Indyref 2 (2)

[mariokempes]

1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

And that’s the extremely worrying part, we haven’t a party that is able to mobilise them yes voters,, I have said it time and again that all the Snp had to do post 2014 was run a sound, competent, non divisive government and we would gain independence,, they have done the complete opposite 

100%

[Dave78]

3 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

And that’s the extremely worrying part, we haven’t a party that is able to mobilise them yes voters,, I have said it time and again that all the Snp had to do post 2014 was run a sound, competent, non divisive government and we would gain independence,, they have done the complete opposite 

Via what process exactly?

Do you think the Tories, when faced with the referendum demand from the Scottish parliament, would have said 'Hmm, the SNP are running a competent non-divisive government, lets give them indyref2'? 😁

 

[hampden_loon2878]

2 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Via what process exactly?

Do you think the Tories, when faced with the referendum demand from the Scottish parliament, would have said 'Hmm, the SNP are running a competent non-divisive government, lets give them indyref2'? 😁

 

Via the process of not going after I universally unpopular policies, ie!! GRR, HMPA’s, bottle return scheme, hate crime, log burner bans, oil and gas stance,minimum alcohol pricing, higher taxes,, it boggles my brain as to why an “nationalist party” goes after policies like those.. it’s like, what police’s can I go after to put folk aff independence 

[Dave78]

12 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Via the process of not going after I universally unpopular policies, ie!! GRR, HMPA’s, bottle return scheme, hate crime, log burner bans, oil and gas stance,minimum alcohol pricing, higher taxes,, it boggles my brain as to why an “nationalist party” goes after policies like those.. it’s like, what police’s can I go after to put folk aff independence 

Except all these questionable policies haven't put people off independence, have they? At least not according to the polls.

I ask again, exactly how does the SNP force Westminster to concede to indyref2? 

 

 

[Malcolm]

6 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

And that’s the extremely worrying part, we haven’t a party that is able to mobilise them yes voters,, I have said it time and again that all the Snp had to do post 2014 was run a sound, competent, non divisive government and we would gain independence,, they have done the complete opposite 

absolutely this.  Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[StirlingEgg]

2 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Via the process of not going after I universally unpopular policies, ie!! GRR, HMPA’s, bottle return scheme, hate crime, log burner bans, oil and gas stance,minimum alcohol pricing, higher taxes,, it boggles my brain as to why an “nationalist party” goes after policies like those.. it’s like, what police’s can I go after to put folk aff independence 

There may be some truth here but I don't think it's 100% fair given the devolved parameters and media/UK govt operating against them. I can't really think of much balanced reporting across any of these topics which would definitely push policy in the direction of being unpopular. For example the bottle return scheme failure involved the Tory party receiving 20k from an industry group lobbying against the inclusion of glass in the scheme. Meanwhile (as far as I know) Wales were planning to include glass in their scheme so not sure what all that internal market guff was about. Maybe it was too complicated or perhaps more was made of Lorna Slater not handling the media/political side of things well when she had the technical knowledge. Anyway that's just one example of a question mark for me over the outcome. 

We seem to be setting ourselves an impossible task for finding the ideal leader/party policies. No party or individual is going to avoid being divisive. It's like going on a dating site with a checklist! The SNP isn't some all seeing entity that can choose great candidates to represent us. Folk of the 'right calibre' have to put themselves forward. When you see the outcry about the Hate Law type stuff and those shouting "it's freedom of speech for me to be a dick to someone" managing to take the high ground then no wonder nobody supposedly better puts themselves forward. 

Not sure what happened to the font there! 

 

Edited April 13 by StirlingEgg

[Ally Bongo]

Looks like we all missed Keith Brown being sacked as SNP campaign director after suggesting SNP MPs should withdraw from Westminster

Looks like he actually is one that wants Independence

Question is - who decided to sack him ?

[scotlad]

1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

Looks like we all missed Keith Brown being sacked as SNP campaign director after suggesting SNP MPs should withdraw from Westminster

Looks like he actually is one that wants Independence

Question is - who decided to sack him ?

My best guess is his name rhymes with furry moot.

I see retiring WM benchwarmer Stewart Hosie has been put in charge of the GE campaign. I take it that was brief Keith Brown previously held?

[Hertsscot]

6 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Via the process of not going after I universally unpopular policies, ie!! GRR, HMPA’s, bottle return scheme, hate crime, log burner bans, oil and gas stance,minimum alcohol pricing, higher taxes,, it boggles my brain as to why an “nationalist party” goes after policies like those.. it’s like, what police’s can I go after to put folk aff independence 

Sounds like the criticisms that Alba would make of the SNP. My frustration is that Alba have had a couple of opportunities to put their popularity to the test but have not done so.

It should also be remembered that several of those policies were not just SNP/Green but we're also supported by Labour, the Lib Dems and even some Tories. Cole-Hamiltin and Sarwar always avoid scrutiny, yet have a go at the SNP for policies that they've supported. As far as the DRS is concerned the UK Government has just kicked that (I recycled) can even further down the road, though they've been promising it for years!

I would agree that SNP/Greens have been very poor in communicating and/or implementing many of the policies you mention but several of them, in terms of their aims, are right e.g MUP, DRS, Hate Crime, progressive taxation etc.

[StirlingEgg]

9 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

I would agree that SNP/Greens have been very poor in communicating and/or implementing many of the policies you mention but several of them, in terms of their aims, are right e.g MUP, DRS, Hate Crime, progressive taxation etc.

I was trying to say this but your post has put things more eloquently! This last paragraph in particular. 

The election campaign is already looking to be pretty awful; the way they're going after Angela Rayner just now and some discussion about leaving the ECHR etc. Tax cuts supposedly at next budget...

World War 3 looks ever more of a possibility so soon moaning about alcohol pricing of nasty ciders while sitting on a big pile of rubbish in front of your log burner will be truly irrelevant. 

[Toepoke]

6 hours ago, StirlingEgg said:

The election campaign is already looking to be pretty awful; the way they're going after Angela Rayner just now and some discussion about leaving the ECHR etc. Tax cuts supposedly at next budget.... 

Top marks for Cold War Steve yet again....

 

 

[StirlingEgg]

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

Top marks for Cold War Steve yet again....

 

 

There's nothing in that that's a pisstake, it's all happened 😐 I bought one of his jigsaws but haven't started it yet! 

I can't zoom in very well on Shapps' briefcase, what does it say? 

[Ally Bongo]

22 minutes ago, StirlingEgg said:

There's nothing in that that's a pisstake, it's all happened 😐 I bought one of his jigsaws but haven't started it yet! 

I can't zoom in very well on Shapps' briefcase, what does it say? 

[StirlingEgg]

2 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Thanks 👍Looks like that Lord Charles dummy would be in there 🧐

[hampden_loon2878]

On 4/13/2024 at 4:21 PM, Dave78 said:

Except all these questionable policies haven't put people off independence, have they? At least not according to the polls.

I ask again, exactly how does the SNP force Westminster to concede to indyref2? 

 

 

But they have put them off the SNP, the vehicle for independence,, regarding getting WM to give a referendum, there could be various ways to do this, I don’t know why the government haven’t used the claim of right even if it’s just for a sound bite as not sure how legally binding it would be,, the current SNP are so timid when they tip toe around the subject. The SNP need to have the general public on board with their government before pushing for a referendum and they definitely don’t have that,, it’s a blessing WM haven’t “granted” one

[scotlad]

It's good that polling in favour of independence is holding up (although after everything I'd have hoped it would be firmly in the 50s by now) but this polling, if accurate, looks horrendous:

 

Those numbers could see a Frankenstein's Monster of a coalition led by Labour and supported by the Greens and the Lib Dems as Scotland's government. All they would need then would be a Tory abstention on the vote for FM to enable the micro-brained Anas Sarwar to enter Bute House! Last week you could sense the yoon commentariat drooling over the now increasingly more feasible prospect of Scotland's political clock being turned back twenty years.

The thought of arrogant fuckwits like Dame Jackie Baillie and Alex Cole-Hamilton trying to run public services is quite funny, although I expect in that instance Starmer would send up a squad from London to make sure the dumplings at least had some inkling about what they should be doing.

[TDYER63]

11 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

But they have put them off the SNP, the vehicle for independence,, regarding getting WM to give a referendum, there could be various ways to do this, I don’t know why the government haven’t used the claim of right even if it’s just for a sound bite as not sure how legally binding it would be,, the current SNP are so timid when they tip toe around the subject. The SNP need to have the general public on board with their government before pushing for a referendum and they definitely don’t have that,, it’s a blessing WM haven’t “granted” one

Like what  ( other than a sound bite ) ? 

[TDYER63]

3 minutes ago, scotlad said:

It's good that polling in favour of independence is holding up (although after everything I'd have hoped it would be firmly in the 50s by now) but this polling, if accurate, looks horrendous:

 

Those numbers could see a Frankenstein's Monster of a coalition led by Labour and supported by the Greens and the Lib Dems as Scotland's government. All they would need then would be a Tory abstention on the vote for FM to enable the micro-brained Anas Sarwar to enter Bute House! Last week you could sense the yoon commentariat drooling over the now increasingly more feasible prospect of Scotland's political clock being turned back twenty years.

The thought of arrogant fuckwits like Dame Jackie Baillie and Alex Cole-Hamilton trying to run public services is quite funny, although I expect in that instance Starmer would send up a squad from London to make sure the dumplings at least had some inkling about what they should be doing.

😂 Frankenstein’s monster.

The polling is , as you say, horrendous. In a way, if the SNP were to lose control I would prefer it to be complete control as that is the only way people are going to see what the true alternative look likes. Wait till all the free stuff gets reversed. 
Yes, its a big risk , but IMO Labour will not be able to improve Scotland without more money,  and I cannot see a UK government , run by Labour , being any more successful than the other arse cheek thats on the way out. 

My preference of course would be for the SNP to take notice of public opinion before its too late, and also grow a backbone. 

[TDYER63]

If ever any confirmation was needed that Tories and Labour have merged into the same person than it has to be the Mails front page the other day . 

[Ally Bongo]

From 2021

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-snp-manifesto-2021/

The most tedious question we ever get asked when we criticise the SNP – because we’ve explained it a hundred times already and none of the people asking have ever bothered to look – is “But what would YOU do to secure independence, clever-clogs?”

We’ve outlined that plan in detail repeatedly – you can read it again here if you want. But maybe we need something a bit simpler for the hard of thinking, so let’s have a go.

 

If we were in charge of the SNP, and nothing had materially changed by the time of next year’s election – which is to say that support for Yes was still in the majority and the UK government was still refusing to grant a second referendum – the text in bold just below this paragraph would be our entire manifesto.

It’s nice and short (barely over 200 words – in fact, amusingly we’ve just noticed that it’s exactly 1314 characters) and you could fit it on a postcard. Indeed, the core of it is all contained in the first paragraph alone, which is one tweet’s worth with 71 characters spare for a couple of hashtags and a link. The rest is just extra detail. So here it is:

We believe that the Scottish people are sovereign, and we hereby announce our intention to declare Scotland independent and submit that intention to the will of the people in this election for their approval.

Accordingly, if the Scottish National Party should secure more than 50% of the constituency votes in this election, we will consider that a clear mandate to withdraw from the Treaty Of Union, declare Scotland to once more be an independent state, and seek recognition from the international community on the basis of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of all peoples to self-determination, that self-determination having been expressed by this vote.

Should the UK Government wish, we are willing to confirm that mandate via a referendum, to be held no later than three months from the date of the election, on the same question as that used in 2014. If no such referendum is requested or conducted, the declaration of independence based on the election result will automatically be considered to stand.

Upon the secure establishment of independence, a new general election will be called immediately.

With regard to other policies, our current positions on all issues remain unchanged, and all future legislation will be brought before the Parliament, debated and voted on in the normal manner.

(The bit in italics is optional.)

And that’s it. You’re done. An absolutely clear, impeccably democratic mandate that the international community would have no reason to object to. Everyone knows clearly what they’re voting for, and you’re even offering the UK government a second bite at the democratic cherry as a courtesy. It requires no permission – parties can stand on whatever manifesto they want in a democracy and put their proposals to the people.

Basing it on the constituency vote alone makes it simpler (one person, one vote), and it also prevents the election being used as a Trojan horse to smuggle in unpopular policies that people don’t want to vote for. You can vote SNP for independence on the constituency vote, but then vote for whatever party you want on the list vote, because the list vote is the actual intended mechanism for ensuring proportional representation.

It’s also very easy to understand and explain – effectively the constituency vote is the referendum and the list vote the election.

(Getting >50% of the constituency vote would not guarantee the SNP a majority on its own, although of course it would make it more likely, but you’re holding a new election as soon as you’re independent so it doesn’t really matter.)

If the SNP/Yes failed to get over 50% of the constituency vote on those terms, we’d have a Parliament where they’d still almost certainly be the biggest party and form the government (because they’re 30+ points ahead in the polls as it stands), so they have nothing to lose. On current polling they’re going to get zero or very close to zero MSPs from the list anyway, so no harm done there.

And if you’re one of the weirdo 5-10% of SNP voters who don’t want independence, vote for someone else on the constituency and SNP on the list – under the D’Hondt system you should still theoretically end up with the same number of SNP seats so you lose nothing either.)

Pro-indy Labour (and Lib Dem and Tory) voters would also have nothing to lose – they could safely vote SNP on the constituency vote for independence and Labour on the list, and be confident of getting the number of MSPs they’re entitled to via the list system, exactly as they did in 2016.

Women and others uncomfortable with certain current SNP policies could do the same but voting for new list parties, giving them the best possible chance of blocking those policies without sacrificing independence.

And of course, diehard Unionists would simply vote as they’re going to anyway – the Unionist party of their preference on the constituency ballot, and Unionist on the list too. Indeed, it’s better for them as they don’t have to worry about “tactical” voting – any Unionist constituency vote effectively counts as a No.

All of the detail about the prospectus for independence, what currency we’d use and whether we’d still get Doctor Who, would be a matter for the campaign. If people were happy with the answers given they’d vote Yes (ie SNP on the constituency), and if they weren’t happy with the answers given they could vote No.

(If that process was good enough for the Brexit vote then it’s good enough for us. You can never have definitive answers everyone will agree on in advance – that approach was tried with the White Paper and it failed – so there’s no point worrying about it. People will either trust their fellow Scots to make it work like every other nation on Earth does and deal with problems as they arise, or they won’t. That’s the vote.)

Of course, there’s no guarantee that the UK government would accept the result of such an election just because they had no legitimate democratic grounds not to. They might try various diplomatic methods to pressure other countries into not recognising the new Scotland, but frankly the UK’s international stock and bargaining power is pretty tiny at the moment and we wouldn’t fret too much about that.

Or they might send in the tanks, though it’d be interesting to see what happened if, say, everyone went out and parked their cars on all the roads to Faslane. But since the alternative is to let them keep Scotland prisoner forever anyway, we don’t really have anything to lose there either.

It’s hard to understand why this isn’t already the SNP’s official public position. There’s no reason it should be a secret. It’d certainly have put a lot of people’s minds at rest and saved the party an awful lot of discontent and disharmony in the last year or two. There’s no reason to waste five more years begging for a Section 30 and then, maybe, propose something like this for 2026, by which time God knows what might have happened and there might not even be a Holyrood to have elections to any more.

If it continues not to be, people will be entitled to ask why.

 

 

[TDYER63]

[TDYER63]

10 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

From 2021

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-snp-manifesto-2021/

The most tedious question we ever get asked when we criticise the SNP – because we’ve explained it a hundred times already and none of the people asking have ever bothered to look – is “But what would YOU do to secure independence, clever-clogs?”

We’ve outlined that plan in detail repeatedly – you can read it again here if you want. But maybe we need something a bit simpler for the hard of thinking, so let’s have a go.

 

If we were in charge of the SNP, and nothing had materially changed by the time of next year’s election – which is to say that support for Yes was still in the majority and the UK government was still refusing to grant a second referendum – the text in bold just below this paragraph would be our entire manifesto.

It’s nice and short (barely over 200 words – in fact, amusingly we’ve just noticed that it’s exactly 1314 characters) and you could fit it on a postcard. Indeed, the core of it is all contained in the first paragraph alone, which is one tweet’s worth with 71 characters spare for a couple of hashtags and a link. The rest is just extra detail. So here it is:

We believe that the Scottish people are sovereign, and we hereby announce our intention to declare Scotland independent and submit that intention to the will of the people in this election for their approval.

Accordingly, if the Scottish National Party should secure more than 50% of the constituency votes in this election, we will consider that a clear mandate to withdraw from the Treaty Of Union, declare Scotland to once more be an independent state, and seek recognition from the international community on the basis of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of all peoples to self-determination, that self-determination having been expressed by this vote.

Should the UK Government wish, we are willing to confirm that mandate via a referendum, to be held no later than three months from the date of the election, on the same question as that used in 2014. If no such referendum is requested or conducted, the declaration of independence based on the election result will automatically be considered to stand.

Upon the secure establishment of independence, a new general election will be called immediately.

With regard to other policies, our current positions on all issues remain unchanged, and all future legislation will be brought before the Parliament, debated and voted on in the normal manner.

(The bit in italics is optional.)

And that’s it. You’re done. An absolutely clear, impeccably democratic mandate that the international community would have no reason to object to. Everyone knows clearly what they’re voting for, and you’re even offering the UK government a second bite at the democratic cherry as a courtesy. It requires no permission – parties can stand on whatever manifesto they want in a democracy and put their proposals to the people.

Basing it on the constituency vote alone makes it simpler (one person, one vote), and it also prevents the election being used as a Trojan horse to smuggle in unpopular policies that people don’t want to vote for. You can vote SNP for independence on the constituency vote, but then vote for whatever party you want on the list vote, because the list vote is the actual intended mechanism for ensuring proportional representation.

It’s also very easy to understand and explain – effectively the constituency vote is the referendum and the list vote the election.

(Getting >50% of the constituency vote would not guarantee the SNP a majority on its own, although of course it would make it more likely, but you’re holding a new election as soon as you’re independent so it doesn’t really matter.)

If the SNP/Yes failed to get over 50% of the constituency vote on those terms, we’d have a Parliament where they’d still almost certainly be the biggest party and form the government (because they’re 30+ points ahead in the polls as it stands), so they have nothing to lose. On current polling they’re going to get zero or very close to zero MSPs from the list anyway, so no harm done there.

And if you’re one of the weirdo 5-10% of SNP voters who don’t want independence, vote for someone else on the constituency and SNP on the list – under the D’Hondt system you should still theoretically end up with the same number of SNP seats so you lose nothing either.)

Pro-indy Labour (and Lib Dem and Tory) voters would also have nothing to lose – they could safely vote SNP on the constituency vote for independence and Labour on the list, and be confident of getting the number of MSPs they’re entitled to via the list system, exactly as they did in 2016.

Women and others uncomfortable with certain current SNP policies could do the same but voting for new list parties, giving them the best possible chance of blocking those policies without sacrificing independence.

And of course, diehard Unionists would simply vote as they’re going to anyway – the Unionist party of their preference on the constituency ballot, and Unionist on the list too. Indeed, it’s better for them as they don’t have to worry about “tactical” voting – any Unionist constituency vote effectively counts as a No.

All of the detail about the prospectus for independence, what currency we’d use and whether we’d still get Doctor Who, would be a matter for the campaign. If people were happy with the answers given they’d vote Yes (ie SNP on the constituency), and if they weren’t happy with the answers given they could vote No.

(If that process was good enough for the Brexit vote then it’s good enough for us. You can never have definitive answers everyone will agree on in advance – that approach was tried with the White Paper and it failed – so there’s no point worrying about it. People will either trust their fellow Scots to make it work like every other nation on Earth does and deal with problems as they arise, or they won’t. That’s the vote.)

Of course, there’s no guarantee that the UK government would accept the result of such an election just because they had no legitimate democratic grounds not to. They might try various diplomatic methods to pressure other countries into not recognising the new Scotland, but frankly the UK’s international stock and bargaining power is pretty tiny at the moment and we wouldn’t fret too much about that.

Or they might send in the tanks, though it’d be interesting to see what happened if, say, everyone went out and parked their cars on all the roads to Faslane. But since the alternative is to let them keep Scotland prisoner forever anyway, we don’t really have anything to lose there either.

It’s hard to understand why this isn’t already the SNP’s official public position. There’s no reason it should be a secret. It’d certainly have put a lot of people’s minds at rest and saved the party an awful lot of discontent and disharmony in the last year or two. There’s no reason to waste five more years begging for a Section 30 and then, maybe, propose something like this for 2026, by which time God knows what might have happened and there might not even be a Holyrood to have elections to any more.

If it continues not to be, people will be entitled to ask why.

 

 

What is the highest percentage the SNP have received on constituency votes ? 

[RanelaghScot]

The most depressing part of the Westminster polls is knowing that if the election mirrors the polls we're going to have the likes of Dougie Alexander ripping the tap aff it across every communication channel spraffing about about how it's a clear rejection of independence and the country is wrapping itself up in the red white and blue of the union flag.

 

Another depressing idea is that the majority of the country / central belt still buys the "let's vote Labour and kick oot the Tories!" line..

[TDYER63]

9 minutes ago, RanelaghScot said:

 

 

Another depressing idea is that the majority of the country / central belt still buys the "let's vote Labour and kick oot the Tories!" line..

In that article above, Starmer mentions at least 3 or 4 times ‘ my changed Labour Party’ . He seems over keen to emphasise this and he is absolutely right , Labour have changed . Labour ARE now the Tory party . 

[Ally Bongo]

34 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

What is the highest percentage the SNP have received on constituency votes ? 

47.7%