SCOTTISH INDY REF 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO

[Indian Dan]

What if zie was transgender.

I am entirely equal when it comes to abusing fuckwits

 

[Leo]

And beef, and steak.... Mmm, you may have a point.

keep such posts in the 'Munching' thread please.

 

[Leo]

Good God, another one. If Salmond had still been leader of the SNP, I'd have an equally derisive adjective for him, too. That's equality for you.

he's known by some as Fat Eck up here....and that's being polite.

 

[Abertawe]

They lost last time because they were unable to put forward an economic plan that contained any detail, if you can't even confirm what your currency will be then you're struggling. This time that's even more up in the air. She's being an opportunistic rat bag. The only tactic she has at her disposal is ugly nationalism and implementing a them & us mentality which is easily undermined. The SNP are still unable to answer the key question marks about economy/EU/armed forces etc.

Sturgeon is one of the elite from a family of elites. She's desperate for the fame & glory and isn't interested in her country otherwise she'd be concentrating on fixinv the mess that is Scottish society.

I think May will tell em to get fucked but if it was granted it'd be a real opportunity for Labour to make up ground there. Losing two refs in a row would be political suicide surely. If Labour (& Tories) put up a prominent remain case it'd make the next election up there interesting.

 

[Alty]

I'm most looking forward to seeing how those who not long ago argued that EU membership was such an important issue it demanded a referendum now argue that the UK having left the EU since the last Scottish independence referendum isn't significant enough to give grounds for a second one.

The SNP said they'd abide by the result of the referendum and that it was a once in a generation event. So no matter what the political events in the immediate aftermath, the claim that decisions taken at UK level are reason enough for another independence referendum less than 5 years after the first doesn't really hold water.

But in any case, the SNP make out the EU referendum was a huge surprise. A gotcha moment that Cameron revealed after the Scottish people had voted to stay. That's bollocks. It was known at that time that the Tories were offering a referendum (as were DUP) and there was a lot of speculation as to whether Labour would end up matching the pledge too. The possibility of an EU referendum is something people factored into their vote. Or at least it should have been.

With education standards slipping and the gap between rich and poor widening in Scotland, it may well not be long before the SNP's honeymoon period comes to an end and the tide of nationalism recedes. They've clearly tried a last chuck of the dice before that happens. It's nothing to do with a point of democratic principle because that whole argument rests on the view that all votes affecting Scotland should take place at a Scotland only level. Something rejected by the voters in 2014.

 

[johnnytodd]

All the immigrant scroungers could be moved to Scotland from England quite easily.

so vote leave

 

[SALTIRE]

You think Salty ? You are in for a big shock my friend! Btw....Sturgeon has to have the bill passed in the Scottish Parliament and will only manage due to that wee creepy bastard Harvie and his cohorts. She then has to get permission from the UK Government to hold such another 'once in a generation' referendum. I'd laugh my fucking head off if May said...Get it right fucking up ye......

I know she'll do things by the book and that ratification is needed, but tbh why should she? Westminster has never listened to us so why should we listen to them?

 

[SALTIRE]

So, the fishwife wants independence from the UK so that Scotland can bend over for Brussels.

I lived in Ireland for 10 years and saw how they treated a smaller member. The fuckers have thrown Spanish and Greek youth into a lifetime of financial struggle.

Good luck with that, Scotland.

Lol comparing poorly run countries to us is irrelevant.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

The SNP said they'd abide by the result of the referendum and that it was a once in a generation event. So no matter what the political events in the immediate aftermath, the claim that decisions taken at UK level are reason enough for another independence referendum less than 5 years after the first doesn't really hold water.

No one here wants this referendum less than me, but I must grudgingly disagree here.

The SNP made a (politically sensible) U-turn on the whole “once in a generation” thing not long after the first referendum. Since late 2014 or early 2015, the position has been that they’d push for a second referendum if there was a significant change in circumstances. When asked for an example, they suggested Britain leaving the EU. I can’t date this exactly but it was prior to the last Scottish election. Then Brexit happened.

So there is a decent democratic argument there. They have their significant change. I know, I know… their rhetoric and ideology here is deeply confused. Their belief in national self-determination is incompatible with love of the EU. Their professed concerns about economic stability and responsible government is impossible to reconcile with wanting this referendum to happen DURING the Brexit process. But a significant change is a significant change.

I think it has to happen and the best us Unionists can hope for is for the wretched thing to be delayed until after the Brexit negotiations are completed. If May is feeling brave, maybe insist that the SNP wins a majority in 2021 first.

 

[SALTIRE]

They lost last time because they were unable to put forward an economic plan that contained any detail, if you can't even confirm what your currency will be then you're struggling. This time that's even more up in the air. She's being an opportunistic rat bag. The only tactic she has at her disposal is ugly nationalism and implementing a them & us mentality which is easily undermined. The SNP are still unable to answer the key question marks about economy/EU/armed forces etc.

Sturgeon is one of the elite from a family of elites. She's desperate for the fame & glory and isn't interested in her country otherwise she'd be concentrating on fixinv the mess that is Scottish society.

I think May will tell em to get fucked but if it was granted it'd be a real opportunity for Labour to make up ground there. Losing two refs in a row would be political suicide surely. If Labour (& Tories) put up a prominent remain case it'd make the next election up there interesting.

Labour couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery these days and they are part of the problem. If they hadn't been in such a mess the UK would probably still be in the EU and they'd be far more relevant here also. Until they start too show progression and direction they'll continue to fall away and go the way of the Lib Dems.

 

[Indian Dan]

Lol comparing poorly run countries to us is irrelevant.

But that's the point. When you're on your own, saddled with the euro and Germany calling the shots you'll be screaming for the KY jelly.

 

[Leo]

I know she'll do things by the book and that ratification is needed, but tbh why should she? Westminster has never listened to us so why should we listen to them?

Simply because there is a legal route that has to be taken. Sturgeon (nor Salmond before her) does NOT speak for the entire Scottish population although listening to some SNP MP's/MSP's they would have anyone that will listen to them that they do.

 

[Alty]

No one here wants this referendum less than me, but I must grudgingly disagree here.

The SNP made a (politically sensible) U-turn on the whole “once in a generation” thing not long after the first referendum. Since late 2014 or early 2015, the position has been that they’d push for a second referendum if there was a significant change in circumstances. When asked for an example, they suggested Britain leaving the EU. I can’t date this exactly but it was prior to the last Scottish election. Then Brexit happened.

So there is a decent democratic argument there. They have their significant change. I know, I know… their rhetoric and ideology here is deeply confused. Their belief in national self-determination is incompatible with love of the EU. Their professed concerns about economic stability and responsible government is impossible to reconcile with wanting this referendum to happen DURING the Brexit process. But a significant change is a significant change.

I think it has to happen and the best us Unionists can hope for is for the wretched thing to be delayed until after the Brexit negotiations are completed. If May is feeling brave, maybe insist that the SNP wins a majority in 2021 first.

I know they concocted this "material change in circumstances" line, but I just don't think that passes muster. That referendum was fought by both sides on the basis of it settling the issue. You can't turn round a matter of months later and say "unless things change...then we'll have another go". Not if you want to maintain any credibility, anyway.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Settling it for how long? Forever? Obviously not. That would be tyrannical. Any "suitable period of time" figure proposed can be dismissed as arbitrary, so the "material change in circumstances" idea isn't entirely without merit. Utterly self-serving, of course, but not entirely stupid.

Besides, isn't there a general point of democratic principle here? If a majority in the Scottish parliament wants a referendum, why shouldn't Scotland get one? The only argument I can think of is that constitutional affairs are non-devolved, but that whole line of argument misunderstands the political dynamics here. It's playing into the SNP's hands, IMO.

 

[Abertawe]

Labour couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery these days and they are part of the problem. If they hadn't been in such a mess the UK would probably still be in the EU and they'd be far more relevant here also. Until they start too show progression and direction they'll continue to fall away and go the way of the Lib Dems.

That's just nonsense. Labour died off because the liberal element that controls the party weren't singing off the same hymm sheet as it's core support. The commitment to the EU was one of many reasons they were losing votes.

Can you further define what you mean by "if Labour hadn't been in such a mess the UK would still be in the EU"

It makes no sense to me. The only way Labour could've prevented brexit is if ed got elected and never granted a referendum which is a misnomer in itself because it lost due to ukip's vote share. Outside of the big metropolitan cities labour's support was unanimous in wanting out. Labour had been seeping support for years. That was the sole reason Corbyn became leader in the first place.

 

[Leo]

Besides, isn't there a general point of democratic principle here? If a majority in the Scottish parliament wants a referendum, why shouldn't Scotland get one? .

Personally I'd say No. Whether there is a (very small) majority in the Scottish Parliament (I take it you talking about MSP's here) or not, it should not be down to them to decide if a referendum should take place, it should be down to the electorate, the majority of whom, at the moment do not want one.

 

[Abertawe]

Settling it for how long? Forever? Obviously not. That would be tyrannical. Any "suitable period of time" figure proposed can be dismissed as arbitrary, so the "material change in circumstances" idea isn't entirely without merit. Utterly self-serving, of course, but not entirely stupid.

Besides, isn't there a general point of democratic principle here? If a majority in the Scottish parliament wants a referendum, why shouldn't Scotland get one? The only argument I can think of is that constitutional affairs are non-devolved, but that whole line of argument misunderstands the political dynamics here. It's playing into the SNP's hands, IMO.

It's the only hand they have which is why Sturgeon has rolled the dice imo. My belief is that ref 1 was committing themselves to the constitutional decisions of the UK as a whole. The argument that things are now different after brexit is technically correct but that's what they committed themselves to when they voted to remain. They chose to remain in full knowledge that the democratic decisions of the union as a whole could dictate things like brexit. I see the argument but I don't agree with it. Had they wanted compete autonomy they should've voted for it in the first place. You can't tie yourself to the UK and then turn around and say it's different now the UK has implemented a democratic option that was always a possibility before ref 1.

 

[Abertawe]

Personally I'd say No. Whether there is a (very small) majority in the Scottish Parliament (I take it you talking about MSP's here) or not, it should not be down to them to decide if a referendum should take place, it should be down to the electorate, the majority of whom, at the moment do not want one.

Quite correct. They're manipulating the issue for their own ends not for the good of their people.

Maybe we can have a referendum to decide whether there should be a referendum? That would be gangster.

 

[Leo]

All the immigrant scroungers could be moved to Scotland from England quite easily.

so vote leave

Get the fuck outta here.....

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

If there's one thing we need it's more referendums. Can you imagine a world without referendums?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

3. Scotland's referendum took place at a time when the electorate knew an EU referendum could be on the cards. That was (or should have been) a factor in how people voted. They chose to stay. So that's it for a generation. It's over. What happens in the EU referendum is irrelevant to the Scottish independence question. They're a fully integrated part of the U.K. and Sturgeon can fuck off if she thinks she's getting another bite at the cherry.

I really, really don't think that's going to happen. As of the last poll I saw on the issue most Scots didn't even want another referendum in the event of a Leave vote, much less support independence. With the time between now and when we actually leave, there'll be plenty of time for SNP bluster to calm down and plenty of justification for Westminster to deny their referendum anyway. The first one was only granted based on the agreement that it was a once in a generation thing after all.

Wonder what else Brexiteers have failed to foresee...

 

[SALTIRE]

That's just nonsense. Labour died off because the liberal element that controls the party weren't singing off the same hymm sheet as it's core support. The commitment to the EU was one of many reasons they were losing votes.

Can you further define what you mean by "if Labour hadn't been in such a mess the UK would still be in the EU"

It makes no sense to me. The only way Labour could've prevented brexit is if ed got elected and never granted a referendum which is a misnomer in itself because it lost due to ukip's vote share. Outside of the big metropolitan cities labour's support was unanimous in wanting out. Labour had been seeping support for years. That was the sole reason Corbyn became leader in the first place.

Labour has been directionless for years now, and voting for Ed Miliband ahead of his brother was a colossal mistake, and one they are paying for now. Had David Miliband been elected they'd have gained a lot more support up and down the country. The Union's (which I'm all for btw) screwed the party as they've done now by Corbyn's continued support.

 

[SALTIRE]

But that's the point. When you're on your own, saddled with the euro and Germany calling the shots you'll be screaming for the KY jelly.

Lol proper doom-monger are you, you were probably one of those holding the placards up behind Farage last year.

Simply because there is a legal route that has to be taken. Sturgeon (nor Salmond before her) does NOT speak for the entire Scottish population although listening to some SNP MP's/MSP's they would have anyone that will listen to them that they do.

Indeed and I said I knew that, but the fact remains, we've never had a real voice down there when the Tories are in power, and even when Labour was in under Blair and co. The whole system needs freshening up, including the way politics is run down there; it's the 21st Century ffs, not the 19th.

 

[Alty]

Wonder what else Brexiteers have failed to foresee...

TBF we haven't been proved wrong yet. There's not much appetite for the referendum and the PM hasn't yet granted it.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Wonder what else Brexiteers have failed to foresee...

Has another referendum been announced?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Personally I'd say No. Whether there is a (very small) majority in the Scottish Parliament (I take it you talking about MSP's here) or not, it should not be down to them to decide if a referendum should take place, it should be down to the electorate, the majority of whom, at the moment do not want one.

That small majority of MSPs (SNP + Green) were democratically elected. Does that not suffice? If not, why not?

How else does the electorate signal its desire to have a referendum? Abertawe’s “referendum on whether to have a referendum” idea? Reliance on polling techniques that everyone knows can be very unreliable? Not sure what you have in mind here.

My belief is that ref 1 was committing themselves to the constitutional decisions of the UK as a whole. The argument that things are now different after brexit is technically correct but that's what they committed themselves to when they voted to remain. They chose to remain in full knowledge that the democratic decisions of the union as a whole could dictate things like brexit. Had they wanted compete autonomy they should've voted for it in the first place. You can't tie yourself to the UK and then turn around and say it's different now the UK has implemented a democratic option that was always a possibility before ref 1.

Imagine that Britain voted Remain in last year’s EU referendum. Then imagine the next EU treaty, unveiled 2-3 year later, is an uber-federalist’s wet dream and includes all sorts of alarming changes, so many that it swings public opinion firmly against continued EU membership. Then imagine arguing for another referendum and being told by some EUphile bellend like Nick Clegg or Peter Mandelson that it’s out of the question because there was a referendum 2-3 years ago and the country voted to stay in. Would you just accept that?

The world is a very dynamic and unpredictable place. Politics needs to be able to adapt to the changes. No one here, I imagine, thinks a referendum decides a matter ad infinitum. So how long should there be between referendums? How long is a piece of string? I spoke to a Unionist friend today who argued there should be at least 20 years between referendums. I asked him to justify that and it quickly became clear he’d just pulled the figure out of his arse. There was no rationale there, no democratic principle, no understanding of the flexibility required in modern politics. Just the dishonest arbitrariness of someone desperate to avoid a contest they fear losing

Scotland has elected a separatist government in the last three elections. There’s a majority in the Scottish parliament in favour of a second referendum. The SNP said it would push for a second referendum if there was a significant change in circumstances. Brexit has given them it. I honestly don’t think there a good democratic reason for denying it. I can think of many sensible arguments for not granting one during the course of this parliament, but those are pragmatic/managerial arguments, not arguments of democratic principle.

Again, I think ruling it out completely is playing into the SNP’s hands

 

[Benji]

Let's all leave. It's a failed experiment.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

TBF we haven't been proved wrong yet. There's not much appetite for the referendum and the PM hasn't yet granted it.

Has another referendum been announced?

Yeah, but it wouldn't be much fun if I had to wait an indeterminate amount of time for people to get their shit together in order to do a bit of pointless internet taunting. Face it ladz, Scotcheggsit's happening

 

[Luc@]

So you can leave Europe, but Scotland can't leave you?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So you can leave Europe, but Scotland can't leave you?

Of course they can. They had a great opportunity to at that independence referendum thingy.