If your wife says so on the basis of what she read on the papers then I'm certainly not arguing. I wouldn't argue with my own wife so I'm definitely not arguing with yours 😂
Not sure what you are getting at with manifestos though.
I’m not sure referenda are the best approach to any decision, but whoever gets a mandate being able to deliver their manifesto, that would need to be stated beforehand imho.
can leave it up to the scottish parliament if you like. but we'd already be independent.
I could agree to something like 60% of seats is required to trigger the capability mind.
I'd be all for that. tbh I don't particularly agree the ref is the best way to go about about it either.
can leave it up to the scottish parliament if you like. but we’d already be independent.
I’d be in agreement with that, although you’d risk independence with potentially a small percentage of people desiring it. However, you cannot argue we’d already be independent. Not everyone who voted SNP wants independence, but then I don’t need to tell you that really.
If your wife says so on the basis of what she read on the papers then I’m certainly not arguing. I wouldn’t argue with my own wife so I’m definitely not arguing with yours 😂
Phew, I’d be in enough trouble if she even knew I was quoting her ; )
I did acknowledge that it wasn’t the strongest evidence, perhaps a tad better than “me and my mate” though.
With regards to the acrimony though, I guess if you get what you want it’s a small price to pay. But, I could tell you of similar friendships that have argued but not fallen out over Brexit; but I’d again argue that was acrimonious (for me the Scottish referendum more so).
Has anyone, on either side of the debate, had their views changed by what they have read on this thread? Just this thread, not anything else.
My own views haven't changed (though maybe modified), but there have been a fair few things posted that have made me think.
A lighthearted, but genuine, question.
I’m a bit hazy on this, but I think the main Indyref1 thread lead to a chain of events that changed my mind.
kennyp
Has anyone, on either side of the debate, had their views changed by what they have read on this thread? Just this thread, not anything else.
It hasn't changed what I think is best for Scotland, but it's instructive to hear other opinions.
I have certainly learnt stuff from reading the indy threads and discovered attitudes I knew must exist but had never actually encountered.
ON arimony. during the last ref campaign I personally saw none at all bar one good pal of mine who is a unionist tory! We had a it of a row then agreed that politics was off the table
Remember I have a very english name and accent and I have experienced anti english racism in the past. Not a peep of anti englishness did I hear and the only nastyness I saw was on TV and all from unionists. Like the NI unionist Councillor shipped in who was done for assault, like those numpties ( rangers fan?) in George square.
My parents campaigned for NO. One day as they were heading off into the town centre they met someone else obviously heading off to campaign. they had a bit of a chit chat, found out which side the other was on ( he was Yes, my folks no) wished each other luck and got on with their day. IME this sort of transaction was far more typical.
The press and labour hyped up anything they could to the point they were publicly rebuked by the chief constable for ridiculous statements they were making attempting to stir up trouble
Not a peep of anti englishness did I hear and the only nastyness I saw was on TV and all from unionists.
You were obviously watching CBBC
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-salmond-pans-intimidation-1-3526440
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-media-intimidation-bbc
A bit of bawbaggery on either side proves nothing. Neither should it have any bearing on whether there should be another ref.
So no idea what points youse are trying to make, that one side is more virtuous than the other? meh, nonsense from both sides on this, and brings nothing to the discussion.
Big and daft
I personally saw none at all
I had lots of debate with lots of people in many different situations and not just in an echo chamber. Remember my English accent and name.
Not whats hyped up in the press by labour politicians. My experience.
Not whats hyped up in the press by labour politicians. My experience.
NUJ lying then?
As for the bit I quoted re what was on TV, I assume you are a cbeebies or CBBC fan, otherwise you might be misleading in your statements about what you viewed at the time on the telly.
big_n_daft
NUJ lying then?
More likely than TJ lying.
These days they print what their employers want, and seeing as they are mainly non-dom billionaires, what we want isn't likely to be what they want.
big and daft - what prosecutions for violence or intimidation were made?
I witnessed more anti Scottish sentiments in the workplace in England than anti English sentiments in Scotland in the last 10 years in or out of the workplace.
It is there, but is mostly brought up as a diversionary or mud slinging tactic. As appears to be the case in this thread.
Ive changed my mind.
I was a firm yes first time round.
This time its conditional. On what nick Britain is in at the time, what the proposals are and I want a confirmatory referendum based on knowing future relationship with UK and EU.
More likely than TJ lying.
These days they print what their employers want, and seeing as they are mainly non-dom billionaires, what we want isn’t likely to be what they want.
OK, we now know the basis that Indyref2 will be run by
big and daft – what prosecutions for violence or intimidation were made?
Neither you nor COPFS know
The politics of a union aren't as simple as independent countries though.
Scotland clearly voted for the Union and the complications that brings.
Westminster have a role in this which was given by the people of Scotland.
This is what gets ignored by pro indy fans, Scotland knew that voting for the Union would bring conservative governments and a potential veto and etc etc, Westminster was included in Scotland's politics by the majority of Scottish people.
I don't think indy campaigners accept this part of the 2014 ref.
I think that unionists refuse to accept how democracy works.
They are quick to point the finger at the Scottish government. The SNP did not write their manifesto after the vote. Your disagreement is not with the Scottish government, it is with the Scottish people.
What we can tell from this election:
26% voted for pro-Union, anti-EU parties
45% voted for anti-Union, pro-EU parties
10% voted for pro-Union, pro-EU parties
19% voted for whatever Labour was offering
What we have no way of knowing is what the people who voted for pro-Union pro-EU parties value higher. A referendum is the only way to find out.
BruceWee
Member
I think that unionists refuse to accept how democracy works.
Technically it's us Independistas that don't know how democracy works. 😆
ie. It's governed by the law of that land, and technically that law gives one side a veto.
So the only route to a 2nd ref is to politically try and force it though with political pressure and games.
Which is a perfectly valid way of going about things, political manoeuvring is how Salmond got it though in 2014.
The point that Kenny makes about needing 50% of parties to even have the right to call for a referendum is nonsense btw, that's definitely not how democracy works.
exsee
Member
The politics of a union aren’t as simple as independent countries though.Scotland clearly voted for the Union and the complications that brings.
Westminster have a role in this which was given by the people of Scotland.This is what gets ignored by pro indy fans, Scotland knew that voting for the Union would bring conservative governments and a potential veto and etc etc, Westminster was included in Scotland’s politics by the majority of Scottish people.
I don’t think indy campaigners accept this part of the 2014 ref.
No argument from me, Scotland did vote for the union and was majority unionist, possibly still is.
That vote doesn't tie us to that opinion forever though.
It's obvious it's going to get asked again at some point.
The point that Kenny makes about needing 50% of parties to even have the right to call for a referendum is nonsense btw, that’s definitely not how democracy works.
I'm still in favour of the Thatcher option, btw.
If Westminster continually blocks the referendum I think the SNP's only option is to resign en-masse (it would be nice if Labour and the Lib-dems joined but let's face it, that ain't happening) and call 48 by-elections with a single sentence manifesto.
'If the SNP has the majority of MPs after these by-elections Scotland declares independence.'
BruceWee
If Westminster continually blocks the referendum I think the SNP’s only option is to resign en-masse (it would be nice if Labour and the Lib-dems joined but let’s face it, that ain’t happening) and call 48 by-elections with a single sentence manifesto.
You meaning UDI basically? A clusterf waiting to happen, a route to becoming a pariah state
Something I don't support, nor would I vote for.
If that went ahead there's really only 2 outcomes, get the guns out, or tell the leaders to get comfy in their cells.
It's straight up sedition.
Might have half a chance if support was at 95%, but it's not and never will be.
It's either that or watch the SNP doing their Oliver Twist act until 2021.
Then we can watch them continue to do the same thing but now with added 'mandate'.
If there are other ideas about how to deal with Westminster simply saying 'No' for the next five years (or even longer since there's no sign of them going anywhere until the 2030s) I'd like to hear them.
Are you ready to man the barricades? 😆 I'm not. You and Epicyclo can be bunker buddies I guess though. 😆 😉
There are no other ideas, unless there's some hidden jiggerry pokery to be done through the courts regarding dissolving the union, but that's fanciful and highly unlikely tbh.
There is only the political route. And the only next step there, in the face of tory intransigence, is to dominate the Scottish parliament and hope that they bow under pressure.
If that doesn't work, bed in, cause it's simply a waiting game till there's a pliable government in Westminster.
If the SNP spend the next ten years complaining about their mandate being ignored and impotently voting against whatever fresh hell the Tories see fit to impose on the country while quietly collecting their salaries then I will be bitterly disappointed.
I don't think I'll be the only one.
We'll see what happens after the 2021 elections.
tbh, I think it'll all be decided on the polls, if they shift significantly in favour, it'll be difficult to ignore.
If they don't shift. It'll be easy to ignore and the SNP will need to go quiet for a bit i'd think and wait for the demographics to change.
So keep an eye on the polling.
I don't know, I think if there is a shift in the polls then we'll really see a doubling down on the 'you don't have a mandate but of course we have a mandate' rhetoric from Johnson and co.
On the other hand, if the polling doesn't shift, I think the SNP will be quite happy to complain about their mandate being ignored for the next ten years. The danger with that is that it leaves the door open for a more radical independence party to emerge.
If the polling doesn't shift significantly in the next 2/3 years then I think they should shut up for a bit.
I don't see any space for a radical party to emerge, there's just no support for that. The radical independence movement disappeared into nothing and had fringe support at best. The SSP were the last incarnation of a radical party and they imploded in the mid 2000s. (They'd loads of involvement in the radical independence thing.) So there's space for a fringe leftist party, but they'll only ever top out at 5 or 6 to 10 seats. And tbh greens have basically hoovered up that space.
The Scottish people won't vote for overly radical parties.
More likely to end up with a minority Tory or Labour gov in 2026 if SNP support falls tbh.
But for the 2021 elections, will be interesting if labour come out and support a ref, albeit still being on the unionist side no doubt.
A more radical party isn't something I would rule out. It feels like there's a shift in feeling. The SNP has been in power for longer than any party in a fully functioning democracy should have been.
Assuming all those frustrated pro-indy supporters don't decide to go back to Labour then the SNP should be wary.
The SNP has been in power for longer than any party in a fully functioning democracy should have been.
I kind of agree, but the problem is who is the alternative? The largest chunk of the electorate in Scotland want a left leaning government who will push for Indy / Scotland's rights.
The SNP is the only game in town. I think the only realistic alternative is a revitalised Labour party with a strong position in favour of some sort of real constitutional change.
Interesting developments in Scottish labour:
Scottish Labour is considering backing a second independence referendum in a dramatic reversal of policy by the party leader, Richard Leonard.
Party sources have told the Guardian that Leonard will raise that possibility at Labour’s Scottish executive committee on Saturday, where it could also discuss demands for it to split formally from the UK Labour party.
Leonard told his shadow cabinet on Monday he wanted to hold a special conference in May to decide Scottish Labour’s position on a fresh independence referendum, where he would present proposals for Labour to back a federal UK.
Sources close to Leonard said he would consider asking for a pro-federal option to be included in a multi-option referendum on independence. “Labour would be more willing to consider supporting a second referendum if it was multi-option,” one source said.
About time. This can be the only way forward for labour in Scotland. Its needs to be a separate entity or at least an arms length distance from London labour - as every other party in Scotland is. Developing a policy of a radical federal solution might well gain the m some votes and is an option I would really like looked at. There are issues with federalism simply because of the disparity in populations of the 4 components of the UK and a mechanism to ensure England does not totally dominate would be needed but no one has looked at this idea in depth.
“Agreed. I campaigned on a promise to vote against indyref2, but I lost. The SNP made massive gains on a promise to hold another referendum and, as democrats, we must accept it even if we don’t like it.”
quotes from the Grauniad
I can't see how a true federal system will ever work in the UK. It's a red herring hung out by Labour as another distraction, especially as they might never be in a position to deliver it.
And the core issue remains: Westminster will never give up the right to legislate for the UK as whole and will retain the power to do so, over-riding any devolved governments when they desire.
Scotroutes - you may well be right but to me its something worth looking at. You second point would need addressing. With 4 national parliaments of equal power and a UK wide "senate" that acts under instruction from the national parliaments this could no longer happen.
As far as I am aware no one has ever really looked at this in any detail. I agree it looks difficult.
Its become so obvious that real constitutional reform is needed in a range of areas. Holyrood works fine but westminster is dysfunctional and the ability of westminster to frustrate Holyrrod is wrong
Federalism would be my favoured solution I think - but only if it can be made workable. It may not be possible.
There are issues with federalism simply because of the disparity in populations of the 4 components of the UK and a mechanism to ensure England does not totally dominate would be needed but no one has looked at this idea in depth.
The USA attempts to address it. In the upper house each state gets two representatives regardless.
Another "vow".
Fool me once, etc etc etc
Why would folk in England ever vote to give up their veto? What argument would you use to persuade them?
scotroutes
Member
Another “vow”.
In fairness to the vow, they did basically deliver on it far as I can make out.
Scotland got new powers, and the barnet formula is still there, at the minute.
Question on federalism, is how much different does it look for what is currently there at the minute?
It's basically the same situation surely? ie Scotland controls a certain amount, then there's a load of federal reserved stuff.
What more does federalism bring? Can't really say I know much about how it works in other countries? What extra powers do federal states in other countries have that Scotland doesn't have at the minute?
tbh, I'm not particularly against it, i just don't see it as much more than another step further away from Westminster.
In the sort of setup I envisage the national parliaments do everything bar defense, diplomacy and macro economics. The "senate" would be the tool of the national parliaments to deal with those few issues and to sort out disputes between national parliaments
The senators would be delegates from the national parliaments ie they would be doing what the national parliaments want them to do. It would be a coordinating and recommending chamber.
As for the "vow". Not implemented at all in anyway - indeed since the first indy ref there has been repeated attempts to reduce the powers of holyrood. Certainly no move forward on the stuff in the vow.
everything bar defense, diplomacy and macro economics
Defence? Great example.
Trident?
If the national parliaments wanted to do away with trident they would have the power to do so
Remember in what I envisage the national parliaments would be above the senate. so if the Welsh, the NI and the Scots parliament wanted to do away with trident then its gone. the english would no longer be able to override the wishes of the scots parliament
AS I said - its maybe pie in the sky and unworkable. But as far as I am aware no one ha really looked at this
constitutional convention to sort it oot
As for the “vow”. Not implemented at all in anyway – indeed since the first indy ref there has been repeated attempts to reduce the powers of holyrood. Certainly no move forward on the stuff in the vow.
the vow was vague as can be, they've satisfied that vagueness imo. Scotland did get more taxation powers for example.
tjagain
Member
In the sort of setup I envisage the national parliaments do everything bar defense, diplomacy and macro economics. The “senate” would be the tool of the national parliaments to deal with those few issues and to sort out disputes between national parliamentsThe senators would be delegates from the national parliaments ie they would be doing what the national parliaments want them to do. It would be a coordinating and recommending chamber.
Struggling to see the point in that tbh. You are basically just tying into Englands foreign and economic policy. Which is kinda self defeating if you've control of everything else and those things would clash.
tbh I suspect a federal solution would be a lot more limited than you envisage.
And here we are with a near 50% over-run on costs of some of the building projects that support the Trident programme... £1.3Bn over budget already and they've barely started on the expensive bits!
tjagain
Member
If the national parliaments wanted to do away with trident they would have the power to do soRemember in what I envisage the national parliaments would be above the senate. so if the Welsh, the NI and the Scots parliament wanted to do away with trident then its gone. the english would no longer be able to override the wishes of the scots parliament
What you are promoting there is that the minority can override the wishes of the majority, that's unsustainable. And a ridiculous solution tbh.
The UK is too imbalanced for a federal system, if england wanted to split, it might work but that's not going to happen.
In the current make up of 4 "nations" a federal solution is just a stepping stone to proper separation. The conflicts that would arise from the imbalance would basically guarantee it.
