Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The exodus of CON MPs continues – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • kinabalu said:

    pillsbury said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I'm afraid there's a degree of "taunting and trolling" on this one. Some posters who are viscerally anti Sindy and the SNP actually relish the idea that Scot Nats want Independence but can't get it. That they're trapped and all frustrated. Not all the ardent Unionists on PB are like this - fact it's a minority - but some are and I personally find it pretty easy to spot. @Leon @HYUFD are perhaps the most obvious but there's another half dozen or so to varying degrees. But anyway, all good, all grist to the mill.
    I am suspicious of any ardent Unionist who lives and originates from anywhere other than Scotland (or, to be generous, England North of Lancaster). From the home counties it is a faraway country of which we know little, and genuine ardency vs willingness to troll is not easy to understand.
    Indeed. Hey, you remind me of someone else. :smile:
    :smile:

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,635
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Absolutely. And Westminster can grant you a referendum whenever it wants
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    edited November 2022
    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.

    She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
    She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.

    A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.

    Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..

    Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
    Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    algarkirk said:

    Westminster should take the initiative re- the wording of any Referendum. No reason to leave it in the hands of the SNP or Holyrood.

    As a nation (nations?) we need to learn the lesson of the brexit vote. The outcomes MUST be better establised before the vote. The issues are pretty clear:
    1) Currency
    2) National debt
    3) Pensions
    4) Military
    5) Trade after the vote
    6) Citizens rights after the vote (rUK and Scottish)

    etc etc etc.

    No more nebulous YES/NO or IN/OUT.
    7) Free movement
    8) Border arrangements
    9) Right of abode
    Well I got bored at 6 and 7 and 9 are essentially 6. But yes, its a list that needs answers before a vote.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Yes, and that parliament is Westminster. And the Scots willingly joined in this arrangement with the Act of Union back in the 18th century

    Just because a constituent part of a country - state, province, nation in a union - has its own assembly does not mean that constituent party can simply legislate for a referendum then secede

    Utah can't do it
    Bavaria can't do it
    Wales can't do it
    Brittany can't do it
    The Basques can't do it

    And so on, and so forth
    They all should be able to.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Absolutely. And Westminster can grant you a referendum whenever it wants
    “You”? I’m English and I want the union to continue. Just not by force.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Absolutely. And Westminster can grant you a referendum whenever it wants
    “You”? I’m English and I want the union to continue. Just not by force.
    It's continuing by the decision of the Scottish people just eight years ago.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    edited November 2022
    kinabalu said:

    pillsbury said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    As noted below the Northern Ireland Act specifies 7 years between independence referendums, so stipulating *some* minimum doesn't appear ridiculous. Presumably that is shorter for Ireland which is liable to resort to extra statutory protests vs Scotland which is not.

    Which does raise the interesting question why there's an IRA but no SRA. No idea what the answer is.
    Yes, some deminimus maybe makes sense if you go that route. But nothing like 20 odd years.
    Oh, OK. So there CAN be a minimum time limit between referendums "encoded by law", even though you just said that was "plainly ridiculous"

    So you've accepted my point. In which case it is just a question of how long the time gap should be

    I'll help you out. It should be a generation, as we all agreed in 2014. 20-30 years


    "A generation refers to all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively.[1] It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–⁠30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    Driver said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Absolutely. And Westminster can grant you a referendum whenever it wants
    “You”? I’m English and I want the union to continue. Just not by force.
    It's continuing by the decision of the Scottish people just eight years ago.
    A people who have since returned a majority of MSPs who favour independence. You either believe in democracy and the right to self determination or you don’t.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Yes, and that parliament is Westminster. And the Scots willingly joined in this arrangement with the Act of Union back in the 18th century

    Just because a constituent part of a country - state, province, nation in a union - has its own assembly does not mean that constituent party can simply legislate for a referendum then secede

    Utah can't do it
    Bavaria can't do it
    Wales can't do it
    Brittany can't do it
    The Basques can't do it

    And so on, and so forth
    They all should be able to.
    Ah, you're a halfwit
  • biggles said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Yes, and that parliament is Westminster. And the Scots willingly joined in this arrangement with the Act of Union back in the 18th century

    Just because a constituent part of a country - state, province, nation in a union - has its own assembly does not mean that constituent party can simply legislate for a referendum then secede

    Utah can't do it
    Bavaria can't do it
    Wales can't do it
    Brittany can't do it
    The Basques can't do it

    And so on, and so forth
    They all should be able to.
    Which side of the American Civil War would you have supported?
  • biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I'm afraid there's a degree of "taunting and trolling" on this one. Some posters who are viscerally anti Sindy and the SNP actually relish the idea that Scot Nats want Independence but can't get it. That they're trapped and all frustrated. Not all the ardent Unionists on PB are like this - fact it's a minority - but some are and I personally find it pretty easy to spot. @Leon @HYUFD are perhaps the most obvious but there's another half dozen or so to varying degrees. But anyway, all good, all grist to the mill.
    You cannot run a union or a nation allowing separatists to try and break away every 5 minutes. Spain for example certainly doesn't, the US fought a civil war to stop separatism. Russia and China are even now going after former separatists from their nation.

    Even Canada did not allow Quebec separatists an independence referendum for 15 years after the first
    15 years is probably a reasonable period. It gives industry/finance a long enough time frame to make investment worthwhile. Shorter than that and the risk of a major and unpredictable upheaval in the tax base/employment laws/currency probably weigh heavily against making that investment.

  • Isn't the irony of the SNP position that the very reserved powers that they bemoan Westminster having are exactly the same powers that they would use to prevent Scottish regions from seceding from an independent Scotland. Or given the imperative of 'democracy' would such regions that, for instance, voted by majority to remain part of the UK be able to hold their own independence referendums every 5 or 10 years?

    Isn't it time to take the gloves off?

    Partition always works out great, yeah why not give it a go in Scotland.
    Although in the interests of fairness let's give London a shot at secession too.
    So perhaps we shouldn't partition Britain then when a large minority of Scots and a majority in various regions are not in favour?

    Or is it partition of Britain okay, partition of Scotland not okay?
    Britain is a multinational state, so there is a difference between constituent nations splitting off and those constituent nations themselves being split, don't you think?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    Ooo passion fruit curd! - a taste sensation. Transforms a slice of toast.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,306
    biggles said:

    Driver said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Absolutely. And Westminster can grant you a referendum whenever it wants
    “You”? I’m English and I want the union to continue. Just not by force.
    It's continuing by the decision of the Scottish people just eight years ago.
    A people who have since returned a majority of MSPs who favour independence. You either believe in democracy and the right to self determination or you don’t.
    Democracy and self-determination are separate issues.

    Rightly or wrongly, there's a growing international legal consensus that people who live in liberal democracies don't have the right to secede, because their being part of a democracy is sufficient to enable them to determine their futures.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.

    She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
    She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.

    A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.

    Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..

    Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
    Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
    You are coming across as a snide smart-arse. Unlike the people you are trying to belittle.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    Japan should be level.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,306
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Yes, and that parliament is Westminster. And the Scots willingly joined in this arrangement with the Act of Union back in the 18th century

    Just because a constituent part of a country - state, province, nation in a union - has its own assembly does not mean that constituent party can simply legislate for a referendum then secede

    Utah can't do it
    Bavaria can't do it
    Wales can't do it
    Brittany can't do it
    The Basques can't do it

    And so on, and so forth
    In the US, that point was settled in 1865.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I'm afraid there's a degree of "taunting and trolling" on this one. Some posters who are viscerally anti Sindy and the SNP actually relish the idea that Scot Nats want Independence but can't get it. That they're trapped and all frustrated. Not all the ardent Unionists on PB are like this - fact it's a minority - but some are and I personally find it pretty easy to spot. @Leon @HYUFD are perhaps the most obvious but there's another half dozen or so to varying degrees. But anyway, all good, all grist to the mill.
    It's interesting to see some folk demanding what is in effect a time limited constitutional amendment, also, when there is no such thing in even Westminster law - just what Parliament decided, and wants to decide right now. Effectively, Parliament is being expected to abrogate some of its future sovereignty.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    And now Japan are level!!
  • Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    I think there's other evidence for the HF tag..
  • biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    I think historically it has been very difficult for some English people to differentiate between England and the UK, in part because England is so dominant within the UK and our institutions tend to be British or Royal, rather than English. In other parts of the UK, in my experience anyway, there is a very clear understanding that the home nation and the wider state are two very distinct entities.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited November 2022

    Isn't the irony of the SNP position that the very reserved powers that they bemoan Westminster having are exactly the same powers that they would use to prevent Scottish regions from seceding from an independent Scotland. Or given the imperative of 'democracy' would such regions that, for instance, voted by majority to remain part of the UK be able to hold their own independence referendums every 5 or 10 years?

    Isn't it time to take the gloves off?

    Partition always works out great, yeah why not give it a go in Scotland.
    Although in the interests of fairness let's give London a shot at secession too.
    So perhaps we shouldn't partition Britain then when a large minority of Scots and a majority in various regions are not in favour?

    Or is it partition of Britain okay, partition of Scotland not okay?
    Britain is a multinational state, so there is a difference between constituent nations splitting off and those constituent nations themselves being split, don't you think?
    I would think so, but a simplistic argument around democracy and self determination, which is often employed, would not see a difference if consistently held - either people have the right or they do not, and if it is made more complicated, as it would in that situation, that means the simple case is not as simple as made out.

    It's like when people think the Falklands should just be given up on the basis it is nearer Argentina (even though being near to another country hardly means you must belong to it), when the Argentinian case for its inclusion is a bit more technical than that, including their view on former rights of Spain in the area.

    In reality I doubt rUK would want to open that door except as a stick to use in negotiations. And if any parts tried to argue independence not including either, the world would ignore it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    The UK already has a land border across the middle of the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    I think there's other evidence for the HF tag..
    I'll let this go because you are clearly hurting. No referendum until the 2030s now. Simply isn't going to happen

    Adjust yourself accordingly, or you will be miserable
  • Carnyx said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
    Ireland, all of it, is a foreign country.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    The UK already has a land border across the middle of the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
    Which is why I said "Great Britain"
  • Carnyx said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
    When I say atavistic I mean gut feeling, the This Sceptred Isle Johnnies who get confused about England v Britain and enjoy casting a proprietorial eye over the whole island. I'm afraid the Norns hardly get a look in.
    It's all about the feels not the thinks.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    pillsbury said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    As noted below the Northern Ireland Act specifies 7 years between independence referendums, so stipulating *some* minimum doesn't appear ridiculous. Presumably that is shorter for Ireland which is liable to resort to extra statutory protests vs Scotland which is not.

    Which does raise the interesting question why there's an IRA but no SRA. No idea what the answer is.
    Yes, some deminimus maybe makes sense if you go that route. But nothing like 20 odd years.
    Oh, OK. So there CAN be a minimum time limit between referendums "encoded by law", even though you just said that was "plainly ridiculous"

    So you've accepted my point. In which case it is just a question of how long the time gap should be

    I'll help you out. It should be a generation, as we all agreed in 2014. 20-30 years

    "A generation refers to all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively.[1] It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–⁠30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
    I thought we were "leaving it". But ok, to carry on then.

    If we were to go the route of an Article 50 equivalent you might put in a short minimum period between votes. What's not a goer is that this period should be 25/30 years. This is just a continuation of the "once a generation" nonsense that gets thrown up based on nothing but a phrase and a campaigning tactic from Salmond last time. He had to say it because otherwise people might think, "Ok, like the idea of Sindy but a bit nervous, so not now, wait till the next one comes along." Like I do with a bus if I have a fag to finish. He didn't want any of that going on. Couldn't afford that. It was to import a sense of gravitas to the exercise and maximize the Yes vote. Just bread and butter politics.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    Carnyx said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
    There is no logic - because there is no such fear.

    You really think there will be a huge bleed of talent across that border from south to north? Jobs will be rushing headlong to the Central Belt?

    I wish an indy Scotland well. But I suspect that with unfulfilled promise and a sense of disappointment, within 5 years the border will be seen within Scotland as a symbol of a failed project - as its brightest and best cross it into England to realise their potential.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125
    biggles said:

    Driver said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Absolutely. And Westminster can grant you a referendum whenever it wants
    “You”? I’m English and I want the union to continue. Just not by force.
    It's continuing by the decision of the Scottish people just eight years ago.
    A people who have since returned a majority of MSPs who favour independence. You either believe in democracy and the right to self determination or you don’t.
    An election is not a referendum. A vote for a party or an M(S)P cannot be taken as a specific endorsement of just one of their policies - that's why referendums exist.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    pillsbury said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    As noted below the Northern Ireland Act specifies 7 years between independence referendums, so stipulating *some* minimum doesn't appear ridiculous. Presumably that is shorter for Ireland which is liable to resort to extra statutory protests vs Scotland which is not.

    Which does raise the interesting question why there's an IRA but no SRA. No idea what the answer is.
    Yes, some deminimus maybe makes sense if you go that route. But nothing like 20 odd years.
    Oh, OK. So there CAN be a minimum time limit between referendums "encoded by law", even though you just said that was "plainly ridiculous"

    So you've accepted my point. In which case it is just a question of how long the time gap should be

    I'll help you out. It should be a generation, as we all agreed in 2014. 20-30 years

    "A generation refers to all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively.[1] It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–⁠30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
    I thought we were "leaving it". But ok, to carry on then.

    If we were to go the route of an Article 50 equivalent you might put in a short minimum period between votes. What's not a goer is that this period should be 25/30 years. This is just a continuation of the "once a generation" nonsense that gets thrown up based on nothing but a phrase and a campaigning tactic from Salmond last time. He had to say it because otherwise people might think, "Ok, like the idea of Sindy but a bit nervous, so not now, wait till the next one comes along." Like I do with a bus if I have a fag to finish. He didn't want any of that going on. Couldn't afford that. It was to import a sense of gravitas to the exercise and maximize the Yes vote. Just bread and butter politics.
    That was so pointless and uninsightful I am putting you back on Mute

    Also, this debate is over. The Suoreme Court has thrust into the


    JAPAN!!!!!!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    STUNNING!!!!

    Japan lead!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965

    Carnyx said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
    When I say atavistic I mean gut feeling, the This Sceptred Isle Johnnies who get confused about England v Britain and enjoy casting a proprietorial eye over the whole island. I'm afraid the Norns hardly get a look in.
    It's all about the feels not the thinks.
    There's plenty of 'gut' alright.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
    When I say atavistic I mean gut feeling, the This Sceptred Isle Johnnies who get confused about England v Britain and enjoy casting a proprietorial eye over the whole island. I'm afraid the Norns hardly get a look in.
    It's all about the feels not the thinks.
    There's plenty of 'gut' alright.
    That's thanks to the endless bounty of the Union.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,415

    BREAKING: EU parliament votes in favour of labelling Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism - Reuters

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1595374549884878848

    Are there actually consequences of that? Does it impact on finance or trade for example?

    If not isn't it just meaningless guff? Russia wages warfare by war crime, but we must still trade with them....
    Probably meaningless guff....
    Besides, it's wrong. Russia ISN'T a state sponsor of terrorism.
    It IS a terrorist state.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,060
    kjh said:

    Driver said:

    kjh said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas

    She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
    Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
    Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
    I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
    Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
    You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
    That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
    If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
    Can you do anything bar chunter hackneyed one liners? I'm trying, you're not. Not a rewarding exercise. Not fair on me. Not fair on the blog.
    I'm making predictions based on past history. You seem to me to be hopecasting (or is that a "hackneyed one liner"?)
    But you're not. They've had one single referendum only. They now seek a 2nd, Brexit having provided the material change in circs - and boy was it - and the Holyrood election having franked the case. To extrapolate from this to a perennial state of "oh they'll just keep on agitating for and demanding Sindy Refs till they get a Yes vote" is softhead jaundice in lieu of thinking cap. You'll see this if you slip yours on. Is it to hand?
    You seem to be suggesting that the SNP didn't want a referendum between September 2014 and June 2016.
    Where did he say that? Of course they wanted one between those dates. Of course they will constantly agitate for one. However Brexit provided substantial ammunition to argue for another one due to significant change in circumstances. I assume you are referring to 'They now seek a 2nd', but any fool can see a difference between them just keep asking and there being a significant reason to ask, even if both apply.

    An analogy might be I want PR to replace FPTP. I always want this, but my argument is enhanced if a FPTP election produces a really weird result. I don't just suddenly want it after the weird result, but the weird result enhances my argument.
    The point is that no matter what happens, the SNP will always find something as an excuse for a third, fourth, fifth... referendum. There is only one thing that would make teh SNP accept a referendum result.
    Yep, so what? We all do that. And we have to distinguish between valid and invalid reasons.
    You would be better talking to a dead haddock , you would get more sense out of it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    BREAKING: EU parliament votes in favour of labelling Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism - Reuters

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1595374549884878848

    Are there actually consequences of that? Does it impact on finance or trade for example?

    If not isn't it just meaningless guff? Russia wages warfare by war crime, but we must still trade with them....
    Probably meaningless guff....
    Besides, it's wrong. Russia ISN'T a state sponsor of terrorism.
    It IS a terrorist state.
    Yes, I did wonder who they are sponsoring, as they seem pretty hands on about things.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    Driver said:

    biggles said:

    Driver said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Absolutely. And Westminster can grant you a referendum whenever it wants
    “You”? I’m English and I want the union to continue. Just not by force.
    It's continuing by the decision of the Scottish people just eight years ago.
    A people who have since returned a majority of MSPs who favour independence. You either believe in democracy and the right to self determination or you don’t.
    An election is not a referendum. A vote for a party or an M(S)P cannot be taken as a specific endorsement of just one of their policies - that's why referendums exist.
    Completely agree. That’s why you don’t take a Hollyrood majority as a trigger for independence - just a referendum. As a couple of us have said, in the end that self regulates because the Scottish government will only ever call a referendum it might win.
  • There won’t be a dry Japanese eye in the house if they win this.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125

    STUNNING!!!!

    Japan lead!

    Where were the Germans?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631

    There won’t be a dry Japanese eye in the house if they win this.

    Frankly, I'll be Turning Japanese if they win this
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Yes, and that parliament is Westminster. And the Scots willingly joined in this arrangement with the Act of Union back in the 18th century

    Just because a constituent part of a country - state, province, nation in a union - has its own assembly does not mean that constituent party can simply legislate for a referendum then secede

    Utah can't do it
    Bavaria can't do it
    Wales can't do it
    Brittany can't do it
    The Basques can't do it

    And so on, and so forth
    They all should be able to.
    Which side of the American Civil War would you have supported?
    The north, because of slavery obviously. Which is why it’s an irrelevant question. All federations/unions should have an exit door. I wouldn’t have said it was needed here pre-devolution; but post-devolution we’ve given up the pretence that the U.K. is a single state.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,060

    Isn't the irony of the SNP position that the very reserved powers that they bemoan Westminster having are exactly the same powers that they would use to prevent Scottish regions from seceding from an independent Scotland. Or given the imperative of 'democracy' would such regions that, for instance, voted by majority to remain part of the UK be able to hold their own independence referendums every 5 or 10 years?

    Isn't it time to take the gloves off?

    Another halfwitted nutjob crawls into the sunlight
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I'm afraid there's a degree of "taunting and trolling" on this one. Some posters who are viscerally anti Sindy and the SNP actually relish the idea that Scot Nats want Independence but can't get it. That they're trapped and all frustrated. Not all the ardent Unionists on PB are like this - fact it's a minority - but some are and I personally find it pretty easy to spot. @Leon @HYUFD are perhaps the most obvious but there's another half dozen or so to varying degrees. But anyway, all good, all grist to the mill.
    It's interesting to see some folk demanding what is in effect a time limited constitutional amendment, also, when there is no such thing in even Westminster law - just what Parliament decided, and wants to decide right now. Effectively, Parliament is being expected to abrogate some of its future sovereignty.
    It all looks like a convoluted avoiding of the political reality to me. When Nicola Sturgeon (or a successor) can co-incide majority support for Sindy with sufficient leverage on the UKG to get a vote on it, Sindy will happen. Until then it won't.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    There won’t be a dry Japanese eye in the house if they win this.

    It's got nothing on when they beat the Sprinkboks. What a game.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,060
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    Indeed it does and undemocratic and a complete and utter bellend to boot
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    The UK already has a land border across the middle of the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
    Which is why I said "Great Britain"
    But GB is not the UK. Which latter is the state in question. GB is neither a state nor a nation.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792
    edited November 2022
    Tory MPs who crossed the floor 1995-97:

    Oct 1995, Alan Howarth ->Labour
    Dec 1995, Emma Nicholson -> LibDems
    Feb 1996, Peter Thurnham -> Independent -> (Oct) LibDems

    Best not to count George Gardiner who went to the Referendum Party in Mar 1997 after being deselected.

    Fewer than I thought.
    Sleaze was much more important in the run-up to Tory election loss than crossing the floor. As for not standing again, who really cares? Most people don't know who their MP is.

    FPT (what good to humanity is anything that's happening at the cutting edge of programming computers?)

    From the little I know of matrix algebra and combinatorics, writing ever stronger AI programs and giving them squillions of CPU cycles to run on won't reduce the number of mults required to find the product of say a couple of 30x30 matrices by more than a few percent. And that helps humanity how?

    Edit: I just saw the news that Google have broken the record set in 1969 for the number of mults needed to find the product of two 4x4 matrices: their superduper AI program found a way to use only 47 rather than 49. I've nothing against playing. But that kind of thing puts food on the table?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.

    She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
    She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.

    A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.

    Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..

    Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
    Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
    You are coming across as a snide smart-arse. Unlike the people you are trying to belittle.
    Why thank you, Mark! I'm glad I still have that in my locker. It's been boring and rather hard work pretending to like and respect everyone on here. There's some absolute roasters.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    Not a vintage German team
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    The UK already has a land border across the middle of the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
    Which is why I said "Great Britain"
    But GB is not the UK. Which latter is the state in question. GB is neither a state nor a nation.
    It's an island. It's my island. It is Britain and I am British. I love every inch of it apart from Wick and Newent. I don't want it mutilated and partitioned. This stuff is not hard
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    Indeed it does and undemocratic and a complete and utter bellend to boot
    It's not undemocratic to not want it until there has been a vote in favour of it first. It might be undemocratic to not allow such a vote, but that's a seperate though related issue.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    "In comments that are likely to cause a stir among European leaders, Boris Johnson told CNN Portugal: "This thing was a huge shock… we could see the Russian battalion tactical groups amassing, but different countries had very different perspectives.

    "The German view was at one stage that if it were going to happen, which would be a disaster, then it would be better for the whole thing to be over quickly, and for Ukraine to fold," he said.

    Mr Johnson said there were "all sorts of sound economic reasons" for this approach but that he "couldn't support" it.

    He also made comments on French President Emmanuel Macron, who had spearheaded Europe's bid to deter Vladimir Putin through diplomatic talks.

    "Be in no doubt that the French were in denial right up until the last moment," Mr Johnson said."

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-latest-putin-backs-down-on-key-aim-russia-burned-bodies-of-own-soldiers-at-landfill-site-in-kherson-12541713
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    edited November 2022
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Yes, and that parliament is Westminster. And the Scots willingly joined in this arrangement with the Act of Union back in the 18th century

    Just because a constituent part of a country - state, province, nation in a union - has its own assembly does not mean that constituent party can simply legislate for a referendum then secede

    Utah can't do it
    Bavaria can't do it
    Wales can't do it
    Brittany can't do it
    The Basques can't do it

    And so on, and so forth
    They all should be able to.
    Ah, you're a halfwit
    Risibly wrong. And in any case be careful otherwise @MarqueeMark will tick you off for being tarty.

    Won't you, Mark?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    HAHAHAHAHA


    EPIC
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    Empire of the sun 2
    Third Reich 1
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    Superb subs by the Japanese coach. They were brilliant after the changes.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    The UK already has a land border across the middle of the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
    Which is why I said "Great Britain"
    But GB is not the UK. Which latter is the state in question. GB is neither a state nor a nation.
    It's an island. It's my island. It is Britain and I am British. I love every inch of it apart from Wick and Newent. I don't want it mutilated and partitioned. This stuff is not hard
    "an island"
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    If Germany lose to Spain -quite likely - they are almost certainly out
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
    I don’t know if you and Leon have followed this at all, but since the seventeenth century we’ve been sharpening up this idea of parliamentary democracy, under which the people are at liberty to elect a Government which can do whatever it damn well wants, even if it’s silly or harmful.
    Yes, and that parliament is Westminster. And the Scots willingly joined in this arrangement with the Act of Union back in the 18th century

    Just because a constituent part of a country - state, province, nation in a union - has its own assembly does not mean that constituent party can simply legislate for a referendum then secede

    Utah can't do it
    Bavaria can't do it
    Wales can't do it
    Brittany can't do it
    The Basques can't do it

    And so on, and so forth
    They all should be able to.
    Ah, you're a halfwit
    Risibly wrong. And in any case be careful otherwise @MarqueeMark will tick you off for being tarty.

    Won't you, Mark?
    Sure, you can rely on it.

    *goes back to enjoying Japan's success....*
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,965
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    pillsbury said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    As noted below the Northern Ireland Act specifies 7 years between independence referendums, so stipulating *some* minimum doesn't appear ridiculous. Presumably that is shorter for Ireland which is liable to resort to extra statutory protests vs Scotland which is not.

    Which does raise the interesting question why there's an IRA but no SRA. No idea what the answer is.
    Yes, some deminimus maybe makes sense if you go that route. But nothing like 20 odd years.
    Oh, OK. So there CAN be a minimum time limit between referendums "encoded by law", even though you just said that was "plainly ridiculous"

    So you've accepted my point. In which case it is just a question of how long the time gap should be

    I'll help you out. It should be a generation, as we all agreed in 2014. 20-30 years

    "A generation refers to all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively.[1] It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–⁠30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
    I thought we were "leaving it". But ok, to carry on then.

    If we were to go the route of an Article 50 equivalent you might put in a short minimum period between votes. What's not a goer is that this period should be 25/30 years. This is just a continuation of the "once a generation" nonsense that gets thrown up based on nothing but a phrase and a campaigning tactic from Salmond last time. He had to say it because otherwise people might think, "Ok, like the idea of Sindy but a bit nervous, so not now, wait till the next one comes along." Like I do with a bus if I have a fag to finish. He didn't want any of that going on. Couldn't afford that. It was to import a sense of gravitas to the exercise and maximize the Yes vote. Just bread and butter politics.
    That was so pointless and uninsightful I am putting you back on Mute

    Also, this debate is over. The Suoreme Court has thrust into the

    JAPAN!!!!!!
    Beneath the vocab and the technique you're actually a teeny bit thick, aren't you?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
    When I say atavistic I mean gut feeling, the This Sceptred Isle Johnnies who get confused about England v Britain and enjoy casting a proprietorial eye over the whole island. I'm afraid the Norns hardly get a look in.
    It's all about the feels not the thinks.
    There's plenty of 'gut' alright.
    That's thanks to the endless bounty of the Union.
    Quite - rUK did very well out of North Sea Oil and Mrs Thatcher's failures.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,023
    Where were the Germans?
  • Andy_JS said:

    "In comments that are likely to cause a stir among European leaders, Boris Johnson told CNN Portugal: "This thing was a huge shock… we could see the Russian battalion tactical groups amassing, but different countries had very different perspectives.

    "The German view was at one stage that if it were going to happen, which would be a disaster, then it would be better for the whole thing to be over quickly, and for Ukraine to fold," he said.

    Mr Johnson said there were "all sorts of sound economic reasons" for this approach but that he "couldn't support" it.

    He also made comments on French President Emmanuel Macron, who had spearheaded Europe's bid to deter Vladimir Putin through diplomatic talks.

    "Be in no doubt that the French were in denial right up until the last moment," Mr Johnson said."

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-latest-putin-backs-down-on-key-aim-russia-burned-bodies-of-own-soldiers-at-landfill-site-in-kherson-12541713

    What reports are leaving out of that interview:

    Johnson said that once Russia launched its invasion in February, attitudes across Europe changed quickly.

    “What happened was everybody – Germans, French, Italians, everybody, (US President) Joe Biden – saw that there was simply no option. Because you couldn’t negotiate with this guy (Putin). That’s the key point,” the ex-Prime Minister said, adding that the “the EU has done brilliantly” in its opposition of Russia since that time.

    “After all my anxieties … I pay tribute to the way the EU has acted. They have been united. The sanctions were tough,” Johnson went on.


    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/22/europe/boris-johnson-ukraine-invasion-europe-comments-intl/index.html
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    pillsbury said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    As noted below the Northern Ireland Act specifies 7 years between independence referendums, so stipulating *some* minimum doesn't appear ridiculous. Presumably that is shorter for Ireland which is liable to resort to extra statutory protests vs Scotland which is not.

    Which does raise the interesting question why there's an IRA but no SRA. No idea what the answer is.
    Yes, some deminimus maybe makes sense if you go that route. But nothing like 20 odd years.
    Oh, OK. So there CAN be a minimum time limit between referendums "encoded by law", even though you just said that was "plainly ridiculous"

    So you've accepted my point. In which case it is just a question of how long the time gap should be

    I'll help you out. It should be a generation, as we all agreed in 2014. 20-30 years

    "A generation refers to all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively.[1] It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–⁠30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
    I thought we were "leaving it". But ok, to carry on then.

    If we were to go the route of an Article 50 equivalent you might put in a short minimum period between votes. What's not a goer is that this period should be 25/30 years. This is just a continuation of the "once a generation" nonsense that gets thrown up based on nothing but a phrase and a campaigning tactic from Salmond last time. He had to say it because otherwise people might think, "Ok, like the idea of Sindy but a bit nervous, so not now, wait till the next one comes along." Like I do with a bus if I have a fag to finish. He didn't want any of that going on. Couldn't afford that. It was to import a sense of gravitas to the exercise and maximize the Yes vote. Just bread and butter politics.
    That was so pointless and uninsightful I am putting you back on Mute

    Also, this debate is over. The Suoreme Court has thrust into the

    JAPAN!!!!!!
    Beneath the vocab and the technique you're actually a teeny bit thick, aren't you?
    lol
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125
    tlg86 said:

    Where were the Germans?

    And, frankly, who cares?
  • Obviously people in Scotland could not have voted in 2014 knowing that Brexit was going to happen. But they certainly did vote in 2014 knowing that Brexit was a distinct possibility. Sturgeon repeatedly emphasised the importance of this point to voters.[Video]

    https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1595432635127549954
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,234
    Part of the problem with FPTP, and strong executive control of Parliament, is that being an opposition MP is an exercise in futility. I recall that lots of younger Labour MPs walked away from the prospect of a prolonged period in opposition in 2010 too.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    Annoyingly - given the circumstances of its award and the Neanderthal sensibilities on show by Qatar and FIFA - this is turning into a truly brilliant World Cup.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,802
    "British Paralympian announced as world's first disabled astronaut"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-63710967
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    edited November 2022
    Interesting population fact: every couple of years the pop. of England grows at about 10% of the entire pop. of Scotland.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,265
    Sunday - Spain v Germany looks to be a belter.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,243
    UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,914
    edited November 2022
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    The UK already has a land border across the middle of the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
    Which is why I said "Great Britain"
    But GB is not the UK. Which latter is the state in question. GB is neither a state nor a nation.
    It's an island. It's my island. It is Britain and I am British. I love every inch of it apart from Wick and Newent. I don't want it mutilated and partitioned. This stuff is not hard
    So lets make the union fit for purpose. The only reason independence has gained such traction is because the British government is making such a hash of things.

    We need to scrap the Lords, fix England's lack of representation, resize the number of lawmakers (as we have way too many). We need a new constitutional settlement. Scotland wants to leave the UK in its degenerated current form. Fix it then see where the opinion polls go.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    Jeremy Hunt issues a VERY carefully-worded denial that he or someone else at the Treasury was the source of reports the govt is looking for a Swiss-style EU deal.

    "I can rule out any suggestion that it has ever been the govt's intention to move away [from the Brexit deal]."

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1595435975685054465
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Most of these polls are meaningless until someone defines what “rejoin” would actually mean. Since we couldn’t rejoin on the old terms, you need to poll on the euro and Schengen.
  • UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Really interesting, thanks. Don't know if the regional subsamples are big enough to be significant but those SW and NE trends look big. I wonder if the SW number could point to a Lib Dem renaissance in that part of the world?
    Kind of depressing that support for rejoin growing mostly because remainers are getting more unsupportive of the new status quo and not much because leavers are changing their mind.
  • biggles said:

    UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Most of these polls are meaningless until someone defines what “rejoin” would actually mean. Since we couldn’t rejoin on the old terms, you need to poll on the euro and Schengen.
    To be fair we had the actual vote in 2016 without defining what Brexit would mean.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,234

    UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Really interesting, thanks. Don't know if the regional subsamples are big enough to be significant but those SW and NE trends look big. I wonder if the SW number could point to a Lib Dem renaissance in that part of the world?
    Kind of depressing that support for rejoin growing mostly because remainers are getting more unsupportive of the new status quo and not much because leavers are changing their mind.
    The SW and the NE will be the region's with the smallest populations, and therefore the smallest sample size and the greatest uncertainty in the subsample results. So it's immediately suspicious that they show the largest swing. Conclusion: don't trust the regional subsamples.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,827
    biggles said:

    UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Most of these polls are meaningless until someone defines what “rejoin” would actually mean. Since we couldn’t rejoin on the old terms, you need to poll on the euro and Schengen.
    Did they ask any other questions first, Yes Minister style?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,936

    UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Really interesting, thanks. Don't know if the regional subsamples are big enough to be significant but those SW and NE trends look big. I wonder if the SW number could point to a Lib Dem renaissance in that part of the world?
    Kind of depressing that support for rejoin growing mostly because remainers are getting more unsupportive of the new status quo and not much because leavers are changing their mind.
    The age split is huge. It obviously correlates (fairly well) with people being old enough to remember entering the EU in the first place. Anything else? Not in work versus retired. Would be fascinating to get into that.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    The UK already has a land border across the middle of the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
    Which is why I said "Great Britain"
    But GB is not the UK. Which latter is the state in question. GB is neither a state nor a nation.
    It's an island. It's my island. It is Britain and I am British. I love every inch of it apart from Wick and Newent. I don't want it mutilated and partitioned. This stuff is not hard
    So lets make the union fit for purpose. The only reason independence has gained such traction is because the British government is making such a hash of things.

    We need to scrap the Lords, fix England's lack of representation, resize the number of lawmakers (as we have way too many). We need a new constitutional settlement. Scotland wants to leave the UK in its degenerated current form. Fix it then see where the opinion polls go.
    I am completely on board for a significant overhaul of our constitution, including Lords Reform (make it Lords of the Isles! - to represent the four nations). We do need to be retooled
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Amazing.

    https://twitter.com/LAmag/status/1594917490366337025

    Someone thought this was a good idea to write
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,497
    I notice the relative silence about PMQs. A very strong performance by Sunak.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,936
    felix said:

    I notice the relative silence about PMQs. A very strong performance by Sunak.

    We're all too busy watching the footy :smiley:

    (actually I saw neither - was there even football on during PMQs?)
  • Ordered my other half a Xmas pressie, didn’t realise the website is Netherlands-based. It’ll take 10 days from ordering to delivery.

    I mean, I know it’s not the end of the world, it’ll arrive in plenty of time, but 10 days from Holland? Bloody Brexit. No wonder we’re fucked.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,876
    edited November 2022

    biggles said:

    UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Most of these polls are meaningless until someone defines what “rejoin” would actually mean. Since we couldn’t rejoin on the old terms, you need to poll on the euro and Schengen.
    To be fair we had the actual vote in 2016 without defining what Brexit would mean.
    That is a fair point, but it's unlikely we would make the same mistake again, as everyone is now well aware that the detail of what Leave or Remain means actually matters. All these polls really show is that people are unhappy, and a large bit of that unhappiness will be conincidental with covid and the war in Ukraine. More detailed surveys don't show support for what EU membership entails. A smart political party or movement would actually consider this and try to come up with a viable change, but at the moment there is no sign of that and we are still talking about in or out. It seems to me that we need to think about how do we have Freedom of Movement and avoid large levels of migration*, if we can't resolve that the UK public are likely to say no to even something like EFTA/EEA.

    * Lots more keeping track of people and employment, and possibly making benefits somehow contingent on residency for a number of years before people are fully eligible to receive them.
  • UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Really interesting, thanks. Don't know if the regional subsamples are big enough to be significant but those SW and NE trends look big. I wonder if the SW number could point to a Lib Dem renaissance in that part of the world?
    Kind of depressing that support for rejoin growing mostly because remainers are getting more unsupportive of the new status quo and not much because leavers are changing their mind.
    The SW and the NE will be the region's with the smallest populations, and therefore the smallest sample size and the greatest uncertainty in the subsample results. So it's immediately suspicious that they show the largest swing. Conclusion: don't trust the regional subsamples.
    Yes I was wondering if that might be a factor. On the other hand, these are also England's most peripheral regions who in different ways were expecting things to get better for them post Brexit and I think have most reason to be disappointed by how things have turned out. So in some respects the numbers also make sense. As ever, more data would help to differentiate between those hypotheses.
  • Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    kinabalu said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”

    Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.

    So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.

    Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied

    A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
    Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
    Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
    So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
    It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
    On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
    Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting


    "Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.

    He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.

    He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news


    He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation

    That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides

    If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up

    You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
    But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?

    You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
    Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
    It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
    Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
    I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
    Yeah, I don't want the country I love - Great Britain - torn into pieces and with a land border across the middle. I guess that makes me a hypocritical Fascist. Sure
    The UK already has a land border across the middle of the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
    Which is why I said "Great Britain"
    But GB is not the UK. Which latter is the state in question. GB is neither a state nor a nation.
    It's an island. It's my island. It is Britain and I am British. I love every inch of it apart from Wick and Newent. I don't want it mutilated and partitioned. This stuff is not hard
    So lets make the union fit for purpose. The only reason independence has gained such traction is because the British government is making such a hash of things.

    We need to scrap the Lords, fix England's lack of representation, resize the number of lawmakers (as we have way too many). We need a new constitutional settlement. Scotland wants to leave the UK in its degenerated current form. Fix it then see where the opinion polls go.

    In principle I agree, but you cannot have a new constitutional settlement without a referendum approving it. How would you handle that? If, say, Scottland and Northern Ireland voted against and England and Wales voted for, wouldn't that just make matters worse?

  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,125

    biggles said:

    UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Most of these polls are meaningless until someone defines what “rejoin” would actually mean. Since we couldn’t rejoin on the old terms, you need to poll on the euro and Schengen.
    To be fair we had the actual vote in 2016 without defining what Brexit would mean.
    Subsequently generally agreed to have been a mistake.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,640
    Putting aside all the controversies around Qatar there have been some good games and two major shocks so far.

    What has happened to that well oiled German machine , their defence at times looked woeful.

  • glw said:

    biggles said:

    UK in a Changing Europe think tank have undertaken an analysis as to whom are changing their views over Brexit.

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rejoin-vs-stay-out-who-has-changed-their-mind-about-brexit/

    Younger voters and the more educated have become even more against Brexit, whilst the old and less educated individuals remain pro Brexit.

    This suggests a widening of opinion.

    Most of these polls are meaningless until someone defines what “rejoin” would actually mean. Since we couldn’t rejoin on the old terms, you need to poll on the euro and Schengen.
    To be fair we had the actual vote in 2016 without defining what Brexit would mean.
    That is a fair point, but it's unlikely we would make the same mistake again, as everyone is now well aware that the detail of what Leave or Remain means actually matters. All these polls really show is that people are unhappy, and a large bit of that unhappiness will be conincidental with covid and the war in Ukraine. More detailed surveys don't show support for what EU membership entails. A smart political party or movement would actually consider this and try to come up with a viable change, but at the moment there is no sign of that and we are still talking about in or out. It seems to me that we need to think about how do we have Freedom of Movement and avoid large levels of migration*, if we can't resolve that the UK public are likely to say no to even something like EFTA/EEA.

    * Lots more keeping track of people and employment, and possibly making benefits somehow contingent on residency for a number of years before people are fully eligible to receive them.

    A start would be to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of settlement. We actually still give EU citizens the former (along with those from a few other countries) because we don't stamp their passports on entry. If we could get the EU to reciprocate on that it would be a huge step forward.

  • "We know that the very entertaining former Prime Minister always has a unique relationship with the truth. This case is also no exception."

    https://twitter.com/germanambuk/status/1595419114771816449
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,493

    Ordered my other half a Xmas pressie, didn’t realise the website is Netherlands-based. It’ll take 10 days from ordering to delivery.

    I mean, I know it’s not the end of the world, it’ll arrive in plenty of time, but 10 days from Holland? Bloody Brexit. No wonder we’re fucked.

    That isn't Brexit related. It is courier capacity/price contingent.

    I can get things to (and from) CA, USA, in 36 hours, Aus 4-5 days. For mainland destinations, excepting those governments with restrictive customs practices (China, Mid East) those are pretty much the extreme outliers.
  • Two big blows for @theSNP government today with Supreme Court ruling re: referendum and the intervention from UN rapporteur on violence against women and girls re: its flagship policy on GRA reform. But will either matter to the party or dismissed as concerns “not being valid”?

    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1595442339371225090
This discussion has been closed.