by Simon 109 Replies latest jw friends
One step at a time - exactly, SBF, exactly.
First Brexit must be started and completed. The whole of the UK must leave the EU.
Then, and only then, Sturgeon gets to hold her second IndyRef.
If she loses a second time, will you and Sturgeon accept it? (serious question)
"If she loses a second time, will you and Sturgeon accept it?"
Ha! Maybe for a week or two.
After that 'democracy' (or more correctly... the right to dismiss the democratic vote because it doesn't fit their political agenda) will be administered.
If she loses a second time, will you and Sturgeon accept it.
That misunderstands how this works. Sturgeon and other supporters of independence will always support independence and argue in favour of it. It is not up to Sturgeon to decide when there should be a referendum or if we should be independent.
It is up to voters to decide when, if ever, another referendum should take place. If they want another referendum they can vote for parties that support another referendum. If they don’t want a referendum they can vote for parties that oppose a referendum. And whether a referendum ever takes place again will depend on who wins that arguement and who wins the election.
In fact it’s not enough just to win the election. The SNP won the 2007 election but did not get a referendum, because they didn’t have a majority in Parliament. It was only when they won an outright majority in 2011 (amazing achievement in a proportional system) in 2011 that they got a referendum.
At the moment there is a majority in the Scottish Parliament for a new referendum because SNP plus Greens supporting it make a majority. That is why it is antidemocratic to stop a referendum. It’s against basic democratic principles for the losing party to dictate what happens to the winning party. The Tories told people to vote for them to stop a referendum, and instead they lost half their seats. Next time why not just be honest and tell voters, “we don’t care how you vote, either way you’re not getting a referendum”. If that’s their true position.
In Quebec they had two referendums on sovereignty and so far the people of Quebec have not wanted another referendum. If they ever want another referendum they should be allowed to have it, but there doesn’t seem to be support for it.
My guess is that if the SNP lost a second referendum they would not get support for a third referendum. Either they would not propose one again for a long time, or if they did, people would not vote for them. The reason the SNP won this election is because people in Scotland support the EU, do not feel represented by the Tories, and believe a new referendum is warranted due to changed circumstances.
The idea of a third referendum is questionable anyway, because I am sure Scotland will vote for independence at the next opportunity. The more the Tories who lost in Scotland disrespect the result of the election, the more certain this outcome becomes. I think attention is best turned to how we make this happen nd cooperate, because like a united Ireland, it is coming sooner or later. Probably sooner, rather than later.
Sturgeon and other supporters of independence will always support independence and argue in favour of it - but if she loses two IndyRefs in a row, it's game over ... surely ...
If she loses a second time, will you and Sturgeon accept it
That misunderstands how this works - but a second defeat - two in a row - must end Sturgeon's dreams of independence, at least for a generation or two. The only other way is to keep re-running the referendum until the 'correct' answer is given. And that isn't democracy.
Sturgeon hasn't really accepted or respected the first IndyRef result.
The idea of a third referendum is questionable anyway, because I am sure Scotland will vote for independence at the next opportunity - this is probably what Sturgeon thinks, too ... like she thought Scotland would vote leave in the first IndyRef.
But back to what isn't being considered: if Scotland votes Remain in the UK again, any reasonable person would throw in the towel.
("The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein, I think.)
In Quebec they had two referendums on sovereignty and so far the people of Quebec have not wanted another referendum. If they ever want another referendum they should be allowed to have it, but there doesn’t seem to be support for it - I think the most important thing for the people of Quebec is to honour the results of the previous referendums.
^^^ Something in there for you and Sturgeon to learn, I think ...
It is up to voters to decide when, if ever, another referendum should take place - you keep persisting in this fantasy. And as long as you do, I'll keep correcting you: it's up to Boris Johnson, as PM of the UK, when to allow a 2nd IndyRef for Scotland.
You keep forgetting that you, SBF, are a UK citizen. And Boris is UK PM. Therefore, Boris Johnson is your Prime Minister, whether you like it or not.
Edit: and here's another thing to consider - suppose Leave wins IndyRef 2 and Sturgeon is obviously pleased with the result. Does it become best of three, i.e. should there be a decider? Or does Sturgeon say 'I've got the result I always wanted - that's it'?
At the moment there is a majority in the Scottish Parliament for a new referendum because SNP plus Greens supporting it make a majority.
Irrelevant...its people not seats that count. More people voted for pro-union parties.
If there were two parties, pro-union and pro-indy which is the SNP the SNP would have won ten seats last Thursday. An indy vote is two choices just like above.
It is up to voters to decide when, if ever, another referendum should take place. If they want another referendum they can vote for parties that support another referendum.
We decided and indicated that last Thursday where the majority voted pro-union?
because I am sure Scotland will vote for independence at the next opportunity.
What do you base that on??? 44% in the latest survey poll and last Thursday results showed 56% voted for pro-union AND of the 45% that voted SNP 25% of those votes were tactical.
SBF, I thought you were different but man you talk the same as every SNP and Nat...you ignore facts and carry on with the quest for independence.
Do you really want it? Because I know how to win voters. If she tells the UK and Scotland via a credible report (not a once upon a time we will live off oil) just HOW Scotland will run financially and fill the ten billion pound black hole when we leave the UK by NOT cutting public spending by huge austerity measures and NOT raising taxes WHILST spending money on infrastructure to support an independent nation like currency, regulation bodies, foreign office, defence etc that then all goes to make Scotland greater than when they were in the Union then it will win.
There is a reason why she and the SNP have never answered this. You HAVE read the SNP's Growth Commission Report in 2018 that details decades of measures to bring the deficit down so we can apply back into the EU?
Heck I saw a SNP MP being asked this very question a couple of weeks ago on the TV and the answer he gave was "to make Scotland a better place to live so people move in and we tax them."...ten...billion...pounds worth?
If the SNP want independence then they need to show how it can be done and start dramatically improving their use of the powers they got from devolution in 2007 because they are horrendous. Some public sectors are still not devolved and we are near 13 years on yet she promises Scotland can leave the UK in 18 months.
Cognitive Dissonance if I have ever seen it.
but if she loses two IndyRefs in a row, it's game over ... surely ...
Most likely, I would say so. But ultimately it’s up to the electorate to decide. It’s not up to you, or me, or Sturgeon, or whoever. It’s up to voters. If Scottish people want another referendum in ten years, that’s democracy. If they don’t want another referendum for another hundred years—or more—again, that’s democracy. It’s up to politicians to make the argument for their position, and it’s up to the electorate who they vote for.
The Tories seem to think that, having argued against a referendum, and lost the election in Scotland, their policy should prevail anyway. That’s pure contempt for democracy. Their next manifesto should say: we don’t give a damn how you vote, we’ll decide what happen in Scotland regardless.
As I say, all this is hypothetical because Scotland is going to vote for independence at the next referendum. Unionists know this as well—that’s why they are so desperate to avoid having one.
If Scottish people want another referendum in ten years, that’s democracy. If they don’t want another referendum for another hundred years—or more—again, that’s democracy. It’s up to politicians to make the argument for their position, and it’s up to the electorate who they vote for - what you don't mention, in fact what you never mention, is the following three points ...
1. The Scottish electorate doesn't exist in a vacuum. They can't just decide exactly when to have a second referendum. For starters, the UK must complete its leaving of the EU before anything is even considered.
2. The result of the first IndyRef must be respected. Sturgeon clamouring already for a second isn't respecting the first result and therefore isn't democracy.
3. This point's kinda related to the first and second points: Scottish citizens are also UK citizens. You and Sturgeon continue to think and speak as if Scotland is already an independent country. It's not. Sturgeon said the recent Tory victory was a victory for England. This is very sneaky of her. For starters, the Tories aren't an English party - Tory seats won in Wales and Scotland helped put Boris Johnson back in power. The SNP are a nationalist party, however. Less than 1.3 million Scots voted for them in the recent GE. Really, they and their supporters should have little if any influence re a second IndyRef.
Edit: The Tories seem to think that, having argued against a referendum, and lost the election in Scotland, their policy should prevail anyway. That’s pure contempt for democracy. Their next manifesto should say: we don’t give a damn how you vote, we’ll decide what happen in Scotland regardless - hahaha! The projection from you and the SNP is priceless.
As I say, all this is hypothetical because Scotland is going to vote for independence at the next referendum. Unionists know this as well—that’s why they are so desperate to avoid having one.
Astonishing statement given facts suggest the opposite...you seem very convinced despite voting results and survey pools slim.
SBF - "Their next manifesto should say: we don’t give a damn how you vote, we’ll decide what happen in Scotland regardless."
Never has a statement been as self applicable...
1. The Scottish electorate doesn't exist in a vacuum. They can't just decide exactly when to have a second referendum. For starters, the UK must complete its leaving of the EU before anything is even considered.
I actually think that’s the best argument against repeated referendums. It’s not fair on the rest of the UK to keep going at this repeatedly. I sympathise with that point of view. It’s strange unionists don’t use this argument more often because it’s better than weak arguments that try to downplay massive landslide victories in Scotland by the SNP.
That having been said, although it would be unfair on the rest of the UK for Scotland to have repeated referendums, I think our friends south of the border should allow us a little patience this once, and we would be grateful if they could try to see it from our perspective. It is true that Scotland said no to independence in 2014, but at the time we understood that to be part of a United Kingdom inside the European Union. You might think that leaving the EU shouldn’t change things, and in fact many Scots would agree with you and they would still vote against independence. But the fact is that there are many Scots who think it is a big enough change in the settlement that we should revisit the question of independence in a new referendum. Some parties supported a new referendum (SNP and Greens) and other parties opposed a new referendum (Labour, Conservstives, Lib Dems). As a result of the last election to the Scottish Parliament the SNP are the biggest party and, with the support of the Greens, there is a majority in the Parliament for a new referendum. Remember Sturgeon is not arguing that she should,be able to decide when there should be a new referendum, she is arguing that the Scottish Parliament should make that decision. Which is the democratic way to proceed. So the will of the Scottish people, as expressed in our parliament, is that there should be another referendum. If Westminster refuses, they are not defying the SNP or Sturgeon, but they are denying the democratic will of the Parliament elected by Scots in 2016. A second referendum is probably going to decide the matter for a long time to come, perhaps even for good. Firstly because independence is the likely outcome, and secondly I don’t think there would be support for another referendum if it lost. But ultimately it would be for people to decide in future elections what they want to happen. It’s also possible that some Scots would argue to rejoin the UK after we leave, although I doubt that would gain much traction in the long run.m
2. The result of the first IndyRef must be respected. Sturgeon clamouring already for a second isn't respecting the first result and therefore isn't democracy.
The only reason the question of a second referendum is on the agenda is becuase Scots voted for a parliament that is in favour of a new referendum. Unionist parties argued against a new referendum but they lost the election and they are a minority in Parliament. Tories seem to think that losing elections should be no barrier to them getting their way, but most fair minded Scots disagree. Labour politicians are now beginning to say another referendum is required, because they recognise that even if they don’t support independence, Scottish people have a right to have their say.
3. This point's kinda related to the first and second points: Scottish citizens are also UK citizens. You and Sturgeon continue to think and speak as if Scotland is already an independent country. It's not. Sturgeon said the recent Tory victory was a victory for England. This is very sneaky of her. For starters, the Tories aren't an English party - Tory seats won in Wales and Scotland helped put Boris Johnson back in power. The SNP are a nationalist party, however. Less than 1.3 million Scots voted for them in the recent GE. Really, they and their supporters should have little if any influence re a second IndyRef.
It has always been the position of UK governments that Scotland can become independent if it wants to. Even Margaret Thatcher said it was up to Scots and she would not stand in the way. That seems fair. It’s not for a larger country to vote to keep a smaller country under its power against its will.
notsurewheretogo
I am confident Scotland will choose independence next time, because I think many people only voted no at the last minute, and reluctantly, last time round. Some were persuaded by the last minute “vow” which promised to respect Scotland as equals. Since then Scotland has been taken out of the EU against its will.
More than that, historians and political scientists such as Norman Davies and Peter Hennessy have argued that independence seems inevitable in historical perspective. I don’t think anything is inevitable in history as such, because events can always change course, but Scottish independence seems to be where we are headed. Norman Davies predicted in the 1990s already that Scots would reject independence at the first referendum and support it in the second. That does seem to be how it is going to play out. I think the attitude of many Scots last time wasn’t “no forever” but rather, “not just now”, or “maybe next time”. In a second referendum there won’t be that luxury. Most Scots will appreciate this is our last chance to take independence for a very long time, and will choose to take it.
Plus we started the last referendum campaign with as little as 30% support for independence, but ended with a result of 45% in favour. The latest poll on independence showed 49% support, and that’s before the campaign has even begun.
Unionists are desperate to avoid another referendum because then know they will lose it. Kezia Dugdale said this on the results programme: David Cameron wanted to hold the referendum because he thought he would win it, and Boris Johnson will avoid it at all costs because he thinks he will lose. I think it’s true. The only real strategy for unionists to avoid losing the next referendum is to prevent it from happening. They will do their best, but you can’t deny democracy forever. If Scots want another referendum they will get one sooner or later. The longer they are made to wait, the more emphatic the result is likely to be.
