The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

OK Neil, which is it?

a: An independent Scotland will be welcomed into the EU but forced to adopt the Euro.

Or

b: An independent Scotland has no chance of being admitted to the EU.

Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.

it's b.

But the whole rationale of indy right now is "how dare England take Scotland out of the EU. We're going to be indy to stay in/rejoin".

So that means accepting the idea of the Euro - and not saying "we want to join the EU but not follow the rules".

(and anyway, I'm sure the EU is just sat there waiting to have another eurosceptic nation join in place of the UK  )

But alongside having to accept the idea of joining the Euro when you join the EU, you're also going to have to accept you won't be joining any time soon. The Copenhagen critieria mean you'd have to establish and *stably* maintain a sovereign Scottish currency for 3+ years as well as get the deficit under control before you'd be an accession candidate, and then a number of years later you'd be a member.

That is, if the EU re-opens the accession/membership process so any of that can actually happen. Right now the EU is working to a "no new members" thing because the 'poor' EU nations fear the accession of other 'poor' members who'll take away money from them.

[LJS]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's b.

But the whole rationale of indy right now is "how dare England take Scotland out of the EU. We're going to be indy to stay in/rejoin".

So that means accepting the idea of the Euro - and not saying "we want to join the EU but not follow the rules".

(and anyway, I'm sure the EU is just sat there waiting to have another eurosceptic nation join in place of the UK  )

But alongside having to accept the idea of joining the Euro when you join the EU, you're also going to have to accept you won't be joining any time soon. The Copenhagen critieria mean you'd have to establish and *stably* maintain a sovereign Scottish currency for 3+ years as well as get the deficit under control before you'd be an accession candidate, and then a number of years later you'd be a member.

That is, if the EU re-opens the accession/membership process so any of that can actually happen. Right now the EU is working to a "no new members" thing because the 'poor' EU nations fear the accession of other 'poor' members who'll take away money from them.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I note that it has not altered since 2014.

Neither has mine.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I note that it has not altered since 2014.

Neither has mine.

sense and facts are still sense and facts, and hopeful delusions are still hopeful delusions.

You can get indy, but Scotland can't have it how its being sold.

Edited October 17, 2019 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

you are, of course correct, it has nothing (or very little) to do with Boris. It has everything to do with a large part of the SNP support getting pretty impatient with, what they see as, lack of action on Indy form Nicola & the SNP.

really? I'm not sure the current levels of support for Indy will hold. But equally, I am not sure they won't.

support for Indy increased substantially during the Indyref1 campaign. That doesn't mean the same will happen next time. But equally it doesn't mean it won't.

The thing is, I think the lack of action on Indy has been sensible (stupid Thatcher imitating letter pic aside), but the SNP are responsible for creating that impatience over Indy in the first place.

I suspect it won't hold, or increase during a new campaign, but that's my own supposition.

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The thing is, I think the lack of action on Indy has been sensible (stupid Thatcher imitating letter pic aside), but the SNP are responsible for creating that impatience over Indy in the first place.

I suspect it won't hold, or increase during a new campaign, but that's my own supposition.

I think the experience of brexit will scare off a significant number of people who are currently saying they'd support indy.

Cos their current support is (quite naturally) one where they're thinking everything would be like now but with a sovereign govt - because nothing is really currently challenging that idea.

Within a campaign all of the things which will need to happen will be front and centre, and they'll look too much like brexit - where there might be majority support for change, but not majority support for a particular path.

[kaosmark2]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I think the experience of brexit will scare off a significant number of people who are currently saying they'd support indy.

Cos their current support is (quite naturally) one where they're thinking everything would be like now but with a sovereign govt - because nothing is really currently challenging that idea.

Within a campaign all of the things which will need to happen will be front and centre, and they'll look too much like brexit - where there might be majority support for change, but not majority support for a particular path.

That's where I'm thinking the loss of support will come from, Brexit has been such a mess, and there's got to be people looking at how extricating Scotland from the UK would be similar.

[LJS]

in another place this happened...

Not wanting to clutter up the General News thread with Scottish stuff, but not wanting to let Neil's nonsense pass without comment.

The claim to hold a second indy ref was indeed in the 2016 manifesto - not quite sure what Neil means by "an aside" It was quite clearly stated. However, it cannot be denied that most voters don't read manifestos. To help them the SNP also published a short summary of the manifesto entitled ...

The SNP 2016 manifesto explained

In which they said ...

 

Quote

 

Scotland’s future

• We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.                https://www.snp.org/the-snp-2016-manifesto-explained/

 

 

the BBC hosted an election debate & reported

Quote

 

But it was the issue of independence - and more specifically whether or not there should be a second referendum in the future - that sparked the fiercest responses.

---

Ms Sturgeon stuck to her position that there should be another referendum if it was clear a majority of people wanted one, or if there was a "material change" in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.

The SNP leader said she continued to believe that independence offered the best future for the country.

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36183370

 

The Beeb also helpfully provided a ...

Quote

 

which told us 

Independence and the constitution

The SNP stresses that independence will only be achieved when the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen.

It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36093405

 

 

 

the Guardian also reported...

Quote

On independence, the manifesto stuck with the same form of words that the SNP leader has been using since the autumn: that there will be no second referendum until there is “clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people”, or if there has been a “significant and material change in the circumstances” since 2014, such as Brexit against Scotland’s wishes.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/20/nicola-sturgeon-launches-ambitious-and-reforming-snp-manifesto

as did the Independent...

Quote

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-parliament-elections-2016-who-will-win-snp-labour-tories-nicola-sturgeon-key-issues-a7012716.html

 

So let's just forget the lie that the SNP somehow slipped their position on a second referendum "under the radar"   They have as good a mandate for a referendum as any recent UK government for any recent policies.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

I read Neil’s post earlier in the other thread mentioning an Indy ref being an “ aside “ for the SNP ?

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

I read Neil’s post earlier in the other thread mentioning an Indy ref being an “ aside “ for the SNP ?

so how many voters do you think changed their vote to be SNP on the basis that the UK might vote for brexit (with a 'might' that no one thought would happen)?  

Do remember to keep in mind that just about the same line was used in the indyref itself and the SNP lost that despite the "the UK might leave the EU" 'scare' stories.

It was in the manifesto but no one voted on that basis.

Not a single person - unless you can show me the numpty who suddenly changed their support to SNP on the basis of something almost no one thought would happen and which had been rejected by the electorate as a reason to support the SNP previously.

And if written down claims are so very binding onto Scottish politics, why are you ignoring these words: "once in a generation" ????

from the indy white paper page 1, para 4, sentence number 2 - front and centre, of huge importance... rating much much higher than anything about brexit in the 2016 SNP manifesto.

Why do some words from the SNP count as immovable and some don't? And why do SNP voters have such bad memories?  

Anyone paying attention might think of the SNP and snipper claims of having a mandate as the guff it really is. 

Edited November 7, 2019 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

You’re the only person that reckons an Indy ref could ever be an aside for the SNP.

Its how they role. This will continue to be the case until they achieve their goal.

Perhaps you mean the Green party. Could be described as an aside for them I’d say.

Not sure what the rest of your post has to do with the “aside” point. Possibly deflection ? 

 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

You’re the only person that reckons an Indy ref could ever be an aside for the SNP.

I'm simply pointing out that the claim of a clear mandate is guff. The words are in there, but it's nothing anyone was voting for (or against).

And claiming those words count while white paper words (also voted on) don't is the SNP's standard duplicitous. 

If there's such a guarantee of support for an indyref then there'll be no problem getting a (real) clear mandate in the next holyrood elections.

And remember, indy is for life not just for xmas. That means an extra year or two before you might get there doesn't really matter.

After all, surely it's better you get there with the most support and the fewest reasons others can call it out as guff, right?  

Edited November 7, 2019 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

The SNP need to be careful about what they are asking this time round; Sturgeon was on Today yesterday saying that remainers should vote SNP in Scotland to stop Brexit/the Tories, regardless of whether they support Indy or not.  A fair bit of advice, as they are generally second place in tory/labour seats.  However then to claim an increase in their vote (assuming it happens) is a surge in pro indy, wouldn't necessarily be true.

[eFestivals]

50 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

You’re the only person that reckons an Indy ref could ever be an aside for the SNP.

oh look, I'm being accused of something I didn't say.

Why is it that snippers can't hold a discussion on the facts and have to invent a false argument to attempt to win?

Why would anyone think that people as dishonest as the tories will serve Scotland better than the tories?  

Edited November 7, 2019 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

The SNP need to be careful about what they are asking this time round; Sturgeon was on Today yesterday saying that remainers should vote SNP in Scotland to stop Brexit/the Tories, regardless of whether they support Indy or not.  A fair bit of advice, as they are generally second place in tory/labour seats.  However then to claim an increase in their vote (assuming it happens) is a surge in pro indy, wouldn't necessarily be true.

Yup.

Unless she says for people to only vote SNP if they support indy, she cannot claim the SNP vote as indisputable support for indy.

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I'm simply pointing out that the claim of a clear mandate is guff. The words are in there, but it's nothing anyone was voting for (or against).

And claiming those words count while white paper words (also voted on) don't is the SNP's standard duplicitous. 

If there's such a guarantee of support for an indyref then there'll be no problem getting a (real) clear mandate in the next holyrood elections.

And remember, indy is for life not just for xmas. That means an extra year or two before you might get there doesn't really matter.

After all, surely it's better you get there with the most support and the fewest reasons others can call it out as guff, right?  

As you say, the words were in there.

I think....we all agree Brexit represents a material change.

The words will be in there again this time round.

We’ll soon find out how their vote holds. 

The Tories unionist types will mention Indy during this campaign as much as the snp I reckon. I’m not saying that’s a good thing but it is what it is.

I agree with your last bit. I’d say we’re pretty much at 50/50 on Indy now. To be clear that’s only my own opinion.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Comfy Bean

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

As you say, the words were in there.

I think....we all agree Brexit represents a material change.

Yup, but that still doesn't make the words about it in the manifesto "a clear mandate". No extra votes came the SNP's way because of that, because it was such a remote possibility.

 

20 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

The words will be in there again this time round.

and for the next holyrood elections they'll be that mandate (if the SNP win).

But not UK elections, where the issues are bigger than being just about Scotland.

 

20 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

The Tories unionist types will mention Indy during this campaign as much as the snp I reckon. I’m not saying that’s a good thing but it is what it is.

and why not? Just as you like to think everyone is desperate for another indy vote, polling in Scotland shows the opposite and the tories can no-doubt pick up extra votes via it.

Funnily enough, other parties are able to exploit the opinions of the electorate just as the SNP do. 

 

20 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

I agree with your last bit. I’d say we’re pretty much at 50/50 on Indy now. To be clear that’s only my own opinion.

Me, I'd say opinion on "yeah, I'd quite like indy" is about 50/50, but opinion on "would I like indy if opinion is about 50/50?" and "would I like indy when the economic reality is factored in" falls in favour of the status quo.

('Living on An Island', 'Whatever You Want', 'Down Down'  )

[Comfy Bean]

I don’t think everyone is desperate for another Indy ref vote.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

I don’t think everyone is desperate for another Indy ref vote.

Then you'll be comfortable saying that Sturgeon is wrong calling for one for next year, I hope. Particularly as she doesn't have a clear mandate for one.

[didinowanttohearthat]

A second ref wasn't in the Green Party manifesto and they make up the pro-indy majority in parliament.

There is no mandate.

Even if SNP win every scottish seat next month it means fuck all in regards to a mandate for another ref.

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Then you'll be comfortable saying that Sturgeon is wrong calling for one for next year, I hope. Particularly as she doesn't have a clear mandate for one.

She does have a clear mandate as I have demonstrated & you have chosen to ignore. It was in the manifesto , in the summary  manifesto, reported widely by the media and featured in televised debates. No one could have been in any doubt what they were voting for and I'll let you into a secret, the SNP are in favour of independence, most folk up here know that & if they forgot for 1 instant during the election campaign, up would pop Ruth Davidson to remind them. 

Desperate for some justification for saying the SNP have no mandate for indyref2, you have come up with "No extra votes came the SNP's way because of that, because it was such a remote possibility." Really? under your rules to claim a mandate for something, not only do you have to have it in your manifesto and state it publicly so its not an aside and debate it on TV, now you require to demonstrate that that policy and that policy alone is why folk voted for you. You are in cloud-cuckoo land mate.

5 minutes ago, didinowanttohearthat said:

A second ref wasn't in the Green Party manifesto and they make up the pro-indy majority in parliament.

The Green party manifesto made it clear that they supported Independence. indeed its front cover featured this photo...

And as part of the Indy majority in Parliament they passed a bill in favour of a second referendum. 

5 minutes ago, didinowanttohearthat said:

There is no mandate.

Because the Scottish system is proportional, it is highly unusual for one party to win a majority of seats, and as i am sure you are aware it has only happened once ( and most folk think it is unlikely to happen again.)  So, by your definition, no party will ever have a mandate to do anything. 

I would  suggest if no one disputes David Cameron had a mandate to hold an EU referendum on 37% of the vote, then its hard to argue that Sturgeon on 46% of the vote doesn't. 

5 minutes ago, didinowanttohearthat said:

Even if SNP win every scottish seat next month it means fuck all in regards to a mandate for another ref.

Your opinion is irrelevant as we already have a mandate.

 

[didinowanttohearthat]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

She does have a clear mandate as I have demonstrated & you have chosen to ignore. It was in the manifesto , in the summary  manifesto, reported widely by the media and featured in televised debates. No one could have been in any doubt what they were voting for and I'll let you into a secret, the SNP are in favour of independence, most folk up here know that & if they forgot for 1 instant during the election campaign, up would pop Ruth Davidson to remind them. 

Desperate for some justification for saying the SNP have no mandate for indyref2, you have come up with "No extra votes came the SNP's way because of that, because it was such a remote possibility." Really? under your rules to claim a mandate for something, not only do you have to have it in your manifesto and state it publicly so its not an aside and debate it on TV, now you require to demonstrate that that policy and that policy alone is why folk voted for you. You are in cloud-cuckoo land mate.

The Green party manifesto made it clear that they supported Independence. indeed its front cover featured this photo...

And as part of the Indy majority in Parliament they passed a bill in favour of a second referendum. 

Because the Scottish system is proportional, it is highly unusual for one party to win a majority of seats, and as i am sure you are aware it has only happened once ( and most folk think it is unlikely to happen again.)  So, by your definition, no party will ever have a mandate to do anything. 

I would  suggest if no one disputes David Cameron had a mandate to hold an EU referendum on 37% of the vote, then its hard to argue that Sturgeon on 46% of the vote doesn't. 

Your opinion is irrelevant as we already have a mandate.

 

The Scottish Greens support independence, however if you read the manifesto there is no explicit support for indy ref 2 in this parliamentary term.

The voting system makes majorities hard, which is why I'm saying in 2021 if the greens and snp both have a second indy ref in their manifesto and they get a majority of seats again then there should be indyref2. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I stand by the fact that a general election means fuck all in terms of SNP citing a mandate for a second ref.

[LJS]

3 hours ago, gary1979666 said:

The SNP need to be careful about what they are asking this time round; Sturgeon was on Today yesterday saying that remainers should vote SNP in Scotland to stop Brexit/the Tories, regardless of whether they support Indy or not.  A fair bit of advice, as they are generally second place in tory/labour seats.  However then to claim an increase in their vote (assuming it happens) is a surge in pro indy, wouldn't necessarily be true.

I heard that interview and I thought she chose her words carefully, making it clear that the reason remain supporters should vote SNP was because the solution to the problem was to let Scotland make her own decisions. She certainly wasn't over-stressing independence but I thought she was pretty clear.

 

[LJS]

1 minute ago, didinowanttohearthat said:

The Scottish Greens support independence, however if you read the manifesto there is no explicit support for indy ref 2 in this parliamentary term.

The voting system makes majorities hard, which is why I'm saying in 2021 if the greens and snp both have a second indy ref in their manifesto and they get a majority of seats again then there should be indyref2. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I stand by the fact that a general election means fuck all in terms of SNP citing a mandate for a second ref.

and I stand by the fact that we have one already so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

She does have a clear mandate

Nah, that really is stretching things. You can perhaps take it as far as "a mandate" because it was in the manifesto, but not "a clear mandate".

In the list of reasons for why people were voting SNP, that didn't really figure as a reason - and those who are trying to use it to claim a mandate have wanting another ref as their default.

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

as I have demonstrated & you have chosen to ignore. It was in the manifesto 

In the past you've dismissed the basis for an EUref (before that ref), for the reason that it was low on the list of public priorities.

What you're claiming as "a clear mandate" was waaaaay further down the Scottish public's priorities when casting their May 2016 votes.

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

No one could have been in any doubt what they were voting for and I'll let you into a secret, the SNP are in favour of independence, most folk up here know that & if they forgot for 1 instant during the election campaign, up would pop Ruth Davidson to remind them. 

As you've been happy to boast in the past, the SNP are regarded as good govt for Scotland ... but you don't think anyone in Scotland is voting for good govt, just indy, always indy, and indy first above everything else...?  

BTW, I don't think those 2016 manifesto words are worthless, even tho I'm saying they're not really a mandate. I think they add significance and validity to a demand in the next holyrood manifesto for a ref 'now', at less than 10 years since the previous ref.

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Desperate for some justification for saying the SNP have no mandate for indyref2, you have come up with "No extra votes came the SNP's way because of that, because it was such a remote possibility." Really? under your rules to claim a mandate for something, not only do you have to have it in your manifesto and state it publicly so its not an aside and debate it on TV, now you require to demonstrate that that policy and that policy alone is why folk voted for you. You are in cloud-cuckoo land mate.

 

It was similar to a manifesto pledge of "when a Scottish rocket reaches the moon everyone can have £10,000".

It might happen, but the possibility is so remote it might as well be ignored.

[zahidf]

I'd rather the question of independence wasn't mixed up with REMAIN. Like in 2017, you'll get unionist remainers voting for the Tories to stop the break up of the union. SNP would be much better off saying independence isn't an option until the other problems are sorted