't working. Yes, you had all that oil and gas but you let your Southern neighbour take it and squander it , producing one of the most unequal societies in Europe in the process. No doubt those historians looking back will analyse the strategic mistakes of independence leaders but they'll still shake their heads at the lack of demand from ordinary Scots.

Well, we will certainly be ‘unique’ to future historians in as much as being almost the only country in the world , ever , to turn down the chance of being independent. Thats some achievement .
Independence is hardly venturing into untested territory ,  in any shape or form is fairly normal.  For example most young adults will leave the family home even though many will take a backward step before going forward. Most will not have the same comfort as they had at home and have to take on many extra responsibilities , especially financial , so why do they do it . Mainly for independence.
Some will be desperate to get away from their parents,  because they dont like them, but most probably like their parents they just dont want to be controlled by their parents rules under their parents roof. 

So why the worry about your country becoming independent? It’s just a way to have more influence on decisions. Choosing independence doesn’t have to mean you hate what you have just now, but it absolutely does mean you will have more control of your future . And on most occasions it absolutely makes you stronger. 

It maybe explains why so many young people voted YES and older voted NO . What happens to folk as they get older? Do they become less bold and more timid ? Do they lose the confidence they once had ? 
 

 

[TDYER63]

4 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

My point is, he was not nearly as decisive as most folk portray,, had salmond stayed on after the referendum I have no doubt in my mind we would be independent..I am not blinkered on salmond, i se him for what he is, damaged by a total witch hunt that hopefully come out in the wash 

there has been no one, and I mean no one, more decisive than sturgeon. She has torn the party into bits all over identity politics, it’s insane folk can’t see through this. 

I also tend to think AS would have been more effective  post indy ,  particularly in highlighting all the lies plus the Brexit situation. Regardless of how people voted on Brexit I think most can understand how aggrieved many will have felt about the EU being used as a tool to frighten people about voting YES only for England to take us out less than 2 yrs later . I think AS would have highlighted this but at the same time not sidelined those who voted to leave the EU , like NS did. 
I am not however convinced there is some conspiracy going on. If I am proven to be an idiot then so be it. I am not naive enough to think the party hasnt been infiltrated but  I am not jumping on that particular Sturgeon bandwagon without any actual evidence. It doesn’t mean I wont keep an open mind on it . 

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, Orraloon said:

He didn't say it after the referendum, it was before the referendum. The point of saying it was to emphasise to voters that the Tories had sanctioned this one off opportunity, and we might not get another chance for a long time.

He wasn't specifying any timescale before we can have another one, just emphasising how important the referendum was. And it wasn't an emotional poor choice of words, after the event. It was written into the "Scotlands Future" document. He was basically saying to voters, not to expect to get a second chance at this as there is no guarantee that Westminster will allow us to have another go. So far he has been proved correct. 

"557. If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?

The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.

It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent."

 

Apologies, I thought he mentioned it in his speech the day after the referendum. It might have been said for the right reasons but it hasnt helped much in the aftermath. 
Either way, I doubt its something that can be forced  if evidence shows there is a shift. 

This guy from Cambridge University seems fairly highly qualified seems to think it’s unnecessary to wait a generation . 

https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/blog/could-scotland-stage-independence-referendum-without-uk-approval-what-law-says-prof-marc-weller

 

‘The government under Prime Minister Boris Johnson asserts that, in the interest of stability, important decisions of this kind should only be taken once in a generation. The Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, counters that a section 30 order cannot be reasonably refused. Indeed, her governing Scottish National Party (SNP) has pledged to hold an independence referendum still this year, after the May elections in Scotland.

The assertion that referenda can only happen once in a generation is not backed up by practice elsewhere. For instance, only last year New Caledonia repeated its referendum on independence from France merely two years after the initial poll of 2018. Continued association with Paris won on both occasions.

In fact, holding a second referendum after some seven or, in actual fact perhaps more likely, eight years, seems quite reasonable in a democratic society. This would be two full electoral cycles for most states. In addition, Scotland can point to the fundamental change in circumstances brought about by Brexit.’

[Hertsscot]

3 hours ago, Orraloon said:

557. If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?

The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.

It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent."

 

Thanks for that. I was living in England at the time and the only time I heard it was from AS and I thought it was just rhetorical.

I'm not sure this has much legal force though. If it did I would have expected a much more precise legal definition (as in the Good Friday Agreement?). I would also have expected to have heard a lot more about it from Unionists immediately after the result. I don't recall any mention of this until more recently, probably when the Union lovers realised that we hadn't gone away.

Also I fail to see how legally you can impose anything indefinitely for the future when it comes to politics. Circumstances changes, parties gain and lose power, Governments change and Parliaments cannot be bound by the decisions of previous governments.

[hampden_loon2878]

Every day humza digs the hole that bit deeper, we all know he is going to be replaced as snp leader, surely the current snp politicians see this also, time to bite the bullet and get rid of him, the self harm has gone on long enough 

[Toepoke]

7 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

It maybe explains why so many young people voted YES and older voted NO . What happens to folk as they get older? Do they become less bold and more timid ? Do they lose the confidence they once had ? 

Older voters got us Brexit so they're clearly not risk averse.

 

[scotlad]

On 4/4/2024 at 9:56 AM, Squirrelhumper said:

I want to see SNP get as many seats as possible. 

I do however think there is a hell of a lot of complacency within the party. 

I'm not sure about that. They have been guilty of complacency in the past, most notably in 2017, but I get the impression they're a bit worried now. I think that could be why they have gone from "a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence" to "a vote for the SNP is a vote for asking that nice Mr Starmer for a Section 30 to hold another vote on independence" in quite a short space of time.

On 4/4/2024 at 11:34 AM, Squirrelhumper said:

I think his point is that SNP aren't strong enough on independence. Plenty of people will vote Yes if it came to it but feel the SNP aren't doing anywhere near enough to push the case for independence. 

Very much so. Our country is getting shafted. Asset stripped. Look at the closure of Grangemouth, our only oil refinery - a decision that was at least partly politically motivated - and now the introduction of freeports - swathes of the country sold off for private enterprise. We're out of the EU, our towns and cities are decaying, the health service is on its knees, some people struggle to afford to heat their own homes - in a country that runs an energy surplus! Things weren't great in 2014 but looking back it was utopic compared to now.

The SNP were formed to point these things out, to demonstrate how things could be better if we were in charge of our own affairs; and yet there was barely a cheep from them about Grangemouth (possibly because they have put themselves, unnecessarily, in hock to the Greens, and oil is now "bad").

If the Scots public don't want to hear these things, if they're fed up of people "banging on about independence", if they're too stupid to understand the ramifications of what is happening to our country at the moment (or for whatever reasons they just don't care), then that is on them, and hell mend them. If they are content to be wee cucks living in a declining backwater they can vote for a unionist party. There are plenty to choose from. But it is incumbent on the SNP to offer those of us who do care an alternative and a way out, and not behave like A.N. Other Westminster party.

[scotlad]

4 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Every day humza digs the hole that bit deeper, we all know he is going to be replaced as snp leader, surely the current snp politicians see this also, time to bite the bullet and get rid of him, the self harm has gone on long enough 

I find the way they've handled the latest (but almost certainly not the last) debacle, i.e. the HCA, baffling. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the act, surely, following their experience with the GRR, they must have known it was going to be contentious, so why was it introduced just before Holyrood went into recess, allowing resentment towards it, justified or not, to fester? Why hasn't the Justice Secretary or the FM (considering it was his progeny in the first place) come out to explain the aims and the objectives of the act and defend it robustly?

The only SNP MSP I've seen attempting to defend the act wasn't the FM or the Justice Secretary, or even a junior minister, it was some wee backbencher I'd barely heard of, thrown to the wolves and torn to shreds on Newsnight!

[hampden_loon2878]

6 hours ago, scotlad said:

I find the way they've handled the latest (but almost certainly not the last) debacle, i.e. the HCA, baffling. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the act, surely, following their experience with the GRR, they must have known it was going to be contentious, so why was it introduced just before Holyrood went into recess, allowing resentment towards it, justified or not, to fester? Why hasn't the Justice Secretary or the FM (considering it was his progeny in the first place) come out to explain the aims and the objectives of the act and defend it robustly?

The only SNP MSP I've seen attempting to defend the act wasn't the FM or the Justice Secretary, or even a junior minister, it was some wee backbencher I'd barely heard of, thrown to the wolves and torn to shreds on Newsnight!

i just dont get it tbh,, it was so evident that it was going to be another shit storm,, is it stupidity, lack of self awareness or something more sinister

[TDYER63]

8 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Older voters got us Brexit so they're clearly not risk averse.

 

We joined the EU (EC) in 1973, anyone 50 yrs of age and over is old enough to have been alive then. To a lot of people there is absolutely nothing risky to go back to those halcyon days of blue passports, imperial measurements , a thriving NHS and none of those johnny foreigners. There is no risk. Neither is Brexit a risk to their pensions or currency, or ability to see Eastenders and Coronation St. 

Lets not pretend that Brexit was sold on a modern robust economic argument. 

[Squirrelhumper]

8 hours ago, scotlad said:

 

The only SNP MSP I've seen attempting to defend the act wasn't the FM or the Justice Secretary, or even a junior minister, it was some wee backbencher I'd barely heard of, thrown to the wolves and torn to shreds on Newsnight!

They won't defend the act, as they can't. 

It'll ultimately cost them a lot of their jobs (and their colleagues in WM) but they seem to oblivious to care. 

Add GRR, HCA etc together and it doesn't take a genius to see why they will shed votes. 

I really wish they spent more time on real issues than trying to introduce laws that they are seemingly unable to justify or explain to the ordinary voter and in by doing so, giving the opposition an open goal. Sturgeon started this by giving the Greens far too much influence and it appears to be getting worst. Suicidal. 

[Dave78]

I listened to Alex Salmond's podcast on the way into work this morning. He was interviewing Wings re the HCA.

I like Alex, and would have him back in charge of the SNP in a heartbeat, but it was quite something listening to the hypocrisy from him and Campbell, considering they both supported the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, which was essentially the same thing as the HCA.

In fact, comparing the response to both Acts from Yessers is quite informative. The unionist and media reaction was the same to both, as you'd expect, but the reaction from the indy movement very different. It really shows how divided and ruled we've become since the fateful Salmond/Sturgeon split.

The People's Front of Judea were well ahead of the Yes movement. I mean, they even had a trans debate, look....

 

 

[hampden_loon2878]

Looking like a two horse race between forbes and flynn, the question is how does flynn work his way into holyrood,,i still have forbes everyday of the week

[Och Aye]

1 minute ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Looking like a two horse race between forbes and flynn, the question is how does flynn work his way into holyrood,,i still have forbes everyday of the week

Two strong characters tho, which is crucial.

[scotlad]

4 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

i just dont get it tbh,, it was so evident that it was going to be another shit storm,, is it stupidity, lack of self awareness or something more sinister

I am starting to think it might be the latter. Despite what people say, I don't think Humza is stupid. If he is governing in good faith he must have known that this would be controversial at best, potentially career-ending at worst (for him!).

So I'm now wondering if maybe he's decided the job is too much for him and he's looking for an 'out'. He and his wife are expecting another wean in the summer so he could use the old 'spending time with the family' cover story.

Alternatively - tin foil hat on - maybe he knows the contents of a baby's nappy is about to hit the fan over something that's been brewing in the background and he doesn't want to be in the hot seat when it happens.

2 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

They won't defend the act, as they can't. 

It'll ultimately cost them a lot of their jobs (and their colleagues in WM) but they seem to oblivious to care. 

Add GRR, HCA etc together and it doesn't take a genius to see why they will shed votes. 

I really wish they spent more time on real issues than trying to introduce laws that they are seemingly unable to justify or explain to the ordinary voter and in by doing so, giving the opposition an open goal. Sturgeon started this by giving the Greens far too much influence and it appears to be getting worst. Suicidal. 

The annoying thing about the deal with the Greens is that it was unnecessary. Sturgeon virtually had a majority - she was only one seat short. She could have got things through parliament nine times out of ten and if negotiations were ever  necessary on certain issues the SNP has ample experience in that field, as they'd run minority administrations previously.